Top

Published in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

A Semantic Account of the Intervention Effects in Chinese Why-Questions

Author : Dawei Jin

Published in: Logic, Language, and Computation

Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This paper revisits intervention effects in Mandarin Chinese why-questions. I present new data showing that the ability for quantifiers to induce intervention hinges upon their monotonicity and their ability to be interpreted as topics. I then develop a semantic account that correlates topicality with monotone properties. Furthermore, I propose that why-questions in Chinese are idiosyncratic, in that the Chinese equivalent of why directly merges at a high scope position that stays above a propositional argument. Combining the semantic idiosyncrasies of why-questions with the theory of topicality, I conclude that a wide range of intervention phenomena can be accounted for in terms of interpretation failure.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter First-Order Abduction as Enumeration of Stable Models

next chapter Syntax Annotation of the Georgian Literary Corpus

See Beck [5] for a semantic account of intervention in non-why wh-questions, Beck and Kim [6] for a similar account of intervention in alternative questions, and Tomioka [59] for a pragmatic, information structure-based account of intervention effects in non-why constituent questions.

The glossing in this paper follows the Leipzig Glossing Rules (https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). A list of the abbreviations in this paper is given as follows:

ACC: accusative; CLF: classifier; COP: copula; DEM: demonstrative; NEG: negative, negation; NOM: nominative; LOC: locative; PASS: passive; PL: plural; POSS: possessive; PRF: perfect; PRS: present; PRT: particle; PST: past; Q: question particle; REL: relativizer; RES: resultative; TOP: topic marker.

Based on monotonicity, I treat the Chinese quantifier henshao ren as an equivalent of few people, since both require a less-than-half cardinality reading and are monotone decreasing. Furthermore, I treat shaoshu ren as an equivalent of a few people, as they pattern together as non-monotonic quantifiers with a less-than-half reading. It is also worth noting that a few people/shaoshu ren generally give rise to a non-empty scalar implicature (see Horn [28]), whereas few people/henshao ren generally do not.

Consequently, I choose to put a # sign before unacceptable Chinese why-question sentences as well as their English translations to indicate that the examples are odd because the readings they generate are semantically anomalous. However, I still consistently use the term ‘intervention effects’ to refer to the types of phenomena that are already well established in the tradition, without taking this term in its literal sense.

On a separate note, the modal obviation effect that is associated with negative islands (cf. Abrusán [1]) is absent in Chinese why-questions. In (ia), I show that adding the modal keyi ‘can/might’ circumvents the negative islands in a how many-question. In (ib), in contrast, I show that adding the same modal fails to improve a why-question. If the modal obviation effects, as the majority of accounts of negative islands assume, serve as a diagnostic for islandhood in negative contexts, then the contrast in (ia-b) provides additional evidence that the intervention pattern witnessed in why-questions is a different beast.

Witness set refers to the plurality determined by the intersection of the restrictor and the nuclear scope. That is, given a quantificational determiner D, one predicate P and another predicate Q, D(P)(Q) gives rise to the witness set W = P \(\cap \) Q [4, 57].

In (25a), zhiyou ‘only’ forms a constituent with an NP and assigns focus value to the NP. In (25b), zhi ‘only’ is a focus adverb. The lian + NP + ye/dou construction in (25c) is often assumed to be the Chinese counterpart of the English focus-sensitive even-NP [27, 42, 52]. It seems that lian and ye/dou together contribute to the semantics of the English focus particle even, although the exact nature of the division of labor is still not clear. According to some analyses, lian assigns focus accent to the NP it combines with, and ye/dou is a maximality operator that overtly expresses the alternatives in the focus value [24].

For further discussions on Japanese and Korean scrambling and reconstruction, see [14, 26, 51]. For the argument that Chinese does not allow scrambling, see Soh [53].

Independently, experimental results show that the monotonicity of a quantifier affects its ability to entail a witness set due to processing reasons [8, 23]. To verify a quantified sentence containing most or more than two, one needs to find positive instances that members within the restrictor set satisfy the most-relation, the more-than-two-relation, etc. In other words, one needs to verify the existence of a witness set. In contrast, for quantified sentences with no, few, or less than two, the verification procedure more often requires drawing a negative inference based on the absence of positive instances (in which case the witness set is empty). Although there is still a paucity of relevant work on this topic, the intuition is that monotone decreasing quantifiers are not an informative way to denote a witness set.

We should expect that the topicality constraint thus formulated applies even in the absence of weishenme ‘why’, since the topic position is generally available. This prediction is borne out. As mentioned above, the class of epistemic attitude adverbs such as daodi ‘on earth’ and jiujing ‘frankly/honestly’ take scope above speech act operators. This class of adverbs can be used to identify topic positions, in the absence of weishenme ‘why’, because when a quantified expression precedes this class of adverbs, the quantified expression has to reside outside the speech act of the sentence it occurs with and thus must receive a topical reading rather than a GQ reading. Importantly, as (i) shows, monotone decreasing quantifiers induce intervention when they precede epistemic adverbs even in non-why questions. Intervention is absent for non-decreasing quantifiers.

It thus seems that we can indeed reduce the ‘intervention’ in why-questions to a broad phenomenon of topicalizability.

According to my consultants, if we use a non-partitive form zhishao san-ge shangyuan ‘at least three injured players’, the sentence is still mildly acceptable, but nowhere close to the fine judgments we are getting with the partitive quantified expression in (37). Note that Constant [15, 17] also notices (without suggesting an explanation) that partitive forms of quantifiers more readily license a referential reading than non-partitive forms. At present, I do not know how to account for this, and have to leave an answer to future work.

See Rooth [50] for a discussion of how contrastive topic-marked answer is answering a subquestion of a preceding overall question.

Abrusán, M.: Presuppositional and negative islands: a semantic account. Nat. Lang. Semant. 3(19), 257–321 (2011)CrossRef

Aoun, J., Li, A.: On some differences between Chinese and Japanese wh-elements. Nat. Lang. Semant. 24(2), 365–372 (1993)

Åqvist, L.: A new approach to the logical theory of actions and causality. In: Stenlund, S., Henschen-Dahlquist, A.-M., Lindahl, L., Nordenfelt, L., Odelstad, J. (eds.) Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, pp. 73–91. Springer, Dordrecht (1974)CrossRef

Barwise, J., Cooper, R.: Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguist. Philos. 4(2), 159–219 (1981)CrossRefMATH

Beck, S.: Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 14(1), 1–56 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRef

Beck, S., Kim, S.-S.: Intervention effects in alternative questions. Nat. Lang. Semant. 9(3), 165–208 (2006)

Belnap, N.: Questions: their presuppositions, and how they can fail to arise. In: Lambert, K. (ed.) The Logical Way of Doing Things, pp. 23–37. Yale University Press, New Haven (1969)

Bott, O., Klein, U., Schlotterbeck, F.: Witness sets, polarity reversal and the processing of quantified sentences. In: Aloni, M., Franke, M., Roelofson, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 59–66 (2013)

Bromberger, S.: On What We Know We Don’t Know: Explanation, Theory, Linguistics, and How Questions Shape Them. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1992)

10.

Cattell, R.: On the source of interrogative adverbs. Nat. Lang. Semant. 54(1), 61–77 (1978)

11.

Cheng, L.: Wh-in-situ, from the 1980s to now. Nat. Lang. Semant. 3(3), 767–791 (2009)

12.

Cheng, L., Rooryck, J.: Licensing wh-in-situ. Nat. Lang. Semant. 3(1), 1–19 (2000)

13.

Chierchia, G.: Questions with quantifiers. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1(2), 181–234 (1993)CrossRef

14.

Choe, H.S.: Syntactic wh-movement in Korean and licensing. In: Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, pp. 275–302 (1994)

15.

Constant, N.: On the positioning of Mandarin contrastive topic -ne. In: (Workshop) Information Structure, Word Order: Focusing on Asian Languages (2013)

16.

Constant, N.: Witnessable quantiers license type-e meaning: Evidence from contrastive topic, equatives and supplements. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, pp. 286–306 (2013)

17.

Constant, N.: Contrastive topic: meanings and realizations. Ph.D. thesis (2014)

18.

Ebert, C., Ebert, C., Hinterwimmer, S.: A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguist. Philos. 37(5), 353–408 (2014)CrossRef

19.

Endriss, C.: Exceptional wide scope. In: Endriss, C. (ed.) Quantificational Topics. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)CrossRef

20.

Endriss, C., Hinterwimmer, S.: Direct and indirect aboutness topics. Linguist. Philos. 55(3–4), 297–307 (2008)

21.

Ernst, T.: Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions. J. East Asian Linguist. 3(3), 241–264 (1994)CrossRef

22.

Ernst, T.: The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRef

23.

Geurts, B., van der Slik, F.: Monotonicity and processing load. J. East Asian Linguist. 22(1), 97–117 (2005)

24.

Giannakidou, A., Cheng, L.: (In) definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. J. East Asian Linguist. 23(2), 135–183 (2006)

25.

Ginzburg, J., Sag, I.: Interrogative Investigations. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2000)

26.

Grewendorf, G., Sabel, J.: Scrambling in German and Japanese: adjunction versus multiple specifiers. J. East Asian Linguist. 17(1), 1–65 (1999)

27.

Hole, D.: Focus and Background Marking in Mandarin Chinese. Routledge, London (2004)

28.

Horn, L.: The border wars: a Neo-Gricean perspective. In: von Heusinger, K., Turner, K. (eds.) Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, pp. 21–48. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)

29.

Huang, J.: Move WH in a language without WH movement. J. East Asian Linguist. 1(4), 369–416 (1982)

30.

Jackendoff, R.: Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge (1972)

31.

Jacobs, J.: Funktionale satzperspecktive und illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91, 25–58 (1984)

32.

Kitagawa, Y.: Anti-scrambling. Manuscript, University of Rochester (1990)

33.

Ko, H.: Syntax of why-in-situ: merge into. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theor. 23(4), 867–916 (2005)CrossRef

34.

Kratzer, A.: Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In: Rothstein, S. (ed.) Events and Grammar, pp. 163–196. Springer, Dordrecht (1998)CrossRef

35.

Kratzer, A.: A note on choice functions in context. Manuscript, UMass Amherst (2003)

36.

Krifka, M.: Quantifying into question acts. Nat. Lang. Semant. 9(1), 1–40 (2001)CrossRef

37.

Lahiri, U.: Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)

38.

Lang, E., Steinitz, R.: Können Satzadverbiale performativ gebraucht werden. In: Motsch, W. (ed.) Kontexte der Grammatiktheorie, pp. 51–80. Akademie Verlag, Berlin (1978)

39.

Law, P.: Adverbs in A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese. J. East Asian Linguist. 15(2), 97–136 (2006)CrossRef

40.

Lawler, J.: Any question, pp. 163–173 (1971)

41.

Oshima, D.Y.: On factive islands: pragmatic anomaly vs. pragmatic infelicity. In: Washio, T., Satoh, K., Takeda, H., Inokuchi, A. (eds.) JSAI 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4384, pp. 147–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69902-6_14 CrossRef

42.

Paris, M.-C.: Nominalization in Mandarin Chinese: the morphene “de” and the “shi” ... “de” constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Paris 7 (1979)

43.

Pesetsky, D.: Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In: Reuland, E., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) The Representation of (In) Definiteness, pp. 98–129. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)

44.

Pesetsky, D.: Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

45.

Reinhart, T.: Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy. J. East Asian Linguist. 27(1), 53–94 (1981)

46.

Reinhart, T.: Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguist. Philos. 20(4), 335–397 (1997)CrossRef

47.

Rizzi, L.: Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)

48.

Rizzi, L.: On the position Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause. Linguist. Philos. 14, 267–296 (2001)

49.

Rizzi, L.: Locality and left periphery. In: Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, pp. 223–251. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York (2004)

50.

Rooth, M.: Topic accents on quantifiers. In: Carlson, G., Pelletier, F.J. (eds.) Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect, pp. 1–23. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2005)

51.

Saito, M.: Long distance scrambling in Japanese. J. East Asian Linguist. 1(1), 69–118 (1992)CrossRef

52.

Shyu, S.-I.: The syntax of focus and topic in Chinese. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California (1995)

53.

Soh, H.L.: Object scrambling in Chinese. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1998)

54.

Soh, H.L.: Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese. J. East Asian Linguist. 36(1), 143–155 (2005)

55.

Starke, M.: Move dissolves into merge: a theory of locality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva (2001)

56.

Stepanov, A., Tsai, W.-T.D.: Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theor. 26(3), 589–638 (2008)CrossRef

57.

Szabolcsi, A.: Quantification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRef

58.

Szabolcsi, A., Zwarts, F.: Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. J. East Asian Linguist. 1(3), 235–284 (1993)

59.

Tomioka, S.: Pragmatics of LF intervention effects. J. Pragmat. 39(9), 1570–1590 (2007)CrossRef

60.

Wachowicz, K.: Q-morpheme hypothesis, performative analysis and an alternative. Questions, pp. 151–163. Springer, Dordrecht (1978)CrossRef

61.

Winter, Y.: Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguist. Philos. 20(4), 399–467 (1997)CrossRef

62.

Xu, L.: Topicalization in Asian languages. In: van Riemsdijk, H., Everaert, M. (eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax, pp. 137–174. Wiley Blackwell, London (2006)CrossRef

63.

Yang, B.: Intervention effects and the covert component of grammar. Ph.D. thesis, National Tsinghua University (2009)

64.

Yang, B.: Intervention effects and wh-construals. J. East Asian Linguist. 21(1), 43–87 (2011)CrossRef

Title: A Semantic Account of the Intervention Effects in Chinese Why-Questions
Author: Dawei Jin
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Book: Logic, Language, and Computation
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54331-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-54332-0

Copyright Year: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54332-0_5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner