Oct 202019
 

I just got home from Oslo, where I had many really interesting interactions with several linguists. One of them was a conversation with fellow visitor Jonathan Bobaljik.1Who, it should go without saying, should not be held accountable for any of what I write here. We were talking about the relatively well-known observation that for many alleged “syntax-semantics mapping phenomena,” the expected mappings only go through if the syntax independently allows at least two different configurations. As Jonathan helpfully points out, this is an observation that goes back to Grice, if not Jespersen. But just because an observation is “old,” we shouldn’t overlook the consequences it has for contemporary syn-sem theories. And the consequences are very interesting.

Here’s a prime example. (It’s one which I turn to often, though that doesn’t mean it’s not a good one! That said, if you are truly bored with this test case, see the bottom of this post for a partial list of other empirical domains I could have run the same argument on.) The example involves the Heim-Diesing Mapping Hypothesis: the idea that specificity and/or definiteness are determined by structural height relative to one or more structurally-fixed operators. So, for example, when it comes to Object-Shift and specificity (Diesing 1992, 1997), the idea is that you are interpreted as non-specific if you remain within VP (because there is an existential-closure operator at the VP periphery), and specific if you manage to make it out of VP (and thus, out of the scope of the aforementioned operator).

This would be a truly beautiful example of syntax-semantics mapping, if it, you know, worked. But as Diesing herself already noted (see also Vikner 1997), it only seems to work for those noun phrases that can move out of the VP. So, for example, if you are in a Scandinavian language, and you’re in a clause where the verb cannot undergo head movement, the object is stuck in the VP (viz. Holmberg’s (1986) Generalization). And, magically, the “mapping” part in the Mapping Hypothesis then goes away: you can be interpreted as either specific or non-specific, both while remaining in situ. Diesing’s solution to this was to say that the relevant constraint on movement (the “stuck” part) only holds in overt syntax, and covert movement is exempt from it, so that the object still moves out of the VP at LF (salvaging the “mapping” part). This may seem like a reasonable idea for the verb-movement case (where it has been argued that the nature of the constraint may be related to linearization in the first place; see Fox & Pesetsky 2005, i.a.). But the pattern in question is quite a bit more general. In many languages, only the structurally-highest noun phrase in the VP can undergo object shift. When this is the case, a lower noun phrase in the VP (e.g. the other internal argument in a ditransitive) gets to be specific or non-specific all while remaining in situ. Now, the constraint limiting object shift to the highest nominal in the VP is almost certainly structural, not linear. And therefore, there is absolutely no reason to assume that it would hold for overt but not covert movement.

Indeed, we can go to a higher level of generalization, and say the following: for a great many cases of contrasts related to alleged syn-sem “mapping” (see the bottom of this post for a partial list), the mapping breaks down when independent factors conspire to make one of the two contrasting structures unavailable. Unless every single one of these independent factors turns out to be PF-related – an exceedingly unlikely eventuality; see above – then the maneuver of exempting “LF movement” from the movement-limiting factors is entirely ad hoc, and amounts to a restatement of the mapping breakdown, not an account of it.

What seems to be going on here is this: when the rest of the grammar happens to make some contrast available (e.g. a given noun phrase can vacate the VP or stay in situ), semantics can pin some meaning contrast on this grammatical contrast (e.g. a specificity contrast). But this is not because semantics is “read off” of the syntactic structure, and it is certainly not because of some semantic operator at the VP periphery. The latter types of explanation fail to account for the fairly general fact that when the rest of the grammar makes the same contrast unavailable, semantic interpretation seems perfectly fine “reading” both options off of one and the same structure.

This may seem like a fairly subtle distinction to be drawing, but I think it’s actually quite important, if what we’re interested in is not just a description of the facts, but an understanding of the causal forces at work. On one view – the Mapping-Hypothesis-style view – the different meanings each arise because of the respective syntactic structures: high object → specific, low object → non-specific, where the arrows don’t just represent correspondences, they represent causation. On the other view, the causation is not so direct: when syntax happens to make a given contrast available (i.e., when it allows at least two variants of the structure), semantics can pin a contrast in meaning to this grammatical contrast. But there is no sense in which each of the different structures is “driving” each of the different meanings, since this would fail to account for how both meanings can arise from just one of these structures, too. Importantly, the facts quite strongly favor the latter view: meaning contrasts are parasitic on syntactic contrasts, not caused by them.

This is bad news on at least one front: one of the charms of, e.g., the Mapping Hypothesis, was that it provided an explanation of why this grammatical contrast (VP-internal noun phrases vs. VP-external ones) got mapped onto this meaning contrast (non-specific vs. specific). The view that seems empirically correct, however, takes a hammer to this explanation. So it would seem that other semantic contrasts could in principle be pinned on the contrast between VP-internal noun phrases and VP-external ones, not just specificity. Wait a minute, that’s actually true! In other languages, it is animacy/non-animacy (rather than specificity/non-specificity) that is pinned on the same grammatical contrast – and good luck deriving this from some kind of “inanimacy closure” operator at the VP periphery. At the same time, it’s also true that not any semantic contrast can be pinned on any grammatical contrast. For one thing, there probably aren’t “flipped” languages where VP-internal noun phrases are interpreted as specific and VP-external ones as non-specific. Furthermore, while an animacy contrast can replace a specificity one in correlating with object shift, the set of things that can do so is far from unbounded. (There might be as few as three options: specificity, definiteness, and animacy. Maybe also pronominality.) So there’s still a major gap in our understanding.

Okay, let’s wrap this up: if you think that grammatical contrasts map onto semantic contrasts because of very strictly compositional semantic interpretation, neutralization patterns are bad news for you. These patterns exist – and to repeat: they’re not actually restricted to Object-Shift/specificity, that’s just my favorite example; do have a look at the list below – and they suggest that causation between syntax and semantics doesn’t flow all that directly. To put it as it is phrased in this post’s title: meaning contrasts are not generated by syntax, they are parasitic on it.

Appendix: some other empirical domains that show the same pattern

  • viewpoint aspect: when outside conditions block the appearance of perfective, the imperfective can be interpreted perfectively (courtesy of Sabine Iatridou)
  • the Definiteness Effect:
    • only holds of those DPs that could have moved to canonical subject positions – where, crucially, this could have is modulated by purely morphosyntactic factors – and not of those DPs that couldn’t have (me, building on the work of Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson)
    • conversely, when the definite article is required for DP-internal reasons, no Definiteness Effect arises (courtesy of Sabine Iatridou)
  • when a relative clause allows both a resumptive pronoun and a gap, the two result in different scope (in particular, the resumptive triggers obligatory reconstruction); but when a resumptive is the only grammatically-allowed option, it is compatible with both a reconstructed reading and non-reconstructed one (cf. Sichel 2014)
  • when a quantificational DP (say, every NP) can occupy two different overt positions, above and below another scope-bearing element, each position tends to be associated with a distinct scopal reading – as is the case, for example, with scrambling in German or Japanese – but when it cannot (as in English), the single available structure2We’re used to thinking of this one as a difference “only at PF,” i.e., that the English ambiguity involves Quantifier Raising. I have to say, looking at it against the backdrop of these other patterns, I’m now starting to wonder to what extent that is a necessary assumption: it seems to fit quite nicely into the rest of this picture even without assuming QR. can have multiple readings (cf. Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2012)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Johannes
Johannes
7 months ago

Naive question: I buy what you say in your post. I just wonder what that means for semantic theory. If we take a (again) very naive conception of semantics “define for every single atomic element (whatever that is) what its meaning is, any other complex meaning simply follows via composition rules and can be read off syntax. Any other meaning contribution that arises is pragmatics.” Wouldn’t a very strange semantics follow from this? E.g. a… Read more »

Thomas Graf
Thomas Graf
Reply to  Omer
7 months ago

This is pretty nifty and actually fits well with the computational view of semantic interpretation. There you don’t just take the semantic structure, replace lexical items by some lambda term, and then compute the meaning bottom-up. Instead, you have a transduction that rewrites the syntactic tree into an LF-tree (or graph), and that allows you do to do a lot more (idioms, for instance, are trivial because you map an entire subtree to a single… Read more »

Thomas Graf
Thomas Graf
7 months ago

Different question: how far would you be willing to push that syntax/interpretation dissociation? It sounds like you’d be happy to throw out QR, I wonder if you’re ready to go full Keenan and argue that pronominal reference is tied to c-command in English but to case in Korean (and crucially, there aren’t distinct case positions that phrases move to covertly and hence end up with different c-command relations).

Gillian Ramchand
7 months ago

I think we don’t have the same understanding of the scope of the word `semantics’ here. Sure, the effects you mention are real and have been known for a long time. Adger talked about the relationship between optionality and specificity entailments way back in his PhD dissertation, and Danny Fox made explicit proposals about these effects in his monograph on the topic. I am not sure we all think about LF in the same way… Read more »

Gillian Ramchand
Reply to  Omer
7 months ago

I don’t really care if the phenomena you cite really are cases of parasitic semantics as you put it, but my position is that the phenomena in Claim 3 are CORE, not CORNERS in terms of providing the backbone of the composition for the proposition. These facts are disproportionately not attended to by formal semanticists, making them seem like minority reports. However, the word semantics must surely include them. And therefore all semantics cannot be… Read more »

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
6 months ago

Just a note here, for future generations, that the description of the Definiteness Effect towards the end of the post is wrong. As Ethan Poole pointed out in the past for a separate post, you mix up two separate phenomena, one of which (“DE1”) can only have a semantic explanation (and does). The other phenomenon (“DE2”), which shows up in Icelandic, is plausibly purely syntactic. The reason that the two cannot be conflated is that… Read more »

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

re: DE – “This considerable overlap ends up being a coincidence” – true. I’m waiting to see an alternative explanation for the cut. Re: type-shifting (TS) devices – I told you in personal communication that the most restrictive theory of argument-role-reversing TS is that *they aren’t available at all*, so no way to get an active sentence to mean a passive sentence, nor an undergoer argument to mean the causer. What the syntax is, semantics… Read more »

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

z is simply unavailable *in the syntax*. You could define its *meaning using lambda calculus*, like you did, but it is not an available lexical item. I’ve never heard of anyone who posits it. Lambda abstraction, by hypothesis, is available in the syntax – and *freely*. If you want to give up on it, that’s fine, but note two things: (1) its existence or non-existence is irrelevant to overgeneration issues. You can do movement+lambda insertion… Read more »

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

Yes, it is true that there are unsolved problems in semantics. This does not mean throwing away compositional semantics, if no alternative is offered. I sent you something by email. The most obvious beginning of a theory that will explain why z is unavailable: don’t posit meanings if you don’t have overt evidence for them. A child (in an English-speaking community) is never consistently faced with utterances of the form “X bit Y” which are… Read more »

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

In the LF syntax. You deny that, that’s fine.

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

By “lambda abstraction *in the syntax*” we mean inserting a lambda operator in that part of the syntactic derivation that feeds the semantic system but not the articulatory-auditory system.

Itai Bassi
Itai Bassi
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

lambda is a syntactic terminal. I used “operator” because this is how it is called. Operators are syntactic terminals.

The child hasn’t encountered evidence that would force them to assume the presence of z. The child does however encounter evidence that forces lambda – because they have evidence for binding and movement dependencies.

Johannes
Johannes
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

But I take it that maybe your question really is: how do I know what’s an available covert semantic mechanism and what isn’t? What’s a possible item and what are the constraints on possible meanings? Well, those are good and difficult questions, and are also ones that are pursued by semanticists! (though admittedly there’s not much on this that I know about). If you want I can refer you to some work I know. Yes,… Read more »

Amir Anvari
Amir Anvari
6 months ago

Here are some reflection related to the content of this post and the comments. Apologies in advance for the length and the delay. First, your discussion seems to suggest an architecture in which syntactic structures are translated into another kind of representation which encode various aspects of “meaning”: if, as you are claiming, there are cases where two genuinely distinct readings are sometimes expressed by two syntactic structures and sometimes by one, then this is… Read more »

Amir Anvari
Amir Anvari
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

Again: in every semantic theory (of natural language), the meta-language is more expressive than the object language, whatever you take the nature of object language to be (i.e., output of syntax or some other form of representation), period. This is a very strong claim. Doesn’t seem like it takes much to falsify it. Again: this issue (what are the constraints that determine which meanings can be expressed, and why) has been addressed for a long… Read more »

Amir Anvari
Amir Anvari
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

The situation is not so symmetric as you suggest: on the one hand we certain generalisations (“Agents are projected higher than Themes”), on the other hand we have a whole research program which, although it can be instantiated in many different ways, comes with certain commitments (model theory and so on). Evidently, those commitments clash with those generalisations if we make certain assumptions, including that every possible meaning must in principle be expressed by something… Read more »

Amir Anvari
Amir Anvari
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

If you go back to your initial comment, the salesman who comes knocking at your door, you’ll see that you used the terms “syn-sem theory” on the one hand and “syntactic generalizations” on the other. All I did was to replace “theory” in the former with “research program” because the latter is more accurate in my view for current purposes. I did not, and do not, see any substantive difference, minus personal sensitivities which, however… Read more »

Amir Anvari
Amir Anvari
Reply to  Omer
6 months ago

(No problem about the first thing.) My apologies, I managed to confuse myself and the relevant part of my last comment came out the opposite of what I intended. My main point was meant to be that *even* if the pairs are alternatives (in some cases, such as the Sprocket case, this is not clear to me), there is a way of understanding redundancy on which the members of each pair are actually equally complex… Read more »

trackback
4 months ago

[…] questions about grammar since he is on his quest to meaningfully structure (see what I did there?) syntax and semantics. So everyone should go over there and compliment, woo, seduce, serenade and persuade him to write […]

35
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x