1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 24, April 3, 2007

2 Today Announcements and Reminders: -Finish chapter 6 -Assignment 3 is due next Tuesday, April 10. Today’s Lecture: -Continue Semantics -Distribute Assignment 3

3 Review from last time constructional meaning lexical vs. structural ambiguity thematic roles (theta roles)

4 The interpretation of pronouns Syntactic structure plays a role in the interpretation of pronouns. We will see a simplified version of what is known as binding theory. We will focus on the interpretation of pronouns.

5 The interpretation of pronouns p. 196 table 6.16

6 The interpretation of pronouns Consider the following data: John likes himself. Who does the reflexive himself refer to? =>John. Now consider this: John knows that Mary likes him. Who does the pronoun him refer to? =>John. So what can we say about pronouns and reflexives? =>A defining property of reflexives and pronouns is that they refer to another element called an antecedent. Thus, John is the antecedent for himself and him in the sentences above.

7 The interpretation of pronouns Now consider the following: 1.John likes himself 2.*Himself likes John. Why is 2 ungrammatical??? => as a preliminary hypothesis, we can say that the reflexive must be preceded by its antecedent.

8 The interpretation of pronouns Now consider the following: 1.[ IP Claire knew that [ IP Judy trusted herself]]. Who’s the antecedent here? Judy. But why not Claire?  we can propose that a reflexive must have its antecedent in the smallest IP containing it. However, consider the following: 2. [ IP Claire knew that [ IP Judy trusted her.]] =>now the antecedent is not Judy but Claire or somebody else!!! =>therefore it seems that with a pronoun, the antecedent cannot be in the smallest IP containing it.

9 The interpretation of pronouns Consider the following: 1. That boy’s teacher admires himself Who’s the antecedent here, that boy or that boy’s teacher? The teacher. =>So perhaps it’s the closest NP that serves as the antecedent of the reflexive? However, consider the following: 2. The teacher of that boy admires himself. =>This shows us that it is not necessarily the closest NP that serves as an antecedent of the reflexive.

10 The interpretation of pronouns In order to define more precisely how the antecedent of the reflexive is chosen, we need to introduce the notion of c-command. NPa c-commands NPb if the first category above NPa contains NPb.

11 The interpretation of pronouns Now that we know what c-command is, we can go back to our examples and determine how the antecedent of the reflexive is chosen. The boy’s teacher admires himself. Let’s draw a tree.

12 The interpretation of pronouns p. 196, 6.10

13 The interpretation of pronouns NP1 [That boy’s teacher] c-commands the reflexive himself. Therefore NP1 is the antecedent. NP2 [that boy] does not c-command the reflexive himself. Therefore, NP2 cannot be the antecedent.

14 The interpretation of pronouns Now we know how the antecedent for reflexives is chosen. We are ready to propose a general principle: Principle A: A reflexive must be c-commanded by its antecedent in the same minimal IP.

15 The interpretation of pronouns Now let’s consider the interpretation of (non- reflexive) pronouns, e.g. he, she, etc. Consider the following: 1. That boy’s teacher admires himself. 2. That boy’s teacher admires him.  In contrast to the reflexive, the pronoun him cannot refer to the teacher. It can refer to the boy, or alternatively, to some other antecedent not mentioned in this sentence.  Let’s draw a tree for 2.

16 The interpretation of pronouns p

17 The interpretation of pronouns How can we define the relationship between the pronoun and its possible antecedents in terms of c-command. Can the pronoun be c-commanded by its antecedent? No. The pronoun must be free in its minimal IP.

18 The interpretation of pronouns Principle B: A pronoun must not have an antecedent that c- commands it in the same minimal IP. So the difference between principle A and principle B is that reflexives must be c-commanded by their antecedent in their minimal IP, whereas pronouns must not be c-commanded by their antecedent in their minimal IP.

19 Other factors in sentence interpretation Syntactic structure provides some necessary information for the interpretation of sentences, but not all. Some other necessary information comes from pragmatics, which includes the speaker’s and the addressee’s background, attitudes, believes, etc. It also includes the context in which the sentences is uttered, etc.

20 Beliefs and attitudes. Consider the following: 1.The judge denied the prisoner’s request because he was cautious. 2.The judge denied the prisoner’s request because he was dangerous. Note that the syntactic structure is identical! The sentences differ only with regard to the adective cautions or dangerous. In 1 we are much more likely to interpret he as referring to the judge and in 2 as referring to the prisoner. Why is this so? Because of our beliefs and attitudes.

21 Presupposition Consider the following: 1. Have you stopped exercising regularly? 2. Have you tried exercising regularly?  1 implies that the person was exercising, whereas 2 does not imply that the person was exercising.  The assumption or belief implied by a particular word or structure is called presupposition

22 Presupposition Do you think presupposition is common in daily life? Can you come up with some examples? What is presupposition’s significance in the way things in life are portrayed?

23 Setting In order to interpret a sentence, you may need its context, both linguistic and situational. For example, languages have forms whose uses and interpretation depend on the location of the speaker and/or hearer within a particular setting. These are called spatial deictics. Examples of deictics include: here/there; this/that; => the interesting point is that the interpretation of deictics depends on factors outside of the sentence itself. It depends on the position/location of the speaker and/or hearer.

24 Setting English makes a two way contrast with deictics, e.g. here vs. there, this vs. that. However, other languages may employ more contrasts. (see next slide)

25 Spanish three-way deictic contrast p. 200

26 Setting Deictic contrasts are not only expressed by determiners such as this/that. Deictic contrasts can also be expressed by verbs. Consider the following. 1. The bear is coming into the tent 2. The bear is going into the tent =>Most people would prefer to be in the situation described by 2. I.e. 1 indicates that the speaker is in the tent; 2 indicates that the speaker is outside (at a distance from) the tent.