Bantu 6
Helsinki, June 20-23
All about the speaker:
The syntax of biased questions in Bamileke Medumba
Hermann Keupdjio & Martina Wiltschko
University of British Columbia
1
SevenstrategiestoaskapolarquestioninMedumba
Medumba…
… is a Grassfields’ Bantu Bamileke language
… is spoken in the Western region of Cameroon.
… its basic sentence structure is SVO
↓
(1) [Nùmí ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́]S
Numi have dog
“Numi has a dog.”
To ask a polar question in Medumba, one can use either of the strategies in (2-8):
↓
(2) ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
kí
2SG have dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
[…]S-kí
↓
(3) ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
áá
2SG have
dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
[…]S-áá
↓
(4) kʉ̀ ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
á
Prt 2SG
have dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
↓
(5) ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
á
2SG have dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
kʉ̀ […]S -á
[…]S -á
↓
(6) kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́ á
Prt
2SG have dog Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
kʉ̀lá […]S -á
↓
(7) kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
Prt
2SG have dog
“Do you have a dog?”
kʉ̀lá […]S
↓
(8) ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́ kɔ̄
2SG have dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
[…]S -kɔ̄
The challenge:
To account for the distribution and interpretation of sentence-peripheral particles in Medumba
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
2
2.1
Syntax of biased questions
ProposalI:InterpretationandDistribution
Interpretation
The sentence peripheral particles found in (biased) polar questions establish a relation between the
propositional content and the speaker’s attitude
• They establish whether p is in the speaker’s set of beliefs (BelS)
• Once established this relation can be modified:
o Source:
How did p get into BelS?
i)
mention by Adr(essee)
ii)
situation
o Time:
When did it get into BelS?
i)
present
ii)
past
o Strength:
How strong is evidence for p in BelS?
i)
weak
ii)
strong
(9) The Logic of polar questions in Bamileke Medumba
Polar questions
neutral
kí
biased
negative
áá
positive
previous
conversation
weak
kʉ́+ á
strong
á
situation
past
kʉ́lá + á
weak
kɔ̄
present
strong
kʉ́lá
(Keupdjio & Wiltschko 2016)
2
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
2.2
Syntax of biased questions
Distribution
The sentence peripheral particles associate with the speech-act structure.
(10)
The syntax of polar questions in Bamileke Medumba
SA-structure
kʉ́lákʉ́-
3
p-structure
-á
-áá
-kɔ̄
-ki
Background:Thestructureofspeechacts
3.1
Theperformativehypothesis
(11)
Performative hypothesis (Ross 1970)
S
SA-structure
I tell you that
S
p-structure
I have a dog
3.2
AnupdatedversionofSpeech-actstructure
Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis reflects traditional assumptions about discourse conditions for
assertions:
(12)
Discourse conditions for assertions
i)
Spkr believes p
ii)
Spkr wants Adr to believe p
(adapted from Bach & Harnish, 1979)
But discourse conditions for assertions are more complex:
… Spkr wanting Adr to believe p is not sufficient for a felicitous speech act
… Adr needs to confirm that they indeed adopt p into their set of beliefs (BelAdr)
(13)
Context: Mary just got a new dog. None of her friends know about this yet. On the first
walk with her new dog, she runs into John and tells him:
Mary: I got a new dog.
John: a.
#no response
b.
nods his head
c.
{uh-huh/Oh, really?/I see/That’s nice/…}
3
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
(14)
Ingredients of an Assertion
a.
a proposition
b.
Spkr’s propositional attitude (e.g., belief)
c.
Spkr’s request for Adr to adopt the same propositional attitude towards p
Wiltschko & Heim 2015
(15)
Ingredients of an Polar question
a.
a (set of) propositions (+p, -p)
b.
Spkr’s propositional attitude towards p (the bias)
c.
Spkr’s request for Adr to respond
(16)
RespP
Req (pa (A,p))
GroundP
pa (S,p)
S
p
•
•
GroundP
Resp(onse)P
4
à encodes propositional attitude of Spkr towards p
à encodes what Spkr wants Adr to do with p
Cf. Wiltschko 2015, Heim & Wiltschko 2015, Lam et al. 2015, Thoma 2016
ProposalII:Linearization
•
•
•
There is layer in the clausal spine which serves to mark the relation between CGS and p.
This layer is above […]Root-S
Different particles associate with different layers, as heads or as modifiers
(17)
a.
Neutral question
b. Biased question
RespP
CoA
Resp
RespP
GroundP
S-commitment
CoA
Resp
-ki
Ground
S
p-structure
kʉ́lákʉ́-
-á
-áá
-kɔ̄
S
p-structure
Linearization: movement of the p-structure to the left edge
4
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
4.1
Syntax of biased questions
Languageinternalevidenceformovement:
Downstep on structurally final High tone (H) items
(18)
a. Merge order
b. Derived order
RespP
3
Resp
TP
kí
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
< ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
4.2
RespP
ei
TP
RespP
3
3
ú
TP
Resp
<TP>
3
kí
T
VP
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
< ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
Prediction:arootphenomenon
S-peripheral particles are restricted to root clauses
•
•
The layers above S is restricted to root clauses.
Hence material that associates with these layers are restricted to root contexts
RespP
Rootphenomena
CoA
Resp
GroundP
S-commitment
Ground
S
p-structure
The verb ‘ask’ can select two distinct complementizer mbʉ̀ (COMP1) and mbʉ́ʉ̀ (COMP2).
(19)
COMP1 is used for direct quotations
In this context, S-peripheral particles are possible
a.
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
1SG ask COMP1 2SG have
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
↓
mbhʉ́
dog
kí
Prt
b.
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
1SG ask COMP1 2SG have
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
↓
áá
Prt
c.
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
kʉ̀ ú
mbhʉ́
dog
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
↓
mbhʉ́
á
5
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
1SG ask COMP1 Prt 2SG.S have
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
(20)
(21)
dog
↓
mbhʉ́
dog
Prt
d.
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
1SG ask COMP1 2SG have
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
á
Prt
e.
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
1SG ask COMP1 Prt 2SG.S have
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
f.
↓
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
kʉ̀lá ú ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
1SG ask COMP1 Prt 2SG.S have dog
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
g.
Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
1SG ask COMP1 2SG.S have
I ask: “Do you have a dog”
↓
mbhʉ́ á
dog Prt
↓
mbhʉ́ kɔ̄
dog Prt
COMP2 is used for embedding questions:
In this context S-peripheral particles are ungrammatical if embedded:
a.
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ [ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́ ↓mbhʉ́
1SG ask COMP2 2SG have dog
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
kí]
Prt
b.
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ [ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́ ↓mbhʉ́
1SG ask COMP2 2SG have dog
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
áá]
Prt
c.
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ [kʉ̀ ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́ ↓mbhʉ́
1SG ask COMP2 Prt 2SG.S have dog
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
d.
↓
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ [ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
1SG ask COMP2 2SG have dog
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
e.
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀
[kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
1SG ask COMP2 Prt 2SG.S have
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
f.
↓
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ [kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́]
1SG ask COMP2 Prt 2SG.S have dog
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
g.
↓
*Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀
[ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́ kɔ̄]
1SG ask COMP2 2SG.S have dog
Prt
Lit: I ask whether do you have a dog
á]
Prt
á]
Prt
↓
mbhʉ́ á]
dog Prt
COMP2 works only if the particles are not embedded:
a.
[Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́ ↓mbhʉ́]
1SG ask COMP2 2SG have dog
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
b.
[Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
↓
mbhʉ́]
kí
Prt
áá
6
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
1SG ask COMP2 2SG have dog
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
5
Prt
↓
mbhʉ́ á
dog Prt
c.
kʉ̀ mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
Prt 1SG ask COMP2 2SG.S have
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
d.
↓
[Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́]
á
1SG ask COMP2 2SG have dog
Prt
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
e.
kʉ̀lá mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
Prt 1SG ask COMP2 2SG.S have
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
mbhʉ́ á
dog Prt
f.
kʉ̀lá mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀ ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
Prt 1SG ask COMP2 2SG.S have
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
↓
g.
↓
[Mʉ́ bɛ́ttə́ mbʉ́ʉ̀
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́]
1SG ask COMP2 2SG.S have dog
“Did I ask whether you have a dog”
↓
mbhʉ́
dog
kɔ̄
Prt
Analysingthesevenstrategiesofpolarquestions
•
•
Sentence-peripheral particles in Medumba associate with RespP or GroundP respectively
They function either as heads, or as modifiers of these functional categories
5.1
Neutralquestions:noSpkr-attitudetowardsp
The “ki-strategy” is used for neutral polar questions in Medumba. In this context, the speaker does not
display bias towards Bel (p) or Bel (¬p) as shown in the context below:
S-attitude
Bel (p)
(22)
him:
Bel ¬p
Context: Mary doesn't know whether John has a dog. One day she runs into him and asks
↓
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
kí
2SG have
dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
☞Analysis of […]S-kí
•
•
•
•
kí associates with RespP and selects for [p-structure]S rather than GroundP
in the absence of GroundP, Spkr-attitude cannot be encoded
kí requires Adr to respond (= Call on Addressee) hence results in question interpretation
linearization is derived via S to Spec-RespP movement
7
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
RespP
(23)
RespP
S
[…]
Resp
S
-ki
p-structure
Prediction:
• since kí selects for S, none of the GroundP particles can co-occur with it
(24)
5.2
kí cannot co-occur with S-initial particles
a.
*kʉ̀lá
Prt
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
2SG.S have
mbhʉ́
dog
kí
Prt
b.
*kʉ̀
Prt
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
2SG.S have
mbhʉ́
dog
kí
Prt
Negativebias:p∉ CGS
Negatively biased polar questions are expressed using the “aa-strategy” in Medumba. Here, the speaker
displays bias towards negative belief, Bel (¬p) as illustrated in the following context:
Bel (p)
S-attitude
Bel ¬p
(25)
Context: John is not a ‘dog person’ and has always claimed that he will never get a dog.
One day, he changed his mind and decided to buy a dog. Then he has to inform his friend Mary.
He runs into her and tells her that he has a new dog. Mary responds:
↓
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
áá
2SG have dog
Prt
“You you have a dog?”
☞ Analysis of […]S-áá
•
Negative bias is indirectly encoded as a result of a focus-strategy: by focusing p, ¬p is activated
as the set of alternatives (cf. Rooth 1985)
áá = complex:
i)
–á = Resp (encoding CoA)
ii)
–á = Focus marker
•
both are independently attested
•
8
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
(26)
Syntax of biased questions
á
Nùgà bɛ́ɛ̀n m-fá bɔ̀
FOC Nuga AUX N-give bag
Did NugaFoc give the bag to Numi?
Nùmí á?
Numi Q
Keupdjio (2015)
•
•
linear order is derived by moving S[p-structure] to Spec-RespP (via Spec-FocP)
as a result, Adr is asked to respond to S[p-structure]
(27)
RespP
RespP
S
[…]
FocusP
Resp
-á
FocusP
S
[…]
Focus
-á
S
p-structure
(28)
a. Merge order
RespP
3
Resp
FocP
á
3
Foc
TP
á
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
< ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
b. Derived order
RespP
ei
TP
RespP
3
3
ú
TP
Resp
FocP
3
á
3
T
VP
á
<TP>
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
< ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
Prediction:
• in the absence of ground, Spkr-commitment cannot be modified (otherwise unclear why source,
timing, and strength of bias cannot be specified)
(29)
-áá cannot co-occur with S-initial particles
9
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
5.3
Syntax of biased questions
a.
*kʉ̀lá
Prt
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
2SG.S have
mbhʉ́
dog
áá
Prt
b.
*kʉ̀
Prt
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
2SG.S have
mbhʉ́
dog
áá
Prt
Positivebias:p∈ CGS
Positive bias is encoded in GroundP (where Spkr commitment towards proposition is encoded)
•
•
The source of the speaker bias is either a previous conversation with Addressee or some situation
The Strength is either weak or strong
5.3.1
Positive bias based on a previous conversation
5.3.1.1
Weak positive bias: kʉ̀ […] S-á
The “kʉ̀ […]S-á” strategy is used to express weak positive bias based on a previous conversation in
Medumba. Its context of use is illustrated as follows:
Source:
previous
conversation
Strength:
weak
S-attitude
Bel (p)
Bel ¬p
(30)
Context: John tells his friend Mary that his is going to buy a dog. Mary congratulates
him. A few days later, Mary runs into John on the street. Mary isn’t sure whether John bought
the dog they talked about in a previous conversation. Now just wants to check whether John
bought the dog or not. Mary asks:
↓
kʉ̀ ú
ʒýn
mbhʉ́
á
Prt 2SG
buy
dog
Prt
“Did you buy the dog?”
☞ Analysis of kʉ̀ […]S-á
•
•
•
•
á associates with Resp, and encodes CoA
zero marker (-0) associates with Ground (marks p-structure as being part of Spkr’s ground)
kʉ̀ modifies GroundP, weakening the commitment
linearization derived via movement of GroundP to RespP (hence Adr is asked to respond to Spkr’s
attitude towards p)
10
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
(31)
Syntax of biased questions
RespP
RespP
GroundP
[…]
GroundP
Resp
-á
GroundP
kʉ́-
Ground
-0
S
p-structure
(32)
a. Merge order
b. Derived order
RespP
3
Resp
GroundP
á
3
kʉ
GroundP
3
-0
TP
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ʒýn
3
V
DP
<ʒýn>
4
↓
mbhʉ
5.3.1.2
RespP
wi
GroundP
RespP
3
3
kʉ
GroundP
Resp
<GroundP>
3
á
Ground
TP
-0
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ʒýn
3
V
DP
<ʒýn>
4
↓
mbhʉ
Strong positive bias: […] S-á
The “á-strategy” is used to express strong positive bias based on a previous conversation in Medumba. Its
context of use is illustrated below:
Source:
previous
conversation
Strength:
strong
S-attitude
Bel (p)
Bel ¬p
11
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
(33)
Context: John tells his friend Mary that his is going to buy a dog. Mary congratulates
him. A few days later, Mary runs into John on the street. She has a strong feeling that John
bought the dog they talked about in a previous conversation and is very exited to hear about
it. So she asks:
ú
ʒýn ↓mbhʉ́
á
2SG buy dog
Prt
“Did you buy the dog?”
☞ Analysis of […]S-á
•
•
•
•
á associates with Resp, and encodes CoA
zero marker (-0) associates with Ground (marks p-structure as being part of Spkr’s ground)
unlike in the kʉ̀ […]S-á strategy, the bias is not weakened by a Ground modifier
linearization derived via movement of GroundP to RespP (hence Adr is asked to respond to Spkr’s
attitude towards p)
(34)
RespP
RespP
GroundP
[…]
Resp
GroundP
-á
GroundP
Ground
-0
S
p-structure
(35)
a. Merge order
RespP
3
Resp
GroundP
á
3
-0
TP
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ʒýn
3
V
DP
<ʒýn>
4
↓
mbhʉ
b. Derived order
RespP
wi
GroundP
RespP
3
3
Ground TP
Resp
<GroundP>
-0 3
á
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ʒýn
3
V
DP
<ʒýn>
4
↓
mbhʉ
12
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
5.3.2
Syntax of biased questions
Positive bias based on situation
5.3.2.1
Positive bias based on past situation: kʉ̀lá […] S-á
The “kʉ̀lá … á strategy” is used to express a positive bias based on a past situation in Medumba. In this
context, only two conditions are in play namely the source for the bias and the timing as shown in the
context below:
Source:
situation
Timing:
past
S-attitude
Bel ¬p
Bel (p)
(36)
Context: John tells Mary that their common friend Greg has a new dog. Mary is really
happy for Greg. The next day Mary runs into Greg on the street (the dog is not there). So Mary
asks:
↓
kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
Prt 2SG have
dog
“Do you have a dog?”
á
Q
☞ Analysis of kʉ̀lá […]S-á
• á associates with Resp, and encodes CoA
• zero marker (-0) associates with Ground (marks p-structure as being part of Spkr’s ground)
• kʉ̀lá specifies that the bias is based on a situation (We hypothesize that pastness is not directly
encoded, it follows from saying that p is in Spkr’s ground).
• linearization derived via movement of GroundP to RespP (hence Adr is asked to respond to Spkr’s
attitude towards p)
(37)
RespP
RespP
GroundP
[…]
GroundP
Resp
-á
GroundP
kʉ́lá-
Ground
-0
S
p-structure
13
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
(38)
Syntax of biased questions
a. Merge order
b. Derived order
RespP
3
Resp
GroundP
á
3
kʉlá
GroundP
3
-0
TP
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ʒýn
3
V
DP
<ʒýn>
4
↓
mbhʉ
5.3.2.2
RespP
wi
GroundP
RespP
3
3
kʉlá
GroundP
Resp
<GroundP>
3
á
Ground
TP
-0
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ʒýn
3
V
DP
<ʒýn>
4
↓
mbhʉ
Strong positive bias based on present situation: kʉ̀lá […] S
The “kʉ̀lá-strategy” is used to express a strong positive bias based on a present situation in Medumba. In
this context, the evidence for the speaker’s bias must be present as shown in the context below:
Timing:
present
Source:
situation
Strength
strong
S-attitude
Bel ¬p
Bel (p)
(39)
Context: John asks Mary whether their common friend Greg has a dog. Mary says she
has no idea. The next day Mary runs into Greg on the street. Greg is with a dog. So Mary asks:
f.
↓
kʉ̀lá ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́
Prt
2SG have
dog
“Do you have a dog?”
☞ Analysis of kʉ̀lá […]S
•
•
•
•
•
no direct encoding of Response
we hypothesize that in the presence of strong evidence this is not necessary
zero marker (-0) associates with Ground (marks p-structure as being part of Spkr’s ground)
kʉ̀lá specifies that the bias is based on a situation (We hypothesize that present is not directly
encoded, it follows from saying that p is in Spkr’s ground).
linearization derived via movement of GroundP to RespP (hence Adr is asked to respond to Spkr’s
attitude towards p
14
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
(40)
Syntax of biased questions
RespP
RespP
GroundP
[…]
GroundP
Resp
GroundP
kʉ́lá-
Ground
S
-0
p-structure
(41)
a. Merge order
RespP
3
Resp
GroundP
3
kʉlá
GroundP
3
-0
TP
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
<ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
b. Derived order
RespP
wi
GroundP
RespP
3
3
kʉlá
GroundP
Resp <GroundP>
3
Ground
TP
-0
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
<ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
15
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
5.3.2.3
Syntax of biased questions
Weak evidence based on present situation: […] S-kɔ̄
The “kɔ̄-strategy” is used to express a weak positive bias based on a present situation in Medumba. In this
context, the speaker’s bias is based on indirect evidence as shown in the context below:
Timing:
present
Source:
Strength
situation
weak
S-attitude
Bel ¬p
Bel (p)
(42)
Context: John asks Mary whether their common friend Greg has a dog. Mary says she
has no idea. The next day Mary runs into Greg on the street (Greg is carrying a leash). So Mary
asks:
↓
ú
ɣʉ̀ʉ́
mbhʉ́ kɔ̄
2SG
have
dog
Prt
“Do you have a dog?”
☞ Analysis of […]S-kɔ̄
•
•
•
•
•
no direct encoding of Response
we hypothesize that in the presence of evidence this is not necessary
kɔ̄ modifies GroundP by weakening the evidence
absence of origo-shift follows from the fact that Ground is always Speaker’s ground
linearization derived via movement of p-structure to Spec, RespP (hence Adr is asked to respond
to Spkr’s attitude towards p)
(43)
RespP
RespP
S
[…]
GroundP
Resp
-kɔ̄
Ground
Ground
S
p-structure
16
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
(44)
Syntax of biased questions
a. Merge order
b. Derived order
RespP
3
Resp
GroundP
3
kɔ
GroundP
3
-0
TP
3
ú
TP
3
T
VP
ɣʉʉ
3
V
DP
<ɣʉʉ>
4
↓
mbhʉ
6
RespP
wi
TP
RespP
3
3
ú
TP
Resp
GroundP
3
3
T
VP
kɔ
Ground
ɣʉʉ 3
3
V
DP
Ground <TP>
<ɣʉʉ>
4
-0
↓
mbhʉ
Conclusion
•
•
There are 7 strategies to ask a polar question in Medumba
They differ in form (different particles) and function (different context of use)
(45)
The logic of polar questions in Medumba:
Polar questions
neutral
kí
biased
negative
áá
positive
previous
conversation
weak
kʉ́+ á
•
strong
á
situation
past
kʉ́lá + á
weak
kɔ̄
present
strong
kʉ́lá
The variables that distinguish the 7 strategies for polar questions in Medumba
17
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
In Medumba, a tone language, much of the work associated with intonation in English is carried
by sentence-peripheral particles (cf. Wakefield 2012 for evidence based on Cantonese, another
language with a vast range of sentence-peripheral particles; see Asher & Reese 2007 for the role
of intonation in biased questions)
Syntactically,
• There is layer in the clausal spine which serves to mark the relation between CGS and p.
• This layer is above […]Root-S
•
Different particles associate with different layers, as heads or as modifiers
•
(46)
a.
Neutral question
b. Biased question
RespP
CoA
Resp
RespP
GroundP
S-commitment
CoA
Resp
-ki
Ground
S
p-structure
kʉ́lákʉ́-
-á
-áá
-kɔ̄
S
p-structure
References
Asher, N., & Reese, B. (2007). Intonation and discourse: biased questions. Interdisciplinary studies on information
structure, 8, 1-38.
Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts (Vol. 4, pp. 624-648).
Cambridge, MA: MIT press
Beyssade, Claire and Jean-Marie Marandin (2006). The Speech Act Assignment Problem Revisited: Disentangling
Speaker’s Commitment from Speaker’s Call on Addressee. In Selected papers of CSSP 2005, 37-68.
Available at http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Claire Cook, Jeff Muehlbauer, and Ryan Waldie (2014). (De-)constructing evidentiality. Ms.
UBC.
Erteshik-Shir (1997). The dynamic of focus structure. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Heim, Irene (1982), The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation.
Keupdjio, Hermann (2015). Wh-movement, A-bar agreement and Resumption in Bamileke Medumba.ms. UBC
Lam, Zoe Wai-Man (2014). A complex ForceP for Speaker- and Addressee-oriented Discourse Particles in
Cantonese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics. Volume 35: 61-80.
Lam, Zoe, Thoma, Sonja & Wiltschko, Martina (2013) Thinking about you. talk presented at the Workshop on
Interfaces at the Left Periphery, LSA workshop.
J. Heim, H. Keupdjio, Z. Lam, A. Osa Gomez & M. Wiltschko. 2014. How to do things with particles. Proceedings
of CLA. http://syntaxofspeechacts.linguistics.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/heim-et-al-cla-2014proceedings.pdf
Loeweke, Eunice and May, Jean (1980). General Grammar of Fasu (Namo Me): Lake Kutubu, Southern Highlands
Province. In Hutchisson, Don (ed.), , 5-106. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2013). Surprising Agreements at T and C. unpublished ms. MIT
Murray,S. E. (2010). Evidentials and Questions in Cheyenne. In Suzi Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantics
of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas, pp. 139–155.
Ross, John R. (1970). On Declarative Sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. R. A.
Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.
Rooth, Mats (1985). Association with focus. Graduate Linguistics Students Association.
18
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
Schwarz, F. (2009). Two types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, UMass-Amsherst.
Speas, Peggy, and Carol Tenny (2003). Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles. In: DiSciullo, A. (ed.),
Asymmetry in Grammar. 315-343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Street, John C. (1963). Khalkha Structure. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, 24.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sudo, Y. (2013). Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. Beyond expressives: Explorations in useconditional meaning, 275-295.
Thoma, S. (in prep.). Discourse particles in Bavarian. PhD dissertatin, UBC
Van Rooy, R., & Šafářová, M. (2003). On polar questions. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 292-309).
Wiltschko, Martina (2015). Ergative constellations in the structure of speech acts. ms. UBC
Wiltschko, Martina & Heim, Johannes (2015). The syntax of confirmationals: A neo-performative analysis. ms. UBC
[email protected]
[email protected]
7
Appendix
7.1
TherelationbetweenpandCGSismarkedinsimilarwaysastherelationbetweendiscourse
referentsandCGS
Common ground (CG)
… information shared among interlocutors
… contains (at least)
i)
discourse referents (DR)
ii)
propositions (p)
Heim 1982, Roberts 1996, Erteshik-Shir 1997 (a.o.)
(47)
The contents of CG
Common Ground
propositions:
{p, q, r}
discourse referents:
{i, j, k…}
Both propositions and discourse referents can be marked based on when they are introduced into CG (at
the time of utterance (new: r, k) vs. prior to time of utterance (old: p, q; i, j)
(48)
Old vs. new information
19
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
CG at Utt-t
CG at t < Utt-t
{p, q, ...}
{p, q, r, ...}
{i, j, …}
{i, j, k,…}
•
Just as discourse referents can be marked as old and new so can propositions
•
Just as discourse referents can be marked as being introduced based on conversation or based on
situation so can propositions
(49)
The marking of discourse referents and propositions
propositions
Discourse referents
timing
old
kʉ̀lá […]S-á
Engl. the […]NP
Med.
[…]NP
new
kʉ̀lá […]S
Engl. a […]NP
[…]S-kɔ̄
Med. tàʔ […]NP
source
situation
kʉ̀lá […]S-á
Ger deas[…]NP
kʉ̀lá […]S
[…]S-kɔ̄
conversation (kʉ̀) […]S-á
Ger dar[…]NP
[…]S-á
Strength of evidence strong
kʉ̀lá […]S
n/a (??)
weak
[…]S-kɔ̄
7.2
Evidenceforspeechactstructure
(50)
Performative hypothesis (Ross 1970)
S
SA-structure
I tell you that
S
p-structure
I have a dog
(51)
Neo-performative hypothesis (Speas & Tenny 2003)
saP
sa
(Speaker)
sa
sa*
sa*
(Utterance
content)
sa*
(Hearer)
20
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
Syntax of biased questions
Evidence for SA-structure
• Speaker-agreement
(52)
a.
Khaw maa
he
come
‘He is coming.’
b.
Khaw maa
he
come
‘He is coming.’
• Adr-agreement
(53)
a.
Pettek
Peter.erg
‘Peter worked.’
b.
Pettek
Peter.erg
‘Peter worked.’
c.
Pettek
Peter.erg
‘Peter worked.’
d.
Pettek
Peter.erg
‘Peter worked.’
khráp.
spkr=male
Thai
kâ.
spkr=female
lan
work.abs
egin
dik
do.prf aux-2masc
lan
work.abs
egin
din
do.prf aux-2fem
lan
work.abs
egin
dizü
do.prf aux-2formal
lan
work.abs
egin
du
do.prf aux-2pl
Basque
Miyagawa 2012: (8) cited from Oyharçabal 1993
(54)
SA-structure modification
a.
b.
Yoshi is not here [because I don’t see him].
S
S
SA-structure
I tell you that
S
because I don't see him
p-structure
Yoshi isn't here
c.
7.3
7.3.1
≠ i) the reason for Yoshi’s not being here is that I don’t see him.
= ii) the reason for my telling you that Yoshi is not here is that I don’t see him
Problemswiththe(neo-)performativehypothesis:
Ordering of Spkr and Adr
Cantonese has Speaker- and Addressee- oriented sentence final particles:
21
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
(55)
Syntax of biased questions
a.
zi3ming4 jau5 fu6ceot1
gwo3 si4gaan3
Jimmy
have devote
Asp
time
‘Jimmy has spent time (on the project).’
b.
zi3ming4 jau5 fu6ceot1
gwo3 si4gaan3
Jimmy
have devote
Asp
time
‘Jimmy has spent time (on the project), has he?’
me1?
prt
c.
zi3ming4 jau5 fu6ceot1
gwo3 si4gaan3
Jimmy
have devote
Asp
time
‘Jimmy has spent time (on the project), right?’
gaa3
prt
ho2?
prt
Adr-oriented ho2 has to follow Spkr-oriented me1:
(56)
a.
daai6 seng1 zau6 dak1 gaa3 laa3
me1
ho2
loud
voice then
okay prt
prt
prt
prt
‘What can one get by just by being loud? I assume you’d agree it’s a valid
question, right?
b.
*daai6 seng1 zau6
loud
voice then
dak1
okay
gaa3
prt
laa3
prt
ho2
prt
me1
prt
Lam 2014: 64 (6)
à This suggests that Adr-oriented projection is generated higher than Spkr-oriented projection (contrary
to Ross 1970, and Speas & Tenny 2003).
7.3.2
Discourse conditions for assertions are more complex
Ross (1970) performative hypothesis reflects traditional assumptions about discourse conditions for
assertions:
(57)
Discourse conditions for assertions
i)
Spkr believes p
ii)
Spkr wants Adr to believe p
(adapted from Bach & Harnish, 1979)
But discourse conditions for assertions are more complex:
… Spkr wanting Adr to believe p is not sufficient for a felicitous speech act
… Adr needs to confirm that they indeed adopts p into her common ground (CGAdr)
(58)
Context: Mary just got a new dog. None of her friends know about this yet. On the first
walk with her new dog, she runs into John and tells him:
Mary: I got a new dog.
John: a.
#no response
b.
nods his head
c.
{uh-huh/Oh, really?/I see/That’s nice/…}
(59)
Ingredients of an Assertion
a.
a proposition:
b.
Spkr’s propositional attitude
(pa (Spkr,
c.
Spkr’s request for Adr to adopt pa Req (pa (Adr,
p
p)) = Spkr-oriented
p)) = Adr-oriented
Wiltschko & Heim 2015
22
Keupdjio & Wiltschko
7.3.3
Syntax of biased questions
An updated version of SA-structure: GroundP + RespP
(60)
RespP
Req (pa (A,p))
GroundP
pa (S,p)
S
p
•
•
GroundP
Resp(onse)P
à encodes propositional attitude of Spkr towards p
à encodes what Spkr wants Adr to do with p
For further evidence and discussion, see Wiltschko 2015, Heim & Wiltschko 2015, Lam et al. 2015,
Thoma in prep.
23