CO2 - introduction la linguistique thorique – Document n3

Meaning and Grammar - Two case-studies

1 Constraints on possible meanings: the case of determiners

1.1 Determiners as expressing relations between sets
• Syntactically, determiners such as every, no, some, most, several, etc. combine with a nominal expression, and
the resulting expression can combine with a Verb Phrase:
(1) [Plusieurs/tous les [linguistes anglais]] [V P fument des gitanes]
• In terms of meaning, deteminers can be viewed as asserting that a certain relationship holds between two sets.
(2) a. PLUSIEURS ; LINGUISTES ANGLAIS ∩ FUMEURS DE GITANES ≥2
b. TOUS LES ; LINGUISTES ⊆ FUMEURS DE GITANES
(3) a. PLUSIEURS A B ; A ∩ B ≥2
b. TOUS LES A B ; A ⊆ B
c. Un A B ; (A ∩ B) 6= ∅
d. LA PLUPART A B ; A/B ≥1/2
e. AUCUN A B ; A ∩ B = ∅
f. BEAUCOUP A B ; A ∩ B ≥n, with n dependent on context
g. (PEU de) A B ; A ∩ B ≤n, with n dependent on context

1.2 Most conceivable determiners are not attested

• There are many conceivable relationships between sets. Not all of them correspond to a determiner. Here are
some unattested determiners
Let E be the set of all individuals we are interested in. I write X - Y for X \Y (i.e. the set of elements of X that are
not elements of Y)
(4) a. BLICK A B ; (E - A) ⊆ B (‘Every non-A is a B’)
b. BLUCK A B ; E (A ∩ B) 6= ∅ (‘At least one thing is not both an A and a B)
c. BLOCK A B ; A ⊆ B and A 6= B (‘Every A is a B, but not every B is an A’)
d. BLEUCK A B ; B ⊆ A (BLEUCK A B iff every B is an A)

1.3 Some constraints on possible determiner meanings

• Conservativity
Every determiner DET is such that, for any A and B DET A B and DET A (A ∩ B) are equivalent. A determiner that
has this property is called conservative. A proposed language universal is that every natural language determiner is
conservative.
(5) a. Toutes les voitures sont rouges ⇔ Toutes les voitures sont des voitures rouges
b. Une voiture est rouge ⇔ Une voiture est une voiture rouge

1
 c. La plupart des voitures sont rouges ⇔ La plupart des voitures sont des voitures rouges
d. Quatre voitures sont rouges ⇔ Quatre voitures sont des voitures rouges
e. Aucune voiture nest rouge ⇔ Aucune voiture nest une voiture rouge
Question: Among the determiners defined in ??, which ones are conservative and which aren’t?
• Extension
Intuition: to know whether DET A B is true, there is no need to look at the non-As and the non-Bs. That is, if one
adds to the domain of objects non-As and non-Bs, the truth-value of DET A B should not change.

Let E be our domain of individuals. Let us note DETE A B the interpretation of DET relative to a domain of in-
dividuals E.

Proposed Universal: for any deteminer, any two domains E, E’ with E ⊆ E’, DETE A B ⇔ DET0E A B.

BLICK and BLUCK do not satisfy this constraint.

2 Negative Polarity Items

2.1 Puzzling facts
French: ‘Quoi que ce soit’
(6) a. *Marie a lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant
b. Marie n’a pas lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant
What’s the rule? Having a negation somewhere? Neither sufficient nor necessary
(7) Not sufficient:
*Quand je ne suis pas chez moi, je lis quoi que ce soit d’intressant
(8) Not necessary:
a. Seule Marie a dit quoi que ce soit d’intressant.
b. Il est interdit de dire quoi que ce soit
c. *Il est autorisé de dire quoi que ce soit
(9) a. (?) Peu d’lves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intressant
b. *Beaucoup d’lves ont fait quoi que ce soit d’intressant
• ‘Interdit’ and ‘peu’ are intuitively negative in some sense. But...what does this mean exactly?
(10) a. Si tu avais lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant, tu aurais eu de la conversation.
b. *Si tu avais t l’cole, tu aurais lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant.
(11) a. Tous les lves qui ont dit quoi que ce soit d’intressant ont t admis.
b. *Tous les lves ont dit quoi que ce soit d’intressant.
(12) Paul a-t-il dit quoi que ce soit d’intressant ?
English: ‘any’
(13) a. Yesterday, Mary didn’t read anything.
b. *Yesterday, Mary read anything.
(14) a. It is forbidden to say anything
b. *It is allowed to say anything
(15) a. Few students said anything

2
 b. *Many students said anything
(16) a. If you had talked with anybody yesterday at the party, you would have been happier
b. If you had gone to the party yesterday, you would have talked to anybody (ok under one reading)
(17) a. Every student who said anything interesting passed
b. *Every student said anything interesting
(18) Have you talked to anybody?
• Other expressions have a similar (but often not identical) distribution (with some differences). Consider in
particular the idiomatic meaning of ‘lift a finger’ or lever le petit doigt’ in French.
(19) a. Jean a lev le petit doigt ; no idiomatic meaning
b. Jean n’a pas lev le petit doight
(20) a. Quequ’un/Tout le monde a lev le petit doigt ; no idiomatic meaning
b. Personne/ peu de gens ont lev le petit doigt
(21) Si quelqu’un avait lev le petit doigt, . . . ...
Also: un quelconque, la moindre chose, etc.

2.2 A generalization
• One property of negation: it reverses the direction of entailments
(22) a. Mary lives in Paris ⇒Mary lives in France
b. Mary lives in France ;Mary lives in Paris
(23) a. Mary doesn’t live in Paris ;Mary doesn’t live in France
b. Mary doesn’t live in France ⇒Mary doesn’t live in Paris
Not only negation does that:
(24) a. It is forbidden for Mary to live in Paris ;It is forbidden for Mary to live in France
b. It is forbidden for Mary to live in France ⇒It is forbidden for Mary to live in Paris
(25) a. If Mary lives in Paris, she must be happy ;If Mary lives in France, she must be happy
b. If Mary lives in France, she must be happy ⇒If Mary lives in Paris, she must be happy
• Proposal: ‘quoi/qui que ce soit’ is acceptable if it occured in a syntactic context that is ‘negation-like’, i.e.
‘reverses the direction of entailments’.
• More precisely: replace ‘qui que soit’ with ‘un Franais’ and ‘un Europen’. Only if there is an entailment from
‘European’ to ‘French’, then ‘qui que ce soit’ is acceptable.
(26) *Marie a parl qui que ce soit
Marie a parl un Europren ;Marie a parl un Franais
(27) Marie n’a pas parl qui que ce soit
Marie n’a pas parl un Europen ⇒Marie a parl un Franais
In general, when φ entails ψ, we have:
(28) a. if ψ, bla bla ⇒If ψ, bla bla
b. If bla bla, φ ⇒If bla bla, ψ
So we expect ‘qui que ce soit’ to be fine only if occurring on the ‘left-side’ of ‘si . . . , . . . ’
• Likewise:
(29) a. Chaque Europen est ici ⇒Chaque Franais est ici.
b. Chaque tudiant est europen ;Chaque tudiant est franais.

3
So we expect ‘qui que ce soit’ to be if occurring on the ‘left-side’ of ‘Chaque A B’
• Items like ‘qui que ce soit’ are called Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)
• Syntactic contexts that reverse the direction of entailments are called downward-entailing.
• Auxiliary notion: determiners, restrictors, nuclear scope.
A natural language determiner such as chaque, un, plusieurs combine with a nominal expression to form a phrase that
can itself combine with a verb-phrase:
(30) [DET (Nominal expression)] [Verb Phrase]
The nominal expression is called the Restrictor of the determiner, and the Verb Phrase is called its nuclear scope
• Some downward-entailing contexts:
– The scope ( = sister) of negation,
– The restrictors and nuclear scopes of determiners such as peu (‘few’), moins de n (‘fewer than n’), aucun
(‘no’),
– The restrictor of chaque (‘each’), tous les (‘all the’), but not their nuclear scope,
– The antecedent of a conditional sentence (but not its consequent). – Scope of personne, scope of negative
adverbials such as jamais.
• Summary on downward-entailing contexts. Downward-entailing contexts include:
1. The sister of a negation.
2. The antecedent of conditionals
3. The restrictor and nuclear scope of deteminers such as aucun, peu, moins de n, . . .
4. The restrictor (but not the nuclear scope) of deteminers such as tous, tous les, chaque, chacun des, . . .
5. The sister of some ‘negative’ verbs and adjectives (interdire, refuser, . . . , douter que, impossible que . . . )

2.3 Toward an explanation: ‘even one’

• The behavior of ‘even one’: ‘even one’ is an NPI!
(31) a. #John read even one book
b. John hasn’t read even one book
Semantics of ‘even one’: A sentence such as S = [. . . even one . . . ], S(‘even one’) for short, is appropriate only if it is
believed by all participants that S(one or more) is more suprising than S(two or more).
(32) John read even one book
; John’s reading one or more books is more surprising than John’s reading two or more books
; That’s a logical contradiction!
(33) John didn’t read even one book
; For John not to read one or more than one books is more surprising than for John not to read two or more
; Not a contradiction – in fact, it’s a tautology!
More generally:
• If S(two or more) ⇒S(one or more), S(one or more) cannot be more surprising .
• When S(one or more) ⇒S(two or more), the surprisal requirement of ‘even’ is automatically satisfied
• This is the case if one or more occurs in a context that reverses the direction of entailment.
• A suggestion (in the literature): any means even one

4
2.4 Interaction with syntax
Licensing is local. The NPI can occur in a globally upward-entailing context. What matters is that there is a constituent
that licenses it.
(34) a. Marie n’a pas lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant
b. Si Marie n’avait pas lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant...
c. Marie n’a jamais lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant
d. Personne n’imagine que Marie n’ait jamais lu quoi que ce soit d’intressant

2.5 Positive polarity items

(35) a. Marie a entendu quelque chose
b. ?? Marie na pas entendu quelque chose
(i) Impossible reading: it’s false that Marie heard something, i.e. she heard nothing
(ii) Possible: There is something that Marie heard.
(36) a. *Jean n’a pas des enfants
b. Jean n’a pas d’enfants
Other examples (under the intended interpretation)
(37) a. #Marie na pas vu quelques films de Godard
b. *Le bb na pas bu un peu de lait
c. ? Il pleut, mais Marie na pas un parapluie [sauf sous un usage ‘scalaire de un, voir plus bas]
d. *Marie nest pas dj alle New York
e. *Jacques parle allemand, mais Marie ne parle pas allemand aussi [Intended: Jacques parle allemand, mais
il est faux que Marie parle allemand elle aussi]
f. *Marie na pas au moins / presque vingt-deux ans
g. *Ce film nest pas quelque peu / un peu ennuyeux
h. #Marie ne parle pas soit allemand soit anglais
i. ? Ce plat nest pas dlicieux.
• In first approximation, so called positive polarity items don’t like to be in the immediate scope of negation or
negative element such as sans (‘without’).
• Most of them are fine in other downward-entailing contexts
(38) a. Si Marie avait entendu quelque chose, . . .
b. Si le bb avait bu un peu de lait, . . .
c. Trs peu d’amis moi sont dj alls New York.
d. Il est interdit d’avoir des enfants.
e. ...
• Many of them are fine if negation if sufficiently ‘far away’
(39) a. #Marie n’a pas vu quelque chose
b. Je ne pense pas que Marie ait vu quelque chose
(40) a. #Marie n’est pas venue aussi.
b. Je ne pense pas que Marie soit venue aussi.
(but some of them are more restricted: soit . . . soit, au moins.)
• Striking property: PPIs under the immediate scope of negation can be rescued if the negation is itself in a
downward-entailing environment
(41) a. *Marie n’est pas dj alle New York
b. Si Marie n’tait pas dj alle NY, . . .

5
 c. Personne n’imagine que Marie ne soit pas dj alle NY.
(42) a. #Marie pas lu quelque chose
b. Il est peu probable que Marie n’ait pas lu quelque chose
(43) a. ?? Marie n’a pas lu des livres
b. Il est impossible que Marie n’ait pas lu des livres