WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.485 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:02.485 --> 00:00:04.473 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:04.473 --> 00:00:05.467 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:05.467 --> 00:00:10.940 align:middle line:90% 00:00:10.940 --> 00:00:14.600 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Last time I introduced you 00:00:14.600 --> 00:00:16.910 align:middle line:90% to something strange. 00:00:16.910 --> 00:00:19.040 align:middle line:84% This whole semester maybe has been kind of strange. 00:00:19.040 --> 00:00:22.700 align:middle line:84% But last time I tried to get you to take seriously 00:00:22.700 --> 00:00:26.330 align:middle line:84% the idea that in addition to the kind of movement that we were 00:00:26.330 --> 00:00:29.450 align:middle line:84% talking about at the beginning, the kind where you 00:00:29.450 --> 00:00:33.680 align:middle line:84% took some phrase and caused it to be pronounced 00:00:33.680 --> 00:00:36.560 align:middle line:84% in a place that wasn't the place that it started out, 00:00:36.560 --> 00:00:38.390 align:middle line:84% the way we were doing wh- movement, 00:00:38.390 --> 00:00:40.130 align:middle line:84% and NP movement, those kinds of movements 00:00:40.130 --> 00:00:43.040 align:middle line:84% where you can see why it's called movement. 00:00:43.040 --> 00:00:45.920 align:middle line:84% The result of movement is that the thing is 00:00:45.920 --> 00:00:47.970 align:middle line:90% no longer where it was before. 00:00:47.970 --> 00:00:50.215 align:middle line:84% That's kind of what you expect with movement. 00:00:50.215 --> 00:00:51.590 align:middle line:84% Last time I was trying to get you 00:00:51.590 --> 00:00:55.610 align:middle line:84% to believe that there's another kind of movement which exists 00:00:55.610 --> 00:00:57.740 align:middle line:84% and moves things, but which does not 00:00:57.740 --> 00:01:01.243 align:middle line:84% change the order in which the words are pronounced. 00:01:01.243 --> 00:01:03.410 align:middle line:84% There are several examples of this kind of movement. 00:01:03.410 --> 00:01:05.840 align:middle line:84% But the one I was introducing you to last time 00:01:05.840 --> 00:01:09.350 align:middle line:84% is called QR, which is short for "quantifier raising." 00:01:09.350 --> 00:01:12.590 align:middle line:84% So it was a proposal about how to get ambiguities-- 00:01:12.590 --> 00:01:15.020 align:middle line:84% like the ambiguity in "Everyone in this room 00:01:15.020 --> 00:01:17.840 align:middle line:84% speaks two languages," which we talked about. 00:01:17.840 --> 00:01:22.670 align:middle line:84% This could mean either everyone in the room is bilingual. 00:01:22.670 --> 00:01:25.070 align:middle line:84% Or there are two particular languages 00:01:25.070 --> 00:01:26.960 align:middle line:84% that everyone in this room has in common. 00:01:26.960 --> 00:01:28.580 align:middle line:84% And maybe some of them are bilingual, 00:01:28.580 --> 00:01:31.730 align:middle line:84% but maybe some of you speak three languages, or four, 00:01:31.730 --> 00:01:33.020 align:middle line:90% or five. 00:01:33.020 --> 00:01:36.140 align:middle line:84% So on one reading, it means there are two languages 00:01:36.140 --> 00:01:37.190 align:middle line:90% that everyone speaks. 00:01:37.190 --> 00:01:39.050 align:middle line:84% Maybe we all speak English and French. 00:01:39.050 --> 00:01:41.660 align:middle line:84% And some of us all speak other languages. 00:01:41.660 --> 00:01:44.120 align:middle line:84% In the other reading it means, for everyone in this room, 00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:45.380 align:middle line:90% the following is true. 00:01:45.380 --> 00:01:46.550 align:middle line:90% They speak two languages. 00:01:46.550 --> 00:01:48.480 align:middle line:84% Maybe we have no languages in common. 00:01:48.480 --> 00:01:50.960 align:middle line:84% So one of us speaks Swahili and German. 00:01:50.960 --> 00:01:57.150 align:middle line:84% And the other one speaks Burmese and Quechua, and so on. 00:01:57.150 --> 00:02:00.590 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so we all agreed that it had those two readings. 00:02:00.590 --> 00:02:04.080 align:middle line:84% And what I said was, there is a proposal, in fact, 00:02:04.080 --> 00:02:06.830 align:middle line:84% it's the default assumption in the literature, 00:02:06.830 --> 00:02:09.889 align:middle line:84% about how to deal with this kind of ambiguity, is to say, 00:02:09.889 --> 00:02:12.350 align:middle line:84% there is an optional operation that 00:02:12.350 --> 00:02:14.420 align:middle line:84% takes one of those quantifiers and moves it 00:02:14.420 --> 00:02:15.650 align:middle line:90% past the other one. 00:02:15.650 --> 00:02:19.940 align:middle line:84% And the order in which you interpret the quantifiers 00:02:19.940 --> 00:02:23.390 align:middle line:84% is determined by the position that they're 00:02:23.390 --> 00:02:25.850 align:middle line:90% in after you do that movement. 00:02:25.850 --> 00:02:29.510 align:middle line:84% But in English, this movement is invisible. 00:02:29.510 --> 00:02:32.360 align:middle line:84% So you have the option of moving "two languages" to a position 00:02:32.360 --> 00:02:33.900 align:middle line:90% above "everyone in this room." 00:02:33.900 --> 00:02:36.480 align:middle line:84% And if you do that, you only get the reading, 00:02:36.480 --> 00:02:39.350 align:middle line:84% there are two languages that everyone in this room speaks. 00:02:39.350 --> 00:02:41.702 align:middle line:84% And if you don't, then you only get the reading, 00:02:41.702 --> 00:02:43.160 align:middle line:84% it's true for everyone in this room 00:02:43.160 --> 00:02:45.270 align:middle line:90% that they speak two languages. 00:02:45.270 --> 00:02:48.560 align:middle line:84% So that string of words is ambiguous. 00:02:48.560 --> 00:02:53.570 align:middle line:84% But that ambiguity is, in the end, a structural ambiguity, 00:02:53.570 --> 00:02:58.580 align:middle line:84% just like the ambiguity for "I shot an elephant 00:02:58.580 --> 00:03:02.180 align:middle line:84% in my pajamas," So in "I shot an elephant in my pajamas," 00:03:02.180 --> 00:03:04.580 align:middle line:84% we ended up deciding that's a structural ambiguity. 00:03:04.580 --> 00:03:06.950 align:middle line:84% That is, that string of words has two different trees 00:03:06.950 --> 00:03:08.330 align:middle line:90% that it can be associated with. 00:03:08.330 --> 00:03:10.538 align:middle line:84% Then the two different trees have different meanings. 00:03:10.538 --> 00:03:13.163 align:middle line:84% And that's-- and we saw lots of evidence for that. 00:03:13.163 --> 00:03:15.080 align:middle line:84% The claim that's underlying quantifier raising 00:03:15.080 --> 00:03:17.120 align:middle line:84% is that this is also a structural ambiguity. 00:03:17.120 --> 00:03:18.800 align:middle line:84% That string of words has two trees 00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:20.520 align:middle line:90% that are associated with it. 00:03:20.520 --> 00:03:23.630 align:middle line:84% And the weird thing about QR is that one of the trees 00:03:23.630 --> 00:03:25.970 align:middle line:84% involves a movement operation that you can't see, 00:03:25.970 --> 00:03:26.960 align:middle line:90% that the claim is. 00:03:26.960 --> 00:03:29.180 align:middle line:84% One of the interpretations is related to a tree 00:03:29.180 --> 00:03:31.220 align:middle line:84% that, if you pronounced the movement, 00:03:31.220 --> 00:03:34.610 align:middle line:84% would be "Two languages, everyone in this room speaks." 00:03:34.610 --> 00:03:38.780 align:middle line:84% And the claim was English, well, does its QR in a way 00:03:38.780 --> 00:03:39.800 align:middle line:90% that you can't see. 00:03:39.800 --> 00:03:42.167 align:middle line:84% I showed you Hungarian apparently does its QR 00:03:42.167 --> 00:03:43.250 align:middle line:90% in a way that you can see. 00:03:43.250 --> 00:03:46.520 align:middle line:84% You get to see these quantifiers moving back and forth. 00:03:46.520 --> 00:03:48.050 align:middle line:90% And that's where we were. 00:03:48.050 --> 00:03:52.555 align:middle line:84% I'm sort of repeating that partly to make sure that nobody 00:03:52.555 --> 00:03:54.680 align:middle line:84% is thinking that there was something that they were 00:03:54.680 --> 00:03:56.660 align:middle line:84% supposed to understand that they didn't. 00:03:56.660 --> 00:04:01.160 align:middle line:84% This is supposed to seem creepy at this stage. 00:04:01.160 --> 00:04:03.770 align:middle line:84% Here I am saying that things are moving in an invisible way. 00:04:03.770 --> 00:04:06.187 align:middle line:84% You're not supposed to come out of that thinking, oh yeah, 00:04:06.187 --> 00:04:07.348 align:middle line:90% sure. 00:04:07.348 --> 00:04:08.640 align:middle line:90% Are there questions about that? 00:04:08.640 --> 00:04:10.598 align:middle line:84% Are you all in the appropriate emotional state? 00:04:10.598 --> 00:04:15.950 align:middle line:90% 00:04:15.950 --> 00:04:18.390 align:middle line:84% Yes, I just said all that, thank you. 00:04:18.390 --> 00:04:21.890 align:middle line:84% So this is our first case of covert movement. 00:04:21.890 --> 00:04:23.662 align:middle line:84% And because it's late April, it's 00:04:23.662 --> 00:04:25.370 align:middle line:84% probably the only kind of covert movement 00:04:25.370 --> 00:04:26.995 align:middle line:84% that we'll have a chance to talk about. 00:04:26.995 --> 00:04:30.185 align:middle line:84% There are other kinds, but this is one of the big ones. 00:04:30.185 --> 00:04:32.810 align:middle line:84% So I gave you some reasons last time to take seriously the idea 00:04:32.810 --> 00:04:33.980 align:middle line:90% that QR exists. 00:04:33.980 --> 00:04:36.490 align:middle line:84% And we even talked a little bit about some of the conditions 00:04:36.490 --> 00:04:36.990 align:middle line:90% on it. 00:04:36.990 --> 00:04:41.990 align:middle line:84% So, for example, we saw that QR cannot get out of a TP. 00:04:41.990 --> 00:04:44.540 align:middle line:84% So it can't get out of the clause that it's in. 00:04:44.540 --> 00:04:46.100 align:middle line:90% We saw some evidence for that. 00:04:46.100 --> 00:04:49.230 align:middle line:84% What I want to do today is show you another condition on it. 00:04:49.230 --> 00:04:52.700 align:middle line:84% This is something that my colleague Danny Fox discovered. 00:04:52.700 --> 00:04:54.710 align:middle line:84% And it's I'm telling you about it because I 00:04:54.710 --> 00:04:56.340 align:middle line:90% think it's really cool. 00:04:56.340 --> 00:05:00.630 align:middle line:84% So here's a condition on QR, which is really interesting. 00:05:00.630 --> 00:05:04.430 align:middle line:84% Here's another case of QR, so "Someone loves everyone." 00:05:04.430 --> 00:05:10.700 align:middle line:84% If you do QR, then this means no one is unloved. 00:05:10.700 --> 00:05:14.510 align:middle line:84% So everyone has this property, someone loves them. 00:05:14.510 --> 00:05:16.700 align:middle line:84% If you don't do QR, then it means 00:05:16.700 --> 00:05:19.460 align:middle line:84% there is a particular person, my grandma 00:05:19.460 --> 00:05:22.532 align:middle line:90% maybe, who loves everyone. 00:05:22.532 --> 00:05:23.990 align:middle line:84% So there are these two quantifiers. 00:05:23.990 --> 00:05:27.212 align:middle line:84% And by doing QR, you change the relationship between them 00:05:27.212 --> 00:05:29.295 align:middle line:84% in a way that changes the meaning of the sentence. 00:05:29.295 --> 00:05:33.480 align:middle line:90% 00:05:33.480 --> 00:05:35.550 align:middle line:84% Looking at this, you might wonder, 00:05:35.550 --> 00:05:37.410 align:middle line:90% is QR just always optional? 00:05:37.410 --> 00:05:42.520 align:middle line:84% So suppose I am looking at "John loves everyone." 00:05:42.520 --> 00:05:44.970 align:middle line:84% Well, here there's only one quantifier. 00:05:44.970 --> 00:05:48.672 align:middle line:84% So you might have thought that the simplest 00:05:48.672 --> 00:05:50.130 align:middle line:84% theory, the easiest theory would be 00:05:50.130 --> 00:05:52.200 align:middle line:84% one that said, whenever you have a quantifier, 00:05:52.200 --> 00:05:55.510 align:middle line:84% you can optionally do QR to it or not. 00:05:55.510 --> 00:05:57.395 align:middle line:84% And if you do QR to it, then if it 00:05:57.395 --> 00:05:59.520 align:middle line:84% goes past another quantifier, then congratulations. 00:05:59.520 --> 00:06:00.690 align:middle line:90% You've changed the meaning. 00:06:00.690 --> 00:06:06.210 align:middle line:84% And if not, well, I hope you enjoyed doing QR, 00:06:06.210 --> 00:06:07.890 align:middle line:90% but it didn't do anything. 00:06:07.890 --> 00:06:09.390 align:middle line:84% You could imagine that it would work 00:06:09.390 --> 00:06:11.550 align:middle line:84% like that, that QR would just be something that you 00:06:11.550 --> 00:06:12.810 align:middle line:90% could always optionally do. 00:06:12.810 --> 00:06:16.508 align:middle line:90% 00:06:16.508 --> 00:06:18.050 align:middle line:84% My colleague Denny Fox has discovered 00:06:18.050 --> 00:06:19.890 align:middle line:90% that this is not how it works. 00:06:19.890 --> 00:06:22.730 align:middle line:84% So this is a case where QR wouldn't do anything. 00:06:22.730 --> 00:06:25.310 align:middle line:84% And what Fox discovered is that when 00:06:25.310 --> 00:06:28.948 align:middle line:84% QR wouldn't do anything to the meaning, it's not possible. 00:06:28.948 --> 00:06:31.490 align:middle line:84% It's going to take a while to show you the evidence for that. 00:06:31.490 --> 00:06:35.210 align:middle line:84% We're going to have to develop another detector for QR. 00:06:35.210 --> 00:06:37.007 align:middle line:84% But we'll do that, and then we'll 00:06:37.007 --> 00:06:39.090 align:middle line:84% be in a position to demonstrate that this is true. 00:06:39.090 --> 00:06:39.882 align:middle line:90% So let me show you. 00:06:39.882 --> 00:06:42.250 align:middle line:90% 00:06:42.250 --> 00:06:44.710 align:middle line:84% The detector is going to involve a phenomenon called 00:06:44.710 --> 00:06:47.290 align:middle line:84% VP ellipsis, which I think we've touched on every so often, 00:06:47.290 --> 00:06:51.160 align:middle line:90% but let's touch on it again. 00:06:51.160 --> 00:06:55.420 align:middle line:84% So sentence like "John bought a book and Mary did too," 00:06:55.420 --> 00:06:57.910 align:middle line:84% ellipsis refers to this kind of thing 00:06:57.910 --> 00:07:01.992 align:middle line:84% you can sometimes do where you leave out part of the sentence. 00:07:01.992 --> 00:07:04.450 align:middle line:84% You just don't pronounce part of the sentence in this case. 00:07:04.450 --> 00:07:07.420 align:middle line:84% This is called VP ellipsis because there where I've got 00:07:07.420 --> 00:07:10.570 align:middle line:84% that underscore, there would have been a VP, 00:07:10.570 --> 00:07:12.880 align:middle line:90% but there isn't. 00:07:12.880 --> 00:07:16.660 align:middle line:84% Sentences like this, the missing verb phrase 00:07:16.660 --> 00:07:21.340 align:middle line:84% gets interpreted as being the same as some other verb 00:07:21.340 --> 00:07:24.580 align:middle line:90% phrase that's salient. 00:07:24.580 --> 00:07:27.160 align:middle line:84% Often it's a verb phrase that someone has said. 00:07:27.160 --> 00:07:29.620 align:middle line:84% So "John bought a book and Mary did too," 00:07:29.620 --> 00:07:32.530 align:middle line:84% this has to mean something like John bought a book, 00:07:32.530 --> 00:07:35.410 align:middle line:90% and Mary bought a book too. 00:07:35.410 --> 00:07:37.210 align:middle line:84% So the missing verb phrase is understood 00:07:37.210 --> 00:07:40.780 align:middle line:84% as being the same as the other verb phrase that you can see. 00:07:40.780 --> 00:07:44.380 align:middle line:90% Yeah, is this clear enough? 00:07:44.380 --> 00:07:48.370 align:middle line:84% Lots of interesting work on what exactly counts as the same. 00:07:48.370 --> 00:07:49.960 align:middle line:90% So there are some clear cases. 00:07:49.960 --> 00:07:52.960 align:middle line:84% If I say "John bought a book and Mary did too," Mary-- 00:07:52.960 --> 00:07:54.530 align:middle line:90% what Mary did was buy a book. 00:07:54.530 --> 00:07:56.260 align:middle line:84% You don't just get to randomly put 00:07:56.260 --> 00:07:58.720 align:middle line:84% in a verb phrase, your favorite verb phrase. 00:07:58.720 --> 00:08:01.922 align:middle line:90% It doesn't work that way. 00:08:01.922 --> 00:08:03.880 align:middle line:84% There are places where there's more wiggle room 00:08:03.880 --> 00:08:05.150 align:middle line:90% and what counts is the same. 00:08:05.150 --> 00:08:11.650 align:middle line:84% So if I say "John dislikes his father and Bill does too," 00:08:11.650 --> 00:08:15.230 align:middle line:84% that can mean a couple of different things. 00:08:15.230 --> 00:08:18.490 align:middle line:90% What's one thing it can mean? 00:08:18.490 --> 00:08:18.990 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:08:18.990 --> 00:08:22.130 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: John and Bill know each other somehow. 00:08:22.130 --> 00:08:23.630 align:middle line:90% And John dislikes his father. 00:08:23.630 --> 00:08:25.490 align:middle line:84% And Bill hangs out at John's house too much 00:08:25.490 --> 00:08:27.110 align:middle line:90% and also dislikes John's father. 00:08:27.110 --> 00:08:29.360 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, so John dislikes John's father, 00:08:29.360 --> 00:08:31.040 align:middle line:84% and Bill also dislikes John's father. 00:08:31.040 --> 00:08:32.929 align:middle line:84% It is, indeed, one thing it can mean. 00:08:32.929 --> 00:08:35.700 align:middle line:84% What's another thing it can mean? 00:08:35.700 --> 00:08:37.470 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Bill dislikes his own father. 00:08:37.470 --> 00:08:39.000 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, John dislikes his own father. 00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:40.260 align:middle line:84% And Bill dislikes his own father. 00:08:40.260 --> 00:08:41.635 align:middle line:84% That's another thing it can mean. 00:08:41.635 --> 00:08:44.280 align:middle line:84% So the same, what counts is the same 00:08:44.280 --> 00:08:46.050 align:middle line:84% is an interesting question-- yeah. 00:08:46.050 --> 00:08:49.220 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Could it also, depending on context, 00:08:49.220 --> 00:08:51.958 align:middle line:84% be that they both dislike a third person's father? 00:08:51.958 --> 00:08:54.250 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I think it probably could, yeah, yeah, 00:08:54.250 --> 00:08:55.540 align:middle line:90% great. 00:08:55.540 --> 00:09:02.080 align:middle line:84% So Fred has a father that everyone dislikes. 00:09:02.080 --> 00:09:06.560 align:middle line:84% John dislikes his father and Bill does too-- 00:09:06.560 --> 00:09:07.210 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:09:07.210 --> 00:09:10.470 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The first two [INAUDIBLE] brothers. 00:09:10.470 --> 00:09:12.220 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: That's true, that's true. 00:09:12.220 --> 00:09:13.840 align:middle line:84% But if they're not, then they're not. 00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:16.240 align:middle line:84% Yes, no, you're absolutely right. 00:09:16.240 --> 00:09:19.450 align:middle line:84% Yeah, yeah, so when I say there's interesting 00:09:19.450 --> 00:09:22.550 align:middle line:84% stuff to talk about when we say that they have to be the same. 00:09:22.550 --> 00:09:26.590 align:middle line:84% So if John dislikes John's father and Bill dislikes Bill's 00:09:26.590 --> 00:09:28.790 align:middle line:84% father, are they doing the same thing? 00:09:28.790 --> 00:09:29.770 align:middle line:90% Maybe, kind of. 00:09:29.770 --> 00:09:34.270 align:middle line:84% They're both engaged in dislike of one's own father. 00:09:34.270 --> 00:09:36.032 align:middle line:84% Maybe that's what makes it close enough. 00:09:36.032 --> 00:09:37.990 align:middle line:84% And so there's a big literature on figuring out 00:09:37.990 --> 00:09:42.220 align:middle line:84% how to define the same in the relevant sense, which we won't 00:09:42.220 --> 00:09:43.458 align:middle line:90% have to worry about too much. 00:09:43.458 --> 00:09:46.000 align:middle line:84% But it's worth bearing in mind that there's this requirement. 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:48.550 align:middle line:84% In fact, this requirement is crucial for the argument I'm 00:09:48.550 --> 00:09:49.800 align:middle line:90% going to give you in a second. 00:09:49.800 --> 00:09:52.020 align:middle line:90% 00:09:52.020 --> 00:09:54.865 align:middle line:90% So back to the guards. 00:09:54.865 --> 00:09:56.490 align:middle line:84% Remember this one, "A guard is standing 00:09:56.490 --> 00:09:57.657 align:middle line:90% in front of every building"? 00:09:57.657 --> 00:10:01.830 align:middle line:84% We said this has two readings, a normal reading where 00:10:01.830 --> 00:10:03.540 align:middle line:90% every building is guarded. 00:10:03.540 --> 00:10:06.660 align:middle line:84% And then you guys were very creative with coming up 00:10:06.660 --> 00:10:08.880 align:middle line:84% with other creative versions of this 00:10:08.880 --> 00:10:10.950 align:middle line:84% where a single guard is somehow guarding 00:10:10.950 --> 00:10:12.810 align:middle line:90% all the buildings at once. 00:10:12.810 --> 00:10:15.870 align:middle line:84% Maybe there's one very wide guard. 00:10:15.870 --> 00:10:18.597 align:middle line:84% Maybe-- somebody was saying, yeah, maybe the buildings 00:10:18.597 --> 00:10:19.680 align:middle line:90% are all facing each other. 00:10:19.680 --> 00:10:23.700 align:middle line:84% And one guard is standing in the geometric center between all 00:10:23.700 --> 00:10:24.780 align:middle line:90% the buildings, yeah. 00:10:24.780 --> 00:10:27.708 align:middle line:84% Whatever, anyway, either there are as many guards 00:10:27.708 --> 00:10:29.250 align:middle line:84% as there are buildings, which is kind 00:10:29.250 --> 00:10:31.830 align:middle line:84% of the normal reading for this sentence, 00:10:31.830 --> 00:10:33.750 align:middle line:84% or there's one guard who is standing 00:10:33.750 --> 00:10:35.950 align:middle line:84% in front of every building, the kind of guard who, 00:10:35.950 --> 00:10:39.640 align:middle line:84% when he stands around the house, he stands around the house. 00:10:39.640 --> 00:10:40.890 align:middle line:90% So these are the two readings. 00:10:40.890 --> 00:10:44.160 align:middle line:90% 00:10:44.160 --> 00:10:46.590 align:middle line:84% Now, let's think about a sentence 00:10:46.590 --> 00:10:48.480 align:middle line:84% like, "An American guard is standing 00:10:48.480 --> 00:10:51.840 align:middle line:84% in front of every building, and a Canadian guard is too." 00:10:51.840 --> 00:10:55.230 align:middle line:90% 00:10:55.230 --> 00:10:59.340 align:middle line:84% So the first half of that can presumably mean two things. 00:10:59.340 --> 00:11:01.800 align:middle line:90% Yeah, me neither. 00:11:01.800 --> 00:11:04.320 align:middle line:84% There's one American guard for each building, 00:11:04.320 --> 00:11:07.470 align:middle line:84% or there's one very wide American guard. 00:11:07.470 --> 00:11:08.970 align:middle line:84% And the second half of that sentence 00:11:08.970 --> 00:11:11.790 align:middle line:84% can presumably also mean two things 00:11:11.790 --> 00:11:13.900 align:middle line:90% once you put in the ellipsis. 00:11:13.900 --> 00:11:16.450 align:middle line:84% So can the whole thing mean four things? 00:11:16.450 --> 00:11:19.330 align:middle line:90% 00:11:19.330 --> 00:11:21.860 align:middle line:90% I don't think so. 00:11:21.860 --> 00:11:23.820 align:middle line:90% In fact, it's not just me. 00:11:23.820 --> 00:11:26.250 align:middle line:84% People who know much more about semantics than I do 00:11:26.250 --> 00:11:27.180 align:middle line:90% don't think so either. 00:11:27.180 --> 00:11:30.120 align:middle line:84% So the four imaginable readings, the easy ones are, 00:11:30.120 --> 00:11:33.420 align:middle line:84% each building has two guards, one American and one Canadian, 00:11:33.420 --> 00:11:36.240 align:middle line:84% or there are two very fat guards, 00:11:36.240 --> 00:11:39.440 align:middle line:90% one American and one Canadian. 00:11:39.440 --> 00:11:43.790 align:middle line:84% The other logical possibilities where each building has 00:11:43.790 --> 00:11:46.040 align:middle line:84% one normal American guard and there 00:11:46.040 --> 00:11:50.850 align:middle line:84% is one gigantic Canadian guard, or the other way around, 00:11:50.850 --> 00:11:53.295 align:middle line:84% I don't think it can mean those things. 00:11:53.295 --> 00:11:54.920 align:middle line:84% And some of you were shaking your heads 00:11:54.920 --> 00:11:57.140 align:middle line:84% in ways that suggested that you agree with me. 00:11:57.140 --> 00:11:59.660 align:middle line:84% Is there anybody for whom the things I've crossed out they 00:11:59.660 --> 00:12:01.202 align:middle line:84% were like, yes, that's what it means. 00:12:01.202 --> 00:12:03.890 align:middle line:84% What is wrong with all of you people? 00:12:03.890 --> 00:12:11.780 align:middle line:84% So this looks like a place where the condition that's-- one way 00:12:11.780 --> 00:12:15.830 align:middle line:84% of interpreting this is to say, the condition that says when 00:12:15.830 --> 00:12:19.640 align:middle line:84% you do VP ellipses, the elided VP has to be the same 00:12:19.640 --> 00:12:24.110 align:middle line:84% as another VP is kind of constraining what we can do 00:12:24.110 --> 00:12:26.570 align:middle line:90% in a particular way. 00:12:26.570 --> 00:12:28.640 align:middle line:84% So, again, the ambiguity in the first half 00:12:28.640 --> 00:12:31.490 align:middle line:84% of this sentence we decided had to do with whether you do QR 00:12:31.490 --> 00:12:32.510 align:middle line:90% or not. 00:12:32.510 --> 00:12:35.120 align:middle line:84% You can do QR of "every building" to a position 00:12:35.120 --> 00:12:36.530 align:middle line:90% above "an American guard." 00:12:36.530 --> 00:12:38.420 align:middle line:84% And then you get the normal reading, 00:12:38.420 --> 00:12:41.550 align:middle line:84% every building has an American guard in front of it. 00:12:41.550 --> 00:12:43.980 align:middle line:84% Or you cannot do that, in which case there has to be one 00:12:43.980 --> 00:12:46.650 align:middle line:84% American guard who's standing in front of every building. 00:12:46.650 --> 00:12:48.690 align:middle line:90% And what we're learning is-- 00:12:48.690 --> 00:12:50.820 align:middle line:84% from crossing out the two readings that I've just 00:12:50.820 --> 00:12:52.487 align:middle line:84% crossed out, what we seem to be learning 00:12:52.487 --> 00:12:55.350 align:middle line:84% is if you do QR in the first half of this sentence, 00:12:55.350 --> 00:12:57.432 align:middle line:84% you have to also do it in the second half. 00:12:57.432 --> 00:12:59.140 align:middle line:84% And if you don't do it in the first half, 00:12:59.140 --> 00:13:01.260 align:middle line:84% you have to not do it in the second half. 00:13:01.260 --> 00:13:02.490 align:middle line:90% Does that make sense? 00:13:02.490 --> 00:13:04.980 align:middle line:84% That is, you either get the reading where 00:13:04.980 --> 00:13:08.040 align:middle line:84% you did QR in both, each building has two guards, 00:13:08.040 --> 00:13:10.080 align:middle line:84% or the reading where you did QR neither. 00:13:10.080 --> 00:13:11.640 align:middle line:90% There are two gigantic guards. 00:13:11.640 --> 00:13:14.100 align:middle line:84% You don't get the mixed readings. 00:13:14.100 --> 00:13:16.530 align:middle line:84% And we can think of this as another instance 00:13:16.530 --> 00:13:20.370 align:middle line:84% of this requirement that if you're going to do VP ellipsis, 00:13:20.370 --> 00:13:25.440 align:middle line:84% you're elided VP has to be the same as your other VP. 00:13:25.440 --> 00:13:30.000 align:middle line:84% So if you do QR in one, you have to do QR on the other-- yeah. 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:36.890 align:middle line:84% OK, well this is kind of handy because what it means is-- 00:13:36.890 --> 00:13:40.220 align:middle line:84% so if parallelism extends to QR, if you do QR in one conjunct, 00:13:40.220 --> 00:13:41.720 align:middle line:90% you have to do it in both. 00:13:41.720 --> 00:13:45.883 align:middle line:84% What it means is, we now have another way of detecting QR. 00:13:45.883 --> 00:13:48.050 align:middle line:84% That is, we have a way of finding out whether you're 00:13:48.050 --> 00:13:50.483 align:middle line:90% doing QR in one clause. 00:13:50.483 --> 00:13:52.400 align:middle line:84% And that goes beyond just sitting and thinking 00:13:52.400 --> 00:13:54.770 align:middle line:90% about what the sentence means. 00:13:54.770 --> 00:13:58.460 align:middle line:84% So if we set up this kind of context 00:13:58.460 --> 00:14:00.620 align:middle line:84% where we've got VP ellipses, we happen 00:14:00.620 --> 00:14:04.170 align:middle line:84% to know that you can only do QR in clause number one 00:14:04.170 --> 00:14:06.080 align:middle line:84% if you do it in clause number two. 00:14:06.080 --> 00:14:08.750 align:middle line:84% And that means that if we have a way of determining whether QR 00:14:08.750 --> 00:14:10.220 align:middle line:84% is happening in clause number one, 00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:13.460 align:middle line:84% we'll know whether it's happening in clause number two, 00:14:13.460 --> 00:14:14.900 align:middle line:90% regardless of meaning. 00:14:14.900 --> 00:14:16.925 align:middle line:90% Does that make sense? 00:14:16.925 --> 00:14:18.800 align:middle line:84% This will be handy for answering the question 00:14:18.800 --> 00:14:19.820 align:middle line:90% that I posed earlier on. 00:14:19.820 --> 00:14:22.370 align:middle line:84% So consider this sentence, "John is standing 00:14:22.370 --> 00:14:24.970 align:middle line:90% in front of every building." 00:14:24.970 --> 00:14:27.400 align:middle line:84% Well, it's an odd sentence, but it 00:14:27.400 --> 00:14:32.260 align:middle line:84% doesn't matter whether you do QR or not because "John" is not 00:14:32.260 --> 00:14:33.580 align:middle line:90% a quantifier. 00:14:33.580 --> 00:14:36.400 align:middle line:90% He's just some dude. 00:14:36.400 --> 00:14:40.413 align:middle line:84% So QRing "every building" past "John" won't change anything. 00:14:40.413 --> 00:14:41.830 align:middle line:84% This sentence is always just going 00:14:41.830 --> 00:14:44.450 align:middle line:84% to mean every building has this property. 00:14:44.450 --> 00:14:47.185 align:middle line:84% If you look in front of it, there is John. 00:14:47.185 --> 00:14:49.060 align:middle line:84% That's the only thing this sentence can mean, 00:14:49.060 --> 00:14:50.930 align:middle line:84% doesn't matter whether QR happens or not. 00:14:50.930 --> 00:14:52.930 align:middle line:84% And so the question that I posed for you earlier 00:14:52.930 --> 00:14:59.480 align:middle line:84% was, if QR wouldn't change anything, can it still happen? 00:14:59.480 --> 00:15:04.780 align:middle line:84% And is QR-- in a way, our lives might be easiest 00:15:04.780 --> 00:15:06.160 align:middle line:90% if the answer was yes. 00:15:06.160 --> 00:15:08.080 align:middle line:84% We would get to say, QR is something 00:15:08.080 --> 00:15:09.970 align:middle line:90% that just randomly happens. 00:15:09.970 --> 00:15:13.030 align:middle line:84% You just always get to take quantifiers and move them 00:15:13.030 --> 00:15:14.890 align:middle line:84% to higher positions just for fun. 00:15:14.890 --> 00:15:15.830 align:middle line:90% This is what they do. 00:15:15.830 --> 00:15:18.033 align:middle line:90% They move. 00:15:18.033 --> 00:15:20.200 align:middle line:84% We're about to see, I think, I already spoiled this, 00:15:20.200 --> 00:15:21.408 align:middle line:90% that that's not how it works. 00:15:21.408 --> 00:15:23.800 align:middle line:84% Actually, you can only do QR if you have two quantifiers. 00:15:23.800 --> 00:15:26.690 align:middle line:84% And you want to get one of them to be higher than the other, 00:15:26.690 --> 00:15:29.140 align:middle line:84% and if QR is going to affect the meaning. 00:15:29.140 --> 00:15:31.370 align:middle line:84% And I'm about to show you the evidence for that-- 00:15:31.370 --> 00:15:32.110 align:middle line:90% yeah, Joseph. 00:15:32.110 --> 00:15:34.340 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: What would be the set operation here, 00:15:34.340 --> 00:15:37.240 align:middle line:84% the building that John is standing in front of? 00:15:37.240 --> 00:15:39.910 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: So, yeah right, so what are the sets? 00:15:39.910 --> 00:15:43.060 align:middle line:84% So "every" is relating the set of buildings, 00:15:43.060 --> 00:15:46.780 align:middle line:84% so the set of things that John is standing in front of. 00:15:46.780 --> 00:15:53.470 align:middle line:84% And it's saying every member of the set of buildings 00:15:53.470 --> 00:15:55.930 align:middle line:84% is a member of the set of things that John 00:15:55.930 --> 00:15:57.910 align:middle line:90% is standing in front of. 00:15:57.910 --> 00:16:01.540 align:middle line:84% So if you look at every building in the set, 00:16:01.540 --> 00:16:03.920 align:middle line:84% you will see John standing in front of it. 00:16:03.920 --> 00:16:04.780 align:middle line:90% That's what it says. 00:16:04.780 --> 00:16:08.260 align:middle line:84% And it doesn't matter whether you do QR or not. 00:16:08.260 --> 00:16:11.440 align:middle line:84% Yep, so a question, can you do QR? 00:16:11.440 --> 00:16:12.340 align:middle line:90% Answer, no. 00:16:12.340 --> 00:16:16.595 align:middle line:84% And here's how we find out: "John 00:16:16.595 --> 00:16:19.095 align:middle line:84% is standing in front of every building, and a guard is too." 00:16:19.095 --> 00:16:21.907 align:middle line:90% 00:16:21.907 --> 00:16:23.740 align:middle line:84% Now we have a way of finding out whether you 00:16:23.740 --> 00:16:26.493 align:middle line:84% can do QR in the first conjunct because in the first half 00:16:26.493 --> 00:16:27.910 align:middle line:84% of this sentence, John is standing 00:16:27.910 --> 00:16:29.865 align:middle line:90% in front of every building. 00:16:29.865 --> 00:16:31.740 align:middle line:84% We can find out whether QR is happening there 00:16:31.740 --> 00:16:35.130 align:middle line:84% because we know that in this kind of sentence 00:16:35.130 --> 00:16:37.440 align:middle line:84% you can only do QR in the first half 00:16:37.440 --> 00:16:40.170 align:middle line:84% if you do QR in the second half and vise versa. 00:16:40.170 --> 00:16:42.930 align:middle line:84% And although it doesn't matter whether you do QR or not 00:16:42.930 --> 00:16:46.290 align:middle line:84% in the first half, it does matter in the second half. 00:16:46.290 --> 00:16:48.000 align:middle line:84% In the second half, a guard is standing 00:16:48.000 --> 00:16:49.125 align:middle line:90% in front of every building. 00:16:49.125 --> 00:16:50.640 align:middle line:90% That's our core QR sentence. 00:16:50.640 --> 00:16:52.650 align:middle line:84% We know that whether you do QR or not changes 00:16:52.650 --> 00:16:55.750 align:middle line:90% the meaning of the sentence. 00:16:55.750 --> 00:17:00.070 align:middle line:84% If it were possible to do QR in the first clause, 00:17:00.070 --> 00:17:05.160 align:middle line:84% then the second clause would be able to have a reading with QR. 00:17:05.160 --> 00:17:06.910 align:middle line:84% It would be possible for the second clause 00:17:06.910 --> 00:17:10.046 align:middle line:84% to mean every building has a guard in front of it, 00:17:10.046 --> 00:17:11.004 align:middle line:90% maybe different guards. 00:17:11.004 --> 00:17:14.690 align:middle line:90% 00:17:14.690 --> 00:17:16.055 align:middle line:90% Is that a reading it can have? 00:17:16.055 --> 00:17:22.230 align:middle line:90% 00:17:22.230 --> 00:17:24.140 align:middle line:90% So I think if I say-- 00:17:24.140 --> 00:17:26.690 align:middle line:84% you're shaking your heads appropriately, I think-- 00:17:26.690 --> 00:17:28.970 align:middle line:84% if I say "John is standing in front of every building 00:17:28.970 --> 00:17:32.990 align:middle line:84% and a guard is too," that can only 00:17:32.990 --> 00:17:37.080 align:middle line:84% mean that John and the guard are both very large, 00:17:37.080 --> 00:17:40.020 align:middle line:84% or both standing in the geometric center 00:17:40.020 --> 00:17:43.110 align:middle line:84% between the buildings that are around [INAUDIBLE].. 00:17:43.110 --> 00:17:44.380 align:middle line:90% It means one of those things. 00:17:44.380 --> 00:17:48.090 align:middle line:84% It doesn't mean, for example, there's one gigantic guard-- 00:17:48.090 --> 00:17:50.850 align:middle line:84% sorry, doesn't mean there's John, who is gigantic, 00:17:50.850 --> 00:17:53.520 align:middle line:90% and every building has a guard-- 00:17:53.520 --> 00:17:57.000 align:middle line:90% thank goodness because John-- 00:17:57.000 --> 00:17:59.790 align:middle line:84% somebody should keep an eye on John, clearly. 00:17:59.790 --> 00:18:04.170 align:middle line:84% It can't mean that, which is kind of striking because that's 00:18:04.170 --> 00:18:05.925 align:middle line:84% the normal meaning for a guard to standing 00:18:05.925 --> 00:18:07.050 align:middle line:90% in front of every building. 00:18:07.050 --> 00:18:08.850 align:middle line:84% I mean, we're only entertaining the reading 00:18:08.850 --> 00:18:12.450 align:middle line:84% with the gigantic guard because, well, we're 00:18:12.450 --> 00:18:14.010 align:middle line:90% doing intro to linguistics. 00:18:14.010 --> 00:18:17.130 align:middle line:84% And this requires us to think about peculiar things. 00:18:17.130 --> 00:18:19.342 align:middle line:84% But that meaning goes away in this sentence. 00:18:19.342 --> 00:18:20.550 align:middle line:90% The normal meaning goes away. 00:18:20.550 --> 00:18:22.848 align:middle line:90% This sentence is odd-- 00:18:22.848 --> 00:18:24.390 align:middle line:84% odd not just in the first conjunct, 00:18:24.390 --> 00:18:26.010 align:middle line:90% but in the second conjunct. 00:18:26.010 --> 00:18:29.615 align:middle line:84% And this requirement of parallelism, 00:18:29.615 --> 00:18:30.990 align:middle line:84% this requirement that when you do 00:18:30.990 --> 00:18:36.120 align:middle line:84% VP ellipsis you can only do QR in one half of this clause 00:18:36.120 --> 00:18:40.350 align:middle line:84% if you are doing it also in the second half, 00:18:40.350 --> 00:18:42.060 align:middle line:84% this is, as I said before, giving us 00:18:42.060 --> 00:18:43.980 align:middle line:90% a new detector for QR. 00:18:43.980 --> 00:18:48.420 align:middle line:84% So we now-- in order to know whether we can do QR in "John 00:18:48.420 --> 00:18:51.330 align:middle line:84% is standing in front of every building," we don't have to-- 00:18:51.330 --> 00:18:54.810 align:middle line:84% we already know that it doesn't do any good to sit and stare 00:18:54.810 --> 00:18:57.300 align:middle line:84% at that sentence and try to think about what it would mean 00:18:57.300 --> 00:18:59.190 align:middle line:90% if you did QR or if you didn't. 00:18:59.190 --> 00:19:01.080 align:middle line:90% It doesn't change the meaning. 00:19:01.080 --> 00:19:03.330 align:middle line:84% But now we have a new detector for QR 00:19:03.330 --> 00:19:05.400 align:middle line:90% besides staring at meanings. 00:19:05.400 --> 00:19:07.320 align:middle line:84% We get to look at these parallelism examples. 00:19:07.320 --> 00:19:10.950 align:middle line:84% And what these teach us is, yeah, you can, in fact, do QR. 00:19:10.950 --> 00:19:13.440 align:middle line:84% And John is standing in front of every building. 00:19:13.440 --> 00:19:17.760 align:middle line:84% So cool fact, QR only happens if it changes the meaning, 00:19:17.760 --> 00:19:19.260 align:middle line:84% only happens if it's going to invert 00:19:19.260 --> 00:19:20.970 align:middle line:90% the scope of two quantifiers. 00:19:20.970 --> 00:19:24.030 align:middle line:90% 00:19:24.030 --> 00:19:32.380 align:middle line:84% OK, that's it for that bit about QR. 00:19:32.380 --> 00:19:34.180 align:middle line:84% New bit about QR, and then we're just about 00:19:34.180 --> 00:19:38.020 align:middle line:84% done with QR I think, which is also about VP ellipsis. 00:19:38.020 --> 00:19:42.070 align:middle line:84% I want to show you one other bit of an argument 00:19:42.070 --> 00:19:46.420 align:middle line:84% that QR exists, that it is a thing, that quantifiers 00:19:46.420 --> 00:19:47.260 align:middle line:90% actually are moving. 00:19:47.260 --> 00:19:49.180 align:middle line:84% There's a phrase which is moving, just 00:19:49.180 --> 00:19:51.830 align:middle line:90% in a way that you can't hear. 00:19:51.830 --> 00:19:54.280 align:middle line:84% So there's a movement operation that doesn't 00:19:54.280 --> 00:19:55.900 align:middle line:90% change the order of the words. 00:19:55.900 --> 00:19:59.920 align:middle line:84% I want to show you a new bit of evidence for that. 00:19:59.920 --> 00:20:02.140 align:middle line:84% This bit of evidence also involves VP ellipsis. 00:20:02.140 --> 00:20:04.188 align:middle line:84% So just again, to remind you, VP ellipses, 00:20:04.188 --> 00:20:06.730 align:middle line:84% these are cases like this, the ones we've been talking about, 00:20:06.730 --> 00:20:09.220 align:middle line:84% where you've got a verb phrase that's missing. 00:20:09.220 --> 00:20:10.870 align:middle line:84% And it's interpreted as being the same 00:20:10.870 --> 00:20:12.110 align:middle line:90% as another verb phrase. 00:20:12.110 --> 00:20:14.110 align:middle line:84% So "John bought a book and Mary did too" 00:20:14.110 --> 00:20:18.143 align:middle line:84% means John bought a book and Mary bought a book too. 00:20:18.143 --> 00:20:19.810 align:middle line:84% And then there's this identity condition 00:20:19.810 --> 00:20:22.090 align:middle line:84% that says that your elided VP has 00:20:22.090 --> 00:20:24.610 align:middle line:90% to be the same as another VP. 00:20:24.610 --> 00:20:27.610 align:middle line:84% So in this case, it has to be "buy a book." 00:20:27.610 --> 00:20:29.320 align:middle line:84% There's interesting work on this actually 00:20:29.320 --> 00:20:32.560 align:middle line:84% because there are contexts where you 00:20:32.560 --> 00:20:36.280 align:middle line:84% can elide a verb phrase even though no one has 00:20:36.280 --> 00:20:38.690 align:middle line:90% uttered another verb phrase. 00:20:38.690 --> 00:20:43.480 align:middle line:84% So there's-- apparently there were a pair of linguists who 00:20:43.480 --> 00:20:46.150 align:middle line:84% used to demonstrate this at conferences. 00:20:46.150 --> 00:20:48.580 align:middle line:84% They gave a famous talk in which one of them 00:20:48.580 --> 00:20:50.680 align:middle line:84% advanced on the other one with a meat cleaver. 00:20:50.680 --> 00:20:55.270 align:middle line:84% And the other, his coauthor, would say "Don't, don't!" 00:20:55.270 --> 00:20:57.970 align:middle line:90% which involves VP ellipses. 00:20:57.970 --> 00:21:03.610 align:middle line:84% And no one has uttered the VP which he is trying to convey. 00:21:03.610 --> 00:21:06.370 align:middle line:84% It's just clear from context that what he means 00:21:06.370 --> 00:21:08.290 align:middle line:84% is "Don't hit me with a meat cleaver." 00:21:08.290 --> 00:21:11.465 align:middle line:90% 00:21:11.465 --> 00:21:13.090 align:middle line:84% But anyway, in these kinds of sentences 00:21:13.090 --> 00:21:15.100 align:middle line:84% where there is another verb phrase, 00:21:15.100 --> 00:21:16.510 align:middle line:90% the identity condition shows up. 00:21:16.510 --> 00:21:18.218 align:middle line:84% The two verb phrases have to be the same. 00:21:18.218 --> 00:21:20.760 align:middle line:90% 00:21:20.760 --> 00:21:23.260 align:middle line:84% Now, let me introduce you to an interesting kind of example. 00:21:23.260 --> 00:21:25.390 align:middle line:84% This is called antecedent-contained deletion. 00:21:25.390 --> 00:21:28.300 align:middle line:84% So let's think about sentences like "John will visit 00:21:28.300 --> 00:21:29.740 align:middle line:90% every city that Mary did." 00:21:29.740 --> 00:21:31.540 align:middle line:90% So there's VP ellipsis here. 00:21:31.540 --> 00:21:34.450 align:middle line:84% You can see after "did," there's this gap. 00:21:34.450 --> 00:21:38.382 align:middle line:84% What verb phrase are we going to fill in for that? 00:21:38.382 --> 00:21:39.340 align:middle line:90% Let's think about that. 00:21:39.340 --> 00:21:41.030 align:middle line:90% I think I next show you a tree. 00:21:41.030 --> 00:21:41.890 align:middle line:90% So here's a tree. 00:21:41.890 --> 00:21:44.140 align:middle line:84% "John will visit every city that Mary did." 00:21:44.140 --> 00:21:46.640 align:middle line:90% There's a little blank there. 00:21:46.640 --> 00:21:51.220 align:middle line:84% So that blank needs to be the same as a verb phrase. 00:21:51.220 --> 00:21:55.633 align:middle line:84% So we could fill in that verb phrase. 00:21:55.633 --> 00:21:58.050 align:middle line:84% But if we fill in that verb phrase, what we'll end up with 00:21:58.050 --> 00:22:02.510 align:middle line:84% is, "John will visit every city that Mary-- 00:22:02.510 --> 00:22:05.520 align:middle line:90% visited every city that Mary-- 00:22:05.520 --> 00:22:08.520 align:middle line:84% visited every city that Mary--" we 00:22:08.520 --> 00:22:12.000 align:middle line:84% will never stop interpreting this verb phrase. 00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:13.140 align:middle line:90% Do people see that? 00:22:13.140 --> 00:22:15.750 align:middle line:84% That's why it's called antecedent-contained deletion. 00:22:15.750 --> 00:22:17.940 align:middle line:84% There's an elided verb phrase that's 00:22:17.940 --> 00:22:20.580 align:middle line:84% contained in a verb phrase that you 00:22:20.580 --> 00:22:23.160 align:middle line:84% appear to have to copy into the verb phrase that's missing. 00:22:23.160 --> 00:22:25.948 align:middle line:84% And it's unclear why you can never stop 00:22:25.948 --> 00:22:27.240 align:middle line:90% thinking about these sentences. 00:22:27.240 --> 00:22:28.828 align:middle line:90% Yeah, you ought to be stuck. 00:22:28.828 --> 00:22:30.870 align:middle line:84% And yet we don't have the sense that we are stuck 00:22:30.870 --> 00:22:31.740 align:middle line:90% when we hear this sentence. 00:22:31.740 --> 00:22:33.532 align:middle line:84% "John will visit every city that Mary did." 00:22:33.532 --> 00:22:35.770 align:middle line:84% You're like, yeah, I know what that means. 00:22:35.770 --> 00:22:37.552 align:middle line:84% So it's possible that you're wrong. 00:22:37.552 --> 00:22:38.760 align:middle line:90% You don't know what it means. 00:22:38.760 --> 00:22:40.800 align:middle line:90% But that doesn't seem right. 00:22:40.800 --> 00:22:46.320 align:middle line:84% Our intuition is that, yeah, it's not hard to interpret. 00:22:46.320 --> 00:22:48.990 align:middle line:90% If we believe in QR-- 00:22:48.990 --> 00:22:50.280 align:middle line:90% yeah, this way lies madness. 00:22:50.280 --> 00:22:52.500 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so we can't interpret the sentence this way. 00:22:52.500 --> 00:22:54.420 align:middle line:84% Is this clear what the problem is? 00:22:54.420 --> 00:22:57.770 align:middle line:90% 00:22:57.770 --> 00:23:01.840 align:middle line:84% If there is such a thing as QR, so we'll do quantifier raising, 00:23:01.840 --> 00:23:04.660 align:middle line:84% we'll move that noun phrase out of there. 00:23:04.660 --> 00:23:08.570 align:middle line:84% Well, now there is a verb phrase, "every city"-- 00:23:08.570 --> 00:23:10.630 align:middle line:84% so "Every city that Mary did, John will visit." 00:23:10.630 --> 00:23:12.380 align:middle line:84% Now there's a verb phrase, visit, 00:23:12.380 --> 00:23:13.630 align:middle line:90% that we're going to put there. 00:23:13.630 --> 00:23:17.710 align:middle line:84% So it'll mean, Every city that Mary visited, John will visit. 00:23:17.710 --> 00:23:21.420 align:middle line:84% And that seems to be what it means. 00:23:21.420 --> 00:23:24.870 align:middle line:84% So it means John will visit every city that Mary visited. 00:23:24.870 --> 00:23:26.700 align:middle line:84% So here's another reason to take seriously 00:23:26.700 --> 00:23:29.490 align:middle line:84% the existence of something like QR, 00:23:29.490 --> 00:23:34.080 align:middle line:84% that is the idea that there is an operation that moves 00:23:34.080 --> 00:23:37.740 align:middle line:84% quantifiers out of the position where they were and moves them 00:23:37.740 --> 00:23:39.810 align:middle line:84% to some higher position, in this case moves 00:23:39.810 --> 00:23:42.060 align:middle line:84% a quantifier, like "Every city that Mary did" 00:23:42.060 --> 00:23:43.500 align:middle line:90% at least out of the verb phrase. 00:23:43.500 --> 00:23:47.850 align:middle line:84% I attached it to the TP, doesn't matter-- 00:23:47.850 --> 00:23:50.700 align:middle line:90% moves it out of the verb phrase. 00:23:50.700 --> 00:23:52.830 align:middle line:84% It's what makes it possible to interpret things 00:23:52.830 --> 00:23:54.870 align:middle line:84% like antecedent-contained deletion, which 00:23:54.870 --> 00:23:55.840 align:middle line:90% seemed to exist. 00:23:55.840 --> 00:23:58.688 align:middle line:84% And so we want an account of why it can exist-- yeah. 00:23:58.688 --> 00:24:00.480 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Are we allowing for [INAUDIBLE]?? 00:24:00.480 --> 00:24:03.210 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I should have drawn this tree differently. 00:24:03.210 --> 00:24:05.670 align:middle line:84% One of the problems with QR being invisible 00:24:05.670 --> 00:24:08.340 align:middle line:84% is that it's kind of hard to say what it looks 00:24:08.340 --> 00:24:09.930 align:middle line:90% like after you did the move. 00:24:09.930 --> 00:24:12.060 align:middle line:84% I'll try to fix this before I put the slide up. 00:24:12.060 --> 00:24:13.727 align:middle line:84% It would have worked just as well for me 00:24:13.727 --> 00:24:18.030 align:middle line:84% to create a new TP binary TP node on top of a earlier TP 00:24:18.030 --> 00:24:18.630 align:middle line:90% node. 00:24:18.630 --> 00:24:20.490 align:middle line:84% So don't allow yourselves to be distracted 00:24:20.490 --> 00:24:22.630 align:middle line:84% by the ternary branching in this slide. 00:24:22.630 --> 00:24:24.610 align:middle line:90% I'll try to fix that. 00:24:24.610 --> 00:24:26.573 align:middle line:90% Any other questions about this? 00:24:26.573 --> 00:24:27.990 align:middle line:84% This is another argument for this. 00:24:27.990 --> 00:24:31.050 align:middle line:90% 00:24:31.050 --> 00:24:34.860 align:middle line:84% At this point, all I hope to have done is to have gotten you 00:24:34.860 --> 00:24:38.520 align:middle line:84% to be willing to entertain the possibility that you would not 00:24:38.520 --> 00:24:41.310 align:middle line:84% have to be crazy to believe in the kind of movement that you 00:24:41.310 --> 00:24:42.210 align:middle line:90% cannot see-- 00:24:42.210 --> 00:24:42.750 align:middle line:90% [SNEEZE] 00:24:42.750 --> 00:24:44.220 align:middle line:90% Bless you. 00:24:44.220 --> 00:24:45.450 align:middle line:90% There is a lot of work-- 00:24:45.450 --> 00:24:45.950 align:middle line:90% [SNEEZE] 00:24:45.950 --> 00:24:47.520 align:middle line:84% --bless you-- on covert movement, 00:24:47.520 --> 00:24:49.620 align:middle line:84% so movements that you cannot see, 00:24:49.620 --> 00:24:52.710 align:middle line:84% developing tests for where it goes, and where it lands, 00:24:52.710 --> 00:24:56.050 align:middle line:84% and what drives it, and why you don't get to see it. 00:24:56.050 --> 00:24:57.930 align:middle line:84% It's one of the big areas of linguistics, 00:24:57.930 --> 00:25:01.110 align:middle line:84% trying to understand what this is. 00:25:01.110 --> 00:25:02.860 align:middle line:84% And if this is a topic that interests you, 00:25:02.860 --> 00:25:05.850 align:middle line:84% I encourage you to take more linguistics classes. 00:25:05.850 --> 00:25:10.670 align:middle line:84% This is a major topic, something we work on. 00:25:10.670 --> 00:25:12.820 align:middle line:90% So that's it for QR. 00:25:12.820 --> 00:25:14.800 align:middle line:84% I'm not going to raise any more quantifiers. 00:25:14.800 --> 00:25:16.390 align:middle line:84% I'm going to show you something else. 00:25:16.390 --> 00:25:17.890 align:middle line:84% This will also be about quantifiers, 00:25:17.890 --> 00:25:19.102 align:middle line:90% but they will not be raising. 00:25:19.102 --> 00:25:21.310 align:middle line:84% We'll be able to interpret them right where they are. 00:25:21.310 --> 00:25:24.410 align:middle line:90% 00:25:24.410 --> 00:25:26.800 align:middle line:84% Let's consider some properties of quantifiers. 00:25:26.800 --> 00:25:30.580 align:middle line:84% Some proper-- some quantifiers have a property 00:25:30.580 --> 00:25:32.590 align:middle line:90% which is of interest. 00:25:32.590 --> 00:25:35.620 align:middle line:84% They are what's called downward entailing. 00:25:35.620 --> 00:25:38.130 align:middle line:90% What does that mean? 00:25:38.130 --> 00:25:40.500 align:middle line:84% It's a fact about these sentences, 00:25:40.500 --> 00:25:44.280 align:middle line:84% so "No American smokes" and "No American smokes cigars"-- 00:25:44.280 --> 00:25:45.700 align:middle line:84% first of all, they're both false. 00:25:45.700 --> 00:25:47.760 align:middle line:84% But if we think about the entitlement relations 00:25:47.760 --> 00:25:51.490 align:middle line:84% between them, remember that we've 00:25:51.490 --> 00:25:57.170 align:middle line:84% said what quantifiers do is relate two sets to each other. 00:25:57.170 --> 00:25:59.380 align:middle line:84% In this case, "No American smokes" 00:25:59.380 --> 00:26:05.350 align:middle line:84% relates the set of Americans to the set of things that smoke. 00:26:05.350 --> 00:26:09.580 align:middle line:84% And it says the intersection of those is empty. 00:26:09.580 --> 00:26:14.225 align:middle line:84% And the second sentence relates the set of Americans 00:26:14.225 --> 00:26:15.850 align:middle line:84% to the set of things that smoke cigars. 00:26:15.850 --> 00:26:18.610 align:middle line:84% And it says the intersection of those things is empty. 00:26:18.610 --> 00:26:21.850 align:middle line:84% And here's the thing, the set of things 00:26:21.850 --> 00:26:27.430 align:middle line:84% that smoke cigars is a subset of the things that smokes. 00:26:27.430 --> 00:26:30.160 align:middle line:84% If you smoke cigars, then you smoke. 00:26:30.160 --> 00:26:32.530 align:middle line:84% If you smoke, you don't necessarily smoke cigars. 00:26:32.530 --> 00:26:37.060 align:middle line:84% You might smoke something else, cigarettes, say. 00:26:37.060 --> 00:26:39.610 align:middle line:84% I feel weird talking to undergrads about this 00:26:39.610 --> 00:26:42.730 align:middle line:84% because this is all antiquated technology presumably. 00:26:42.730 --> 00:26:44.260 align:middle line:84% I assume none of you smoke anything. 00:26:44.260 --> 00:26:47.830 align:middle line:84% But, anyway, back in the day, people smoked various things. 00:26:47.830 --> 00:26:51.370 align:middle line:90% 00:26:51.370 --> 00:26:54.220 align:middle line:84% So now observation, there's an entitlement relation 00:26:54.220 --> 00:26:55.550 align:middle line:90% between these two sentences. 00:26:55.550 --> 00:26:56.920 align:middle line:90% Which one entails the other? 00:26:56.920 --> 00:27:00.860 align:middle line:90% 00:27:00.860 --> 00:27:01.370 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:27:01.370 --> 00:27:02.930 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The first entails the second. 00:27:02.930 --> 00:27:04.400 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, the first entails the second. 00:27:04.400 --> 00:27:05.990 align:middle line:84% If it's true that no American smokes, 00:27:05.990 --> 00:27:08.810 align:middle line:84% then it's true that no Americans smoke cigars. 00:27:08.810 --> 00:27:10.700 align:middle line:84% If it's true that no Americans smoke cigars, 00:27:10.700 --> 00:27:13.070 align:middle line:84% is it true that no American smokes? 00:27:13.070 --> 00:27:13.680 align:middle line:90% Maybe not. 00:27:13.680 --> 00:27:17.520 align:middle line:90% Maybe they all smoke cigarettes. 00:27:17.520 --> 00:27:18.090 align:middle line:90% OK, cool. 00:27:18.090 --> 00:27:20.040 align:middle line:84% So this is a quantifier that's what's 00:27:20.040 --> 00:27:21.210 align:middle line:90% called downward entailing. 00:27:21.210 --> 00:27:25.950 align:middle line:84% That is if you take the second set and you make it smaller, 00:27:25.950 --> 00:27:30.180 align:middle line:84% you switch to a subset, then you get an entailment relation. 00:27:30.180 --> 00:27:32.610 align:middle line:84% So the second set, the set of smokers, 00:27:32.610 --> 00:27:34.110 align:middle line:84% if we switch from the set of smokers 00:27:34.110 --> 00:27:36.822 align:middle line:84% to the set of smokers of cigars, then we 00:27:36.822 --> 00:27:39.030 align:middle line:84% get an entailment relation between the two sentences. 00:27:39.030 --> 00:27:41.113 align:middle line:84% If the first sentence is true, the second sentence 00:27:41.113 --> 00:27:41.830 align:middle line:90% has to be true. 00:27:41.830 --> 00:27:43.920 align:middle line:84% That's a property of the quantifier "no," 00:27:43.920 --> 00:27:45.594 align:middle line:90% that it's downward entailing. 00:27:45.594 --> 00:27:49.647 align:middle line:90% 00:27:49.647 --> 00:27:50.980 align:middle line:90% I just said all that, thank you. 00:27:50.980 --> 00:27:52.720 align:middle line:84% So first sentence entails the second, 00:27:52.720 --> 00:27:55.470 align:middle line:84% and the second sentence does not entail the first. 00:27:55.470 --> 00:27:59.173 align:middle line:84% Or to put it another way, if we look at one of these Venn 00:27:59.173 --> 00:28:00.840 align:middle line:84% diagrams, we've got the set of Americans 00:28:00.840 --> 00:28:02.250 align:middle line:90% and the set of smokers. 00:28:02.250 --> 00:28:05.910 align:middle line:84% And "No American smokes" says that the intersection of those 00:28:05.910 --> 00:28:07.830 align:middle line:90% is empty. 00:28:07.830 --> 00:28:10.470 align:middle line:84% There's the set of cigar smokers. 00:28:10.470 --> 00:28:12.533 align:middle line:84% And "No American smokes cigars" says 00:28:12.533 --> 00:28:14.200 align:middle line:84% that the intersection of those is empty. 00:28:14.200 --> 00:28:15.757 align:middle line:84% And if the first of those is true, 00:28:15.757 --> 00:28:16.840 align:middle line:90% the second has to be true. 00:28:16.840 --> 00:28:20.154 align:middle line:84% And you can see by looking at all the circles-- 00:28:20.154 --> 00:28:23.170 align:middle line:90% yeah, that's a Venn diagram. 00:28:23.170 --> 00:28:24.570 align:middle line:90% So "no" is downward entailing. 00:28:24.570 --> 00:28:27.870 align:middle line:84% That is, if it's true that no A are B, 00:28:27.870 --> 00:28:30.660 align:middle line:84% and if C is a subset of B, then it 00:28:30.660 --> 00:28:37.290 align:middle line:90% is also true that no A are C. 00:28:37.290 --> 00:28:41.790 align:middle line:84% Yes, yes, yes-- is "every" downward entailing? 00:28:41.790 --> 00:28:46.050 align:middle line:84% So is it the case that if every American smokes, 00:28:46.050 --> 00:28:49.800 align:middle line:84% does it follow that every American smokes cigars? 00:28:49.800 --> 00:28:51.240 align:middle line:90% No. 00:28:51.240 --> 00:28:54.030 align:middle line:84% so not all quantifiers are downward entailing. 00:28:54.030 --> 00:28:56.265 align:middle line:84% "No" is downward entailing, but "every" is not. 00:28:56.265 --> 00:29:01.620 align:middle line:90% 00:29:01.620 --> 00:29:05.850 align:middle line:84% In fact, is "every" upward entailing? 00:29:05.850 --> 00:29:09.300 align:middle line:84% That is, if it's true that every American smokes-- 00:29:09.300 --> 00:29:12.090 align:middle line:84% sorry, if it's true that every American smokes cigars, 00:29:12.090 --> 00:29:14.010 align:middle line:84% is it true that every American smokes? 00:29:14.010 --> 00:29:16.560 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:29:16.560 --> 00:29:19.620 align:middle line:84% So there are downward-entailing quantifiers 00:29:19.620 --> 00:29:23.260 align:middle line:84% and there are upward-entailing quantifiers. 00:29:23.260 --> 00:29:24.987 align:middle line:84% Now, why am I telling you all this? 00:29:24.987 --> 00:29:26.570 align:middle line:84% Partly just because it's entertaining, 00:29:26.570 --> 00:29:32.910 align:middle line:84% but also consider sentences like "No one lifted a finger 00:29:32.910 --> 00:29:36.360 align:middle line:84% to help," or "No one contributed a red cent," 00:29:36.360 --> 00:29:39.390 align:middle line:90% or "No one saw anything." 00:29:39.390 --> 00:29:41.550 align:middle line:84% These first two sentences in particular 00:29:41.550 --> 00:29:43.810 align:middle line:90% have literal meanings. 00:29:43.810 --> 00:29:47.970 align:middle line:84% So the first sentence can mean no one did this, and had 00:29:47.970 --> 00:29:49.060 align:middle line:90% that somehow help. 00:29:49.060 --> 00:29:50.400 align:middle line:90% It could mean that. 00:29:50.400 --> 00:29:52.890 align:middle line:84% But it also has an idiomatic meaning. 00:29:52.890 --> 00:29:56.040 align:middle line:84% It's something like, nobody did anything at all to help. 00:29:56.040 --> 00:29:58.487 align:middle line:84% Nobody made the least effort to help. 00:29:58.487 --> 00:29:59.820 align:middle line:90% Similarly, the second sentence-- 00:29:59.820 --> 00:30:01.600 align:middle line:84% do people still use this expression?-- 00:30:01.600 --> 00:30:03.240 align:middle line:84% It's an expression people have heard, 00:30:03.240 --> 00:30:05.910 align:middle line:90% no one contributed a red cent. 00:30:05.910 --> 00:30:08.850 align:middle line:84% So it can mean literally, nobody put 00:30:08.850 --> 00:30:12.600 align:middle line:84% in a red penny, a penny that had been painted red. 00:30:12.600 --> 00:30:16.290 align:middle line:84% But it can also mean no one contributed anything at all. 00:30:16.290 --> 00:30:18.120 align:middle line:90% No one contributed any money. 00:30:18.120 --> 00:30:19.490 align:middle line:90% And no one saw anything. 00:30:19.490 --> 00:30:21.210 align:middle line:84% It means no one saw anything, OK, cool. 00:30:21.210 --> 00:30:25.650 align:middle line:84% Now, interesting fact about these kinds of expressions, 00:30:25.650 --> 00:30:28.660 align:middle line:84% they're picky about where they can show up. 00:30:28.660 --> 00:30:31.110 align:middle line:84% So you can say "No one lifted a finger to help," 00:30:31.110 --> 00:30:32.580 align:middle line:84% or "No one contributed a red cent," 00:30:32.580 --> 00:30:34.020 align:middle line:90% or "No one saw anything." 00:30:34.020 --> 00:30:38.750 align:middle line:84% But you cannot say "Everyone lifted a finger to help" 00:30:38.750 --> 00:30:41.000 align:middle line:84% unless you mean the literal meaning. 00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:46.020 align:middle line:84% So can mean everyone in unison like this helpfully, 00:30:46.020 --> 00:30:47.450 align:middle line:90% it can mean that. 00:30:47.450 --> 00:30:50.660 align:middle line:84% But it can't have the idiomatic meaning. 00:30:50.660 --> 00:30:54.050 align:middle line:84% It can't mean no one did anything. 00:30:54.050 --> 00:30:55.760 align:middle line:84% Ditto for the second sentence, "Everyone 00:30:55.760 --> 00:30:56.802 align:middle line:90% contributed a red cent"-- 00:30:56.802 --> 00:30:58.220 align:middle line:84% OK, maybe you ended up with a pile 00:30:58.220 --> 00:30:59.600 align:middle line:84% of pennies that were painted red, 00:30:59.600 --> 00:31:01.970 align:middle line:84% but it can't have the idiomatic meaning. 00:31:01.970 --> 00:31:07.040 align:middle line:90% 00:31:07.040 --> 00:31:09.620 align:middle line:84% So these kinds of expressions, "lift a finger," 00:31:09.620 --> 00:31:11.930 align:middle line:84% and "a red cent," and "anything," 00:31:11.930 --> 00:31:16.730 align:middle line:84% have these funny constraints on their distribution. 00:31:16.730 --> 00:31:20.690 align:middle line:84% And so far, so we've said that "no" 00:31:20.690 --> 00:31:24.710 align:middle line:84% is downward entailing and that "every" is upward entailing. 00:31:24.710 --> 00:31:28.040 align:middle line:84% And so we could imagine various ways of accounting for the fact 00:31:28.040 --> 00:31:29.390 align:middle line:90% so far. 00:31:29.390 --> 00:31:33.050 align:middle line:84% We could say, for example, that these are expressions 00:31:33.050 --> 00:31:37.490 align:middle line:84% that need to be near a quantifier which is downward 00:31:37.490 --> 00:31:42.050 align:middle line:84% entailing, or that they need to not be near a quantifier which 00:31:42.050 --> 00:31:43.340 align:middle line:90% is upward entailing. 00:31:43.340 --> 00:31:45.260 align:middle line:84% So given the data that we have so far, 00:31:45.260 --> 00:31:47.910 align:middle line:84% "everything"-- both of those would be stories we could tell. 00:31:47.910 --> 00:31:48.410 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:31:48.410 --> 00:31:51.420 align:middle line:90% 00:31:51.420 --> 00:31:54.060 align:middle line:84% I'm sorry, I can tell we're in the part of the semester 00:31:54.060 --> 00:31:56.280 align:middle line:90% where everyone is tired. 00:31:56.280 --> 00:31:58.410 align:middle line:84% And I've just assigned you lots of things. 00:31:58.410 --> 00:32:00.340 align:middle line:90% And also, I am talking too much. 00:32:00.340 --> 00:32:02.820 align:middle line:84% So I should do more standing here, 00:32:02.820 --> 00:32:05.760 align:middle line:84% like allowing you to put these things in. 00:32:05.760 --> 00:32:09.150 align:middle line:84% So here, let me try to fix that with this next slide. 00:32:09.150 --> 00:32:10.650 align:middle line:90% Here are some quantifiers. 00:32:10.650 --> 00:32:14.520 align:middle line:90% 00:32:14.520 --> 00:32:16.650 align:middle line:90% Here are some quantifiers. 00:32:16.650 --> 00:32:20.310 align:middle line:84% "No," "every," "few," "a few," "more than ten," 00:32:20.310 --> 00:32:22.820 align:middle line:84% "less than ten," and "exactly ten." 00:32:22.820 --> 00:32:23.700 align:middle line:90% This is chalk. 00:32:23.700 --> 00:32:25.620 align:middle line:84% I can tell that if I use this piece of chalk, 00:32:25.620 --> 00:32:28.530 align:middle line:84% I would be scratching the board, which 00:32:28.530 --> 00:32:31.057 align:middle line:90% will not be fun for anybody. 00:32:31.057 --> 00:32:33.390 align:middle line:84% So we're going to figure out which of these are downward 00:32:33.390 --> 00:32:34.950 align:middle line:90% entailing. 00:32:34.950 --> 00:32:41.130 align:middle line:84% And then we've got "no" and "every," where 00:32:41.130 --> 00:32:44.640 align:middle line:84% we know that "no" is downward entailing and "every" 00:32:44.640 --> 00:32:45.822 align:middle line:90% is not downward entailing. 00:32:45.822 --> 00:32:47.280 align:middle line:84% I put this in the same order-- then 00:32:47.280 --> 00:32:55.860 align:middle line:84% we've got "few," and "a few," and "more than ten," 00:32:55.860 --> 00:32:59.010 align:middle line:84% and "less than ten," and "exactly ten." 00:32:59.010 --> 00:33:05.760 align:middle line:84% OK, cool-- now let us consult our intuitions about this. 00:33:05.760 --> 00:33:09.600 align:middle line:90% Is "few" downward entailing? 00:33:09.600 --> 00:33:12.510 align:middle line:84% So what we're asking is, so for to say that "no" is downward 00:33:12.510 --> 00:33:21.600 align:middle line:84% entailing is to say that "No Americans smoke" entails 00:33:21.600 --> 00:33:26.490 align:middle line:90% "No Americans smoke cigars." 00:33:26.490 --> 00:33:33.543 align:middle line:90% 00:33:33.543 --> 00:33:35.960 align:middle line:84% Let me just pause to allow you to be thankful for the fact 00:33:35.960 --> 00:33:37.700 align:middle line:84% that we live in the age of slides 00:33:37.700 --> 00:33:39.950 align:middle line:84% as opposed to the age-- which wasn't so long ago-- 00:33:39.950 --> 00:33:42.603 align:middle line:84% where my job would be to write everything on the board. 00:33:42.603 --> 00:33:44.270 align:middle line:84% And then your job would be to write down 00:33:44.270 --> 00:33:45.608 align:middle line:90% the things that I wrote. 00:33:45.608 --> 00:33:47.150 align:middle line:84% Your lives are better than they would 00:33:47.150 --> 00:33:50.330 align:middle line:90% have been not so long ago. 00:33:50.330 --> 00:33:53.030 align:middle line:84% Maybe my handwriting was better back then, who knows. 00:33:53.030 --> 00:33:55.610 align:middle line:84% So "no" is downward entailing because it's true 00:33:55.610 --> 00:33:58.070 align:middle line:84% that if no Americans smoke, it must also be true 00:33:58.070 --> 00:33:59.660 align:middle line:90% that no American smoke cigars. 00:33:59.660 --> 00:34:01.070 align:middle line:90% How about "few"? 00:34:01.070 --> 00:34:03.740 align:middle line:84% So what's the relationship there? 00:34:03.740 --> 00:34:07.550 align:middle line:84% If I say few Americans smoke, does it 00:34:07.550 --> 00:34:10.790 align:middle line:84% follow that few Americans smoke cigars? 00:34:10.790 --> 00:34:13.040 align:middle line:90% I think it does. 00:34:13.040 --> 00:34:16.790 align:middle line:84% So "few"-- there's a reason that when 00:34:16.790 --> 00:34:20.420 align:middle line:84% we were talking about sets, I was 00:34:20.420 --> 00:34:25.895 align:middle line:84% careful to show you quantifiers like "no," and "every," 00:34:25.895 --> 00:34:26.929 align:middle line:90% and "some." 00:34:26.929 --> 00:34:30.139 align:middle line:84% "Few" is a little harder to describe in terms of sets. 00:34:30.139 --> 00:34:33.050 align:middle line:84% It's something like "The intersection of these sets 00:34:33.050 --> 00:34:38.900 align:middle line:84% has a small number of things in it," something like that. 00:34:38.900 --> 00:34:40.380 align:middle line:90% How about "a few"? 00:34:40.380 --> 00:34:43.699 align:middle line:84% So if a few Americans smoke, does it 00:34:43.699 --> 00:34:46.190 align:middle line:84% have to be true that a few Americans smoke cigars? 00:34:46.190 --> 00:34:46.699 align:middle line:90% No. 00:34:46.699 --> 00:34:48.830 align:middle line:84% Maybe there are a few Americans who smoke. 00:34:48.830 --> 00:34:53.739 align:middle line:84% And all of them smoke hookahs or whatever-- 00:34:53.739 --> 00:34:54.664 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:34:54.664 --> 00:34:57.290 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Would that not also be true for "few"? 00:34:57.290 --> 00:34:58.320 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: A few. 00:34:58.320 --> 00:35:00.780 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: That few Americans smoke, 00:35:00.780 --> 00:35:03.845 align:middle line:84% that all the ones that do smoke cigarettes. 00:35:03.845 --> 00:35:07.370 align:middle line:90% 00:35:07.370 --> 00:35:10.310 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: What do people think? 00:35:10.310 --> 00:35:15.470 align:middle line:84% If I say "Few Americans smoke," do we 00:35:15.470 --> 00:35:19.010 align:middle line:84% get to conclude that few Americans smoke cigars, or is 00:35:19.010 --> 00:35:23.660 align:middle line:84% it possible that all of the few Americans who smoke, 00:35:23.660 --> 00:35:25.426 align:middle line:90% smoke something else? 00:35:25.426 --> 00:35:29.280 align:middle line:84% Hmm, I'm going to put a question mark next to "few" 00:35:29.280 --> 00:35:31.260 align:middle line:84% because I think that's a good question. 00:35:31.260 --> 00:35:33.000 align:middle line:84% For "a few," I think it's pretty clear 00:35:33.000 --> 00:35:35.580 align:middle line:84% that the answer, the answer is no. 00:35:35.580 --> 00:35:36.900 align:middle line:90% This relation does not hold. 00:35:36.900 --> 00:35:39.580 align:middle line:90% 00:35:39.580 --> 00:35:41.650 align:middle line:90% OK, how about "more than ten"? 00:35:41.650 --> 00:35:43.210 align:middle line:84% So more than ten Americans smoke. 00:35:43.210 --> 00:35:46.210 align:middle line:84% Would it follow that more than ten Americans smoke cigars? 00:35:46.210 --> 00:35:48.145 align:middle line:90% No. 00:35:48.145 --> 00:35:50.380 align:middle line:90% Was that a question-- 00:35:50.380 --> 00:35:52.660 align:middle line:90% just stretching, OK. 00:35:52.660 --> 00:35:54.460 align:middle line:84% If less than ten Americans smoke, 00:35:54.460 --> 00:35:56.860 align:middle line:84% do less than ten Americans smoke cigars? 00:35:56.860 --> 00:35:59.050 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:35:59.050 --> 00:36:00.790 align:middle line:84% And if exactly ten Americans smoke, 00:36:00.790 --> 00:36:02.470 align:middle line:84% do exactly ten Americans smoke cigars? 00:36:02.470 --> 00:36:04.513 align:middle line:90% No, cool. 00:36:04.513 --> 00:36:05.180 align:middle line:90% All right, good. 00:36:05.180 --> 00:36:08.050 align:middle line:90% Let's see what the slide says. 00:36:08.050 --> 00:36:09.490 align:middle line:90% Yeah, OK. 00:36:09.490 --> 00:36:12.650 align:middle line:84% So for the slide, I ended up claiming that "few" is downward 00:36:12.650 --> 00:36:13.150 align:middle line:90% entailing. 00:36:13.150 --> 00:36:16.060 align:middle line:84% It's interesting to think about the case that you're raising. 00:36:16.060 --> 00:36:17.518 align:middle line:84% Trying to figure out what we think. 00:36:17.518 --> 00:36:19.800 align:middle line:90% 00:36:19.800 --> 00:36:21.430 align:middle line:90% Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo-- 00:36:21.430 --> 00:36:24.260 align:middle line:84% now, oh yes, so now having done that, 00:36:24.260 --> 00:36:29.480 align:middle line:84% let's think about these expressions. 00:36:29.480 --> 00:36:32.980 align:middle line:84% So we've already said, it's OK to say "No"-- 00:36:32.980 --> 00:36:35.830 align:middle line:90% 00:36:35.830 --> 00:36:39.940 align:middle line:84% let's see, "No American did anything." 00:36:39.940 --> 00:36:43.127 align:middle line:90% 00:36:43.127 --> 00:36:44.710 align:middle line:84% But expressions like "anything," which 00:36:44.710 --> 00:36:47.260 align:middle line:84% are weirdly sensitive to the properties of the quantifiers 00:36:47.260 --> 00:36:49.120 align:middle line:84% that are around them, they want to be 00:36:49.120 --> 00:36:51.010 align:middle line:84% near a downward entailing-- maybe that's 00:36:51.010 --> 00:36:52.750 align:middle line:84% one theory that we could fool with-- they 00:36:52.750 --> 00:36:54.917 align:middle line:84% want to be near something that's downward entailing. 00:36:54.917 --> 00:36:58.810 align:middle line:84% So I'll put a column here for "anything." 00:36:58.810 --> 00:37:01.510 align:middle line:84% And we've said that "anything" is OK with "no," 00:37:01.510 --> 00:37:03.490 align:middle line:90% and it's bad with "every." 00:37:03.490 --> 00:37:07.720 align:middle line:84% So "Every American did anything," that's not possible. 00:37:07.720 --> 00:37:12.250 align:middle line:84% How about "Few Americans did anything"? 00:37:12.250 --> 00:37:13.860 align:middle line:90% It's fine. 00:37:13.860 --> 00:37:17.280 align:middle line:84% How about "A few Americans did anything"? 00:37:17.280 --> 00:37:19.560 align:middle line:90% No. 00:37:19.560 --> 00:37:22.215 align:middle line:84% How about "More than 10 Americans did anything"? 00:37:22.215 --> 00:37:24.847 align:middle line:90% 00:37:24.847 --> 00:37:26.430 align:middle line:84% "More than 10 Americans did anything"? 00:37:26.430 --> 00:37:28.050 align:middle line:90% No. 00:37:28.050 --> 00:37:30.240 align:middle line:84% And then "Less than 10 Americans did anything"? 00:37:30.240 --> 00:37:33.210 align:middle line:90% 00:37:33.210 --> 00:37:35.600 align:middle line:90% I think, yep. 00:37:35.600 --> 00:37:37.475 align:middle line:84% "Exactly 10 Americans did anything." 00:37:37.475 --> 00:37:41.987 align:middle line:90% 00:37:41.987 --> 00:37:44.070 align:middle line:84% Some of you are shaking your head, and some of you 00:37:44.070 --> 00:37:44.790 align:middle line:90% are nodding. 00:37:44.790 --> 00:37:47.040 align:middle line:84% "Exactly 10 Americans did anything about the problem." 00:37:47.040 --> 00:37:52.110 align:middle line:90% 00:37:52.110 --> 00:37:53.735 align:middle line:90% You're all wiggling at me. 00:37:53.735 --> 00:37:55.190 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHS] 00:37:55.190 --> 00:38:04.080 align:middle line:84% OK, so-- when I once taught in a summer school in India, 00:38:04.080 --> 00:38:05.580 align:middle line:84% there WAS a wonderful summer school. 00:38:05.580 --> 00:38:07.367 align:middle line:84% There all these brilliant students. 00:38:07.367 --> 00:38:08.200 align:middle line:90% It was really great. 00:38:08.200 --> 00:38:11.070 align:middle line:84% We were in the foothills of the Himalayas. 00:38:11.070 --> 00:38:13.020 align:middle line:90% It was this gorgeous spot. 00:38:13.020 --> 00:38:16.358 align:middle line:84% And I had a great time teaching in the class 00:38:16.358 --> 00:38:17.400 align:middle line:90% for all of these reasons. 00:38:17.400 --> 00:38:18.750 align:middle line:90% Also, the food was wonderful. 00:38:18.750 --> 00:38:21.420 align:middle line:84% Although whenever I said that to the Indian students, 00:38:21.420 --> 00:38:25.200 align:middle line:84% they would look at me and smile because clearly 00:38:25.200 --> 00:38:26.820 align:middle line:84% I had no idea what good Indian food 00:38:26.820 --> 00:38:28.980 align:middle line:90% was supposed to taste like. 00:38:28.980 --> 00:38:32.640 align:middle line:84% But one of the fun things, many fun things about teaching 00:38:32.640 --> 00:38:34.800 align:middle line:84% there was that, as I said to them at one point, 00:38:34.800 --> 00:38:37.980 align:middle line:84% I come from a place where we have several things we 00:38:37.980 --> 00:38:38.730 align:middle line:90% do with our heads. 00:38:38.730 --> 00:38:43.110 align:middle line:84% We can say, do "yes" with them, and we can do "no." 00:38:43.110 --> 00:38:44.580 align:middle line:84% And they did those things in India. 00:38:44.580 --> 00:38:46.710 align:middle line:90% But they also did this. 00:38:46.710 --> 00:38:49.125 align:middle line:84% And I could never figure out what they meant. 00:38:49.125 --> 00:38:50.610 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:38:50.610 --> 00:38:53.580 align:middle line:84% Sometimes they just meant, wait, we 00:38:53.580 --> 00:38:55.950 align:middle line:90% will think about that some more. 00:38:55.950 --> 00:38:59.270 align:middle line:84% It seemed to be the equivalent of "Hmm." 00:38:59.270 --> 00:39:04.692 align:middle line:84% Anyway, OK, so these columns, even taking my bad handwriting 00:39:04.692 --> 00:39:06.150 align:middle line:84% into account, these columns kind of 00:39:06.150 --> 00:39:09.360 align:middle line:84% resemble each other We have checks 00:39:09.360 --> 00:39:14.280 align:middle line:84% and X's in more or less the same places. 00:39:14.280 --> 00:39:18.930 align:middle line:84% The one place where there might be a difference 00:39:18.930 --> 00:39:20.910 align:middle line:90% has to do with "Exactly ten." 00:39:20.910 --> 00:39:24.690 align:middle line:84% So this was the place where you were wiggling it at me. 00:39:24.690 --> 00:39:27.450 align:middle line:84% "Exactly ten students did anything about the problem." 00:39:27.450 --> 00:39:29.940 align:middle line:84% "Exactly 10 students lifted a finger to help." 00:39:29.940 --> 00:39:33.530 align:middle line:90% 00:39:33.530 --> 00:39:35.330 align:middle line:84% What's another example like this? 00:39:35.330 --> 00:39:36.170 align:middle line:90% Oh, "ever." 00:39:36.170 --> 00:39:54.340 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so "No one has ever eaten nattoo with avocados." 00:39:54.340 --> 00:39:57.270 align:middle line:90% It's not true. 00:39:57.270 --> 00:39:58.230 align:middle line:90% This is fine. 00:39:58.230 --> 00:40:04.590 align:middle line:84% But "Everyone has ever eaten nattoo with avocados" is bad. 00:40:04.590 --> 00:40:06.165 align:middle line:90% "Few people have ever eaten"-- 00:40:06.165 --> 00:40:07.290 align:middle line:90% blah, blah, blah-- is fine. 00:40:07.290 --> 00:40:09.180 align:middle line:90% "A few people"-- no. 00:40:09.180 --> 00:40:11.190 align:middle line:84% How about "Exactly ten people have ever 00:40:11.190 --> 00:40:13.260 align:middle line:90% eaten nattoo with avocados"? 00:40:13.260 --> 00:40:15.220 align:middle line:90% I think that's OK. 00:40:15.220 --> 00:40:17.310 align:middle line:84% It's interesting that our intuitions about this 00:40:17.310 --> 00:40:22.110 align:middle line:84% are kind of shaky, caused us to wiggle. 00:40:22.110 --> 00:40:24.630 align:middle line:84% Notice that this is the place where these two quantifiers, 00:40:24.630 --> 00:40:28.890 align:middle line:84% or these two columns stop resembling each other quite so 00:40:28.890 --> 00:40:30.330 align:middle line:90% closely. 00:40:30.330 --> 00:40:32.700 align:middle line:84% Up until that last line, you could get away 00:40:32.700 --> 00:40:35.970 align:middle line:84% with thinking these expressions, things like "ever," 00:40:35.970 --> 00:40:38.500 align:middle line:84% and "anything," and "lift a finger," 00:40:38.500 --> 00:40:40.500 align:middle line:84% they are things that want to be around something 00:40:40.500 --> 00:40:42.810 align:middle line:90% that's downward entailing. 00:40:42.810 --> 00:40:44.880 align:middle line:84% And those of you who were shaking your heads when 00:40:44.880 --> 00:40:46.890 align:middle line:84% I asked about "Exactly ten Americans 00:40:46.890 --> 00:40:49.890 align:middle line:84% did anything about this," you should be proud of yourselves, 00:40:49.890 --> 00:40:52.540 align:middle line:84% because your lives are easy lives. 00:40:52.540 --> 00:40:54.120 align:middle line:90% So that's bad. 00:40:54.120 --> 00:40:54.690 align:middle line:90% This is bad. 00:40:54.690 --> 00:40:56.042 align:middle line:90% Everything is good. 00:40:56.042 --> 00:40:57.750 align:middle line:84% On the other hand, if it's true that it's 00:40:57.750 --> 00:41:00.180 align:middle line:84% possible to say things like "Exactly ten people have ever 00:41:00.180 --> 00:41:05.250 align:middle line:84% eaten nattoo with avocados," then yeah, 00:41:05.250 --> 00:41:08.670 align:middle line:84% there's something else going on here. 00:41:08.670 --> 00:41:12.520 align:middle line:84% If we do the same exercise for upward entailing-- 00:41:12.520 --> 00:41:15.080 align:middle line:90% I won't make you do it-- 00:41:15.080 --> 00:41:18.200 align:middle line:84% what you can see is that the upward-entailing column 00:41:18.200 --> 00:41:21.840 align:middle line:84% is almost the mirror image of the downward-entailing column, 00:41:21.840 --> 00:41:23.420 align:middle line:90% but not quite. 00:41:23.420 --> 00:41:27.860 align:middle line:84% So "Exactly ten" is the one where they split. 00:41:27.860 --> 00:41:31.820 align:middle line:84% So upward entailing, again, what we're asking is-- 00:41:31.820 --> 00:41:36.260 align:middle line:84% if I say-- so we can do it first with "no": 00:41:36.260 --> 00:41:40.040 align:middle line:90% "No American smokes cigars." 00:41:40.040 --> 00:41:42.950 align:middle line:90% 00:41:42.950 --> 00:41:46.100 align:middle line:84% Would it follow from that that no American smokes? 00:41:46.100 --> 00:41:49.050 align:middle line:90% For "no," the answer is no. 00:41:49.050 --> 00:41:52.880 align:middle line:84% So no, it is not upward entailing. 00:41:52.880 --> 00:41:55.460 align:middle line:84% "Every" is upward entailing because if every American 00:41:55.460 --> 00:41:58.760 align:middle line:84% smokes cigars, it's also true that every American smokes. 00:41:58.760 --> 00:42:03.710 align:middle line:84% If exactly ten Americans smoke cigars, 00:42:03.710 --> 00:42:06.470 align:middle line:84% does it follow that exactly ten Americans smoke? 00:42:06.470 --> 00:42:07.760 align:middle line:90% No. 00:42:07.760 --> 00:42:11.580 align:middle line:84% So there could be a few more that smoke other things. 00:42:11.580 --> 00:42:15.500 align:middle line:84% So "exactly ten" is unlike all the other quantifiers 00:42:15.500 --> 00:42:18.230 align:middle line:84% in this list, in that it is neither downward entailing nor 00:42:18.230 --> 00:42:20.150 align:middle line:90% upward entailing. 00:42:20.150 --> 00:42:23.030 align:middle line:84% And if we ask, does it license an NPI, 00:42:23.030 --> 00:42:26.720 align:middle line:90% the answer is kind of wiggly. 00:42:26.720 --> 00:42:30.700 align:middle line:84% So this is a place where we might wonder whether license-- 00:42:30.700 --> 00:42:34.670 align:middle line:84% I think I led us into this when I first introduced you 00:42:34.670 --> 00:42:36.830 align:middle line:84% to these expressions-- sorry, NPI 00:42:36.830 --> 00:42:41.900 align:middle line:84% is short for negative polarity item. 00:42:41.900 --> 00:42:44.760 align:middle line:90% 00:42:44.760 --> 00:42:49.010 align:middle line:84% These are these expressions, like "anything," or "ever," 00:42:49.010 --> 00:42:52.190 align:middle line:84% or "lift a finger," which are sensitive to the nature 00:42:52.190 --> 00:42:54.650 align:middle line:84% of the quantifiers that are around them. 00:42:54.650 --> 00:42:57.347 align:middle line:84% And tables like this are the kind of thing people 00:42:57.347 --> 00:42:59.930 align:middle line:84% construct when they're trying to figure out exactly what is it 00:42:59.930 --> 00:43:02.510 align:middle line:90% that they're sensitive to. 00:43:02.510 --> 00:43:05.510 align:middle line:84% Do the want to be near something downward entailing, that's 00:43:05.510 --> 00:43:08.600 align:middle line:84% one popular theory, or is it maybe they 00:43:08.600 --> 00:43:10.550 align:middle line:84% want to avoid being near something 00:43:10.550 --> 00:43:12.770 align:middle line:90% which is upward entailing? 00:43:12.770 --> 00:43:15.410 align:middle line:84% And those are almost the same thing, 00:43:15.410 --> 00:43:17.960 align:middle line:84% as you can see in those first two columns, but not quite. 00:43:17.960 --> 00:43:19.940 align:middle line:84% Quantifiers like "exactly ten" are helpful. 00:43:19.940 --> 00:43:22.410 align:middle line:84% Janice, Janice has worked on this. 00:43:22.410 --> 00:43:23.660 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 00:43:23.660 --> 00:43:25.307 align:middle line:84% There was an observation that I wanted 00:43:25.307 --> 00:43:26.640 align:middle line:90% to make about the "exactly ten." 00:43:26.640 --> 00:43:28.108 align:middle line:90% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah. 00:43:28.108 --> 00:43:30.525 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: But it seems to me that if you created a context 00:43:30.525 --> 00:43:34.660 align:middle line:84% where you said, when you put out a call for 100 00:43:34.660 --> 00:43:38.400 align:middle line:84% people, volunteers, and exactly ten [INAUDIBLE],, 00:43:38.400 --> 00:43:43.680 align:middle line:84% something like that, versus put out a call for ten volunteers, 00:43:43.680 --> 00:43:45.220 align:middle line:90% it seems like that works better. 00:43:45.220 --> 00:43:47.970 align:middle line:84% But if you say, you put out a call for ten volunteers, 00:43:47.970 --> 00:43:51.660 align:middle line:84% exactly ten did anything, then it seems like it doesn't-- it 00:43:51.660 --> 00:43:52.440 align:middle line:90% gets worse. 00:43:52.440 --> 00:43:53.970 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I think I get that. 00:43:53.970 --> 00:43:55.360 align:middle line:90% Does everybody get that? 00:43:55.360 --> 00:43:58.170 align:middle line:84% So those are-- that's a nice example, thanks. 00:43:58.170 --> 00:44:00.570 align:middle line:84% So what you're pointing out is that it's 00:44:00.570 --> 00:44:03.240 align:middle line:84% helpful for the exactly ten to be explicitly 00:44:03.240 --> 00:44:07.410 align:middle line:84% a subset of another set that we've got hanging around 00:44:07.410 --> 00:44:09.540 align:middle line:90% or something like that. 00:44:09.540 --> 00:44:14.910 align:middle line:84% It's a partitive expression of some kind maybe, cool, cool-- 00:44:14.910 --> 00:44:15.570 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:44:15.570 --> 00:44:17.028 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So in that case, could we 00:44:17.028 --> 00:44:19.260 align:middle line:84% say that "exactly ten" only behaves in that way 00:44:19.260 --> 00:44:22.620 align:middle line:84% when exactly could be replaced with only? 00:44:22.620 --> 00:44:27.050 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Ah, well, let's see. 00:44:27.050 --> 00:44:29.510 align:middle line:84% That's a nice way to think about it. 00:44:29.510 --> 00:44:32.470 align:middle line:84% So the point about "exactly ten," isn't it, 00:44:32.470 --> 00:44:34.270 align:middle line:84% is that in those kinds of contexts 00:44:34.270 --> 00:44:36.640 align:middle line:84% is that this was true of ten of them, 00:44:36.640 --> 00:44:43.580 align:middle line:84% but not of the others, something like that, yeah. 00:44:43.580 --> 00:44:46.520 align:middle line:84% And so maybe that is the way to think about it. 00:44:46.520 --> 00:44:48.320 align:middle line:84% "Only" is another interesting expression 00:44:48.320 --> 00:44:51.470 align:middle line:84% to think about here, maybe, but let's not, yeah. 00:44:51.470 --> 00:44:55.820 align:middle line:90% 00:44:55.820 --> 00:45:02.810 align:middle line:84% Cool, so especially if we take Janice's suggestion 00:45:02.810 --> 00:45:10.250 align:middle line:84% and securely think of "exactly ten" as being OK with anything, 00:45:10.250 --> 00:45:15.928 align:middle line:84% being the thing which stands out here in this last row, then 00:45:15.928 --> 00:45:17.720 align:middle line:84% maybe we want to think of these expressions 00:45:17.720 --> 00:45:20.270 align:middle line:84% as expressions that want to be in a context that's not upward 00:45:20.270 --> 00:45:20.960 align:middle line:90% entailing. 00:45:20.960 --> 00:45:23.580 align:middle line:90% That's a move people make. 00:45:23.580 --> 00:45:26.000 align:middle line:84% I can tell you that as you go through life, 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:29.360 align:middle line:84% if you interact with linguists and they are not semanticists, 00:45:29.360 --> 00:45:32.180 align:middle line:84% they will often tell you that these are expressions, 00:45:32.180 --> 00:45:35.218 align:middle line:84% things like "lift a finger," and "a red cent," and "anything," 00:45:35.218 --> 00:45:37.010 align:middle line:84% and "ever," that these are expressions that 00:45:37.010 --> 00:45:39.740 align:middle line:84% need to be in a downward-entailing context, 00:45:39.740 --> 00:45:41.690 align:middle line:84% because it's almost true, and it's 00:45:41.690 --> 00:45:44.540 align:middle line:84% shorter than a non-upward-entailing context. 00:45:44.540 --> 00:45:46.400 align:middle line:84% But it's arguably not quite true. 00:45:46.400 --> 00:45:49.220 align:middle line:84% This is maybe closer to what these things mean. 00:45:49.220 --> 00:45:53.280 align:middle line:90% 00:45:53.280 --> 00:45:56.980 align:middle line:90% OK, how about these expressions? 00:45:56.980 --> 00:46:04.590 align:middle line:84% So if I say "John saw anything," or "John contributed 00:46:04.590 --> 00:46:07.170 align:middle line:84% a red cent," or "John lifted a finger to help," 00:46:07.170 --> 00:46:07.992 align:middle line:90% these are all bad. 00:46:07.992 --> 00:46:09.450 align:middle line:84% And maybe that's not so surprising. 00:46:09.450 --> 00:46:10.875 align:middle line:90% John isn't a quantifier at all. 00:46:10.875 --> 00:46:16.680 align:middle line:90% 00:46:16.680 --> 00:46:24.210 align:middle line:84% And in particular, if we ask, if we pretended 00:46:24.210 --> 00:46:25.980 align:middle line:84% that John was a quantifier, I guess, 00:46:25.980 --> 00:46:31.752 align:middle line:84% if we ask is "John" upward entailing, 00:46:31.752 --> 00:46:33.210 align:middle line:84% I guess there's a sense in which he 00:46:33.210 --> 00:46:37.935 align:middle line:84% is, if "John smokes cigars" entails that John smokes. 00:46:37.935 --> 00:46:40.680 align:middle line:90% 00:46:40.680 --> 00:46:44.340 align:middle line:84% But consider sentences like the first ones. 00:46:44.340 --> 00:46:45.870 align:middle line:84% "John didn't lift a finger to help." 00:46:45.870 --> 00:46:47.495 align:middle line:84% Or "John didn't contribute a red cent." 00:46:47.495 --> 00:46:48.852 align:middle line:90% Or "John didn't see anything." 00:46:48.852 --> 00:46:50.310 align:middle line:84% What we're seeing here is that it's 00:46:50.310 --> 00:46:54.090 align:middle line:84% possible to license those expressions not necessarily 00:46:54.090 --> 00:46:56.310 align:middle line:84% with the quantifier, but with this negation. 00:46:56.310 --> 00:46:58.860 align:middle line:84% The negation is another kind of thing that makes these OK. 00:46:58.860 --> 00:47:02.340 align:middle line:84% That's the reason that they are called negative polarity items. 00:47:02.340 --> 00:47:03.390 align:middle line:90% It's because this is-- 00:47:03.390 --> 00:47:04.920 align:middle line:84% the first observation about them, 00:47:04.920 --> 00:47:08.010 align:middle line:84% that they were things that were OK in negative sentences 00:47:08.010 --> 00:47:10.223 align:middle line:84% but usually bad in positive sentences. 00:47:10.223 --> 00:47:11.640 align:middle line:84% Then people were like, wait, there 00:47:11.640 --> 00:47:14.310 align:middle line:84% are some quantifiers that can license them too. 00:47:14.310 --> 00:47:15.887 align:middle line:90% People were [INAUDIBLE]. 00:47:15.887 --> 00:47:18.690 align:middle line:90% 00:47:18.690 --> 00:47:24.310 align:middle line:84% Yes, great, so if John smokes cigars, that does 00:47:24.310 --> 00:47:25.810 align:middle line:90% entail that John smokes. 00:47:25.810 --> 00:47:27.820 align:middle line:84% But if John doesn't smoke cigars, 00:47:27.820 --> 00:47:31.180 align:middle line:84% that no longer entails that John doesn't smoke. 00:47:31.180 --> 00:47:32.680 align:middle line:84% If John doesn't smoke cigars, it's 00:47:32.680 --> 00:47:35.800 align:middle line:84% possible that he does smoke, just not cigars. 00:47:35.800 --> 00:47:39.980 align:middle line:84% So what negation does is create a non-upward-entailing context, 00:47:39.980 --> 00:47:44.220 align:middle line:84% which is what these quantifiers want. 00:47:44.220 --> 00:47:46.670 align:middle line:84% So these expressions are what are called negative polarity 00:47:46.670 --> 00:47:47.170 align:middle line:90% items. 00:47:47.170 --> 00:47:50.280 align:middle line:84% They need to be in a non-upward-entailing context. 00:47:50.280 --> 00:47:52.820 align:middle line:84% And this has just been another example of the kind of thing 00:47:52.820 --> 00:47:54.350 align:middle line:90% that people work on. 00:47:54.350 --> 00:47:56.990 align:middle line:84% If you are looking around for things 00:47:56.990 --> 00:47:59.720 align:middle line:84% to work on for your final paper, for your field work paper, 00:47:59.720 --> 00:48:01.760 align:middle line:84% this is the kind of thing you can go look for. 00:48:01.760 --> 00:48:03.620 align:middle line:90% Most languages have NPIs. 00:48:03.620 --> 00:48:06.410 align:middle line:84% So you could spend some time asking about how to say things 00:48:06.410 --> 00:48:09.973 align:middle line:84% like "He didn't do anything," and finding out 00:48:09.973 --> 00:48:11.390 align:middle line:84% what kinds of expressions you use. 00:48:11.390 --> 00:48:14.450 align:middle line:84% So that's the kind of thing you could do. 00:48:14.450 --> 00:48:15.810 align:middle line:90% Questions about any of this? 00:48:15.810 --> 00:48:18.020 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:48:18.020 --> 00:48:21.278 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: So [INAUDIBLE]. 00:48:21.278 --> 00:48:26.922 align:middle line:84% About "less than ten," so "less than ten people [INAUDIBLE]."." 00:48:26.922 --> 00:48:28.630 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: I'm sorry, say it again. 00:48:28.630 --> 00:48:30.160 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So "less than ten people 00:48:30.160 --> 00:48:32.140 align:middle line:90% did anything [INAUDIBLE]." 00:48:32.140 --> 00:48:36.440 align:middle line:84% But what about "less than 10 billion people did anything?" 00:48:36.440 --> 00:48:39.530 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "Less than ren billion people did anything." 00:48:39.530 --> 00:48:40.340 align:middle line:90% [SNEEZE] 00:48:40.340 --> 00:48:40.910 align:middle line:90% Bless you. 00:48:40.910 --> 00:48:45.020 align:middle line:90% 00:48:45.020 --> 00:48:47.030 align:middle line:84% Maybe-- so I don't know, what do the rest of you 00:48:47.030 --> 00:48:47.738 align:middle line:90% think about that? 00:48:47.738 --> 00:48:49.390 align:middle line:84% Is that a-- is that an odd sentence? 00:48:49.390 --> 00:48:50.360 align:middle line:90% Joseph. 00:48:50.360 --> 00:48:53.450 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think if we are able to imagine a world where 00:48:53.450 --> 00:48:58.280 align:middle line:84% there's trillions of people and you colonize the entire galaxy, 00:48:58.280 --> 00:49:00.715 align:middle line:84% and then some massive disaster happens, 00:49:00.715 --> 00:49:03.620 align:middle line:84% and one little planet of ten billion people 00:49:03.620 --> 00:49:07.160 align:middle line:84% signs up to help, then maybe that's [INAUDIBLE].. 00:49:07.160 --> 00:49:10.025 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, so I wonder 00:49:10.025 --> 00:49:12.650 align:middle line:84% whether this has to do with the conditions under which it makes 00:49:12.650 --> 00:49:18.330 align:middle line:84% sense to use an expression like "less than ten billion people." 00:49:18.330 --> 00:49:23.390 align:middle line:84% So the way things are right now, "less than ten billion people" 00:49:23.390 --> 00:49:27.570 align:middle line:84% would be, well, all the people that there are. 00:49:27.570 --> 00:49:30.590 align:middle line:84% And so this is connected to other questions 00:49:30.590 --> 00:49:34.460 align:middle line:84% about pragmatics, which we have skipped 00:49:34.460 --> 00:49:38.330 align:middle line:84% and will continue to skip, about which 00:49:38.330 --> 00:49:44.360 align:middle line:84% quantifiers you will use under which kinds of circumstances. 00:49:44.360 --> 00:49:46.890 align:middle line:84% So there's work on the fact, for example, 00:49:46.890 --> 00:49:54.440 align:middle line:84% that if I say something like "Mary ate some of the cookies," 00:49:54.440 --> 00:49:56.780 align:middle line:84% that you are inclined to interpret that 00:49:56.780 --> 00:50:00.380 align:middle line:84% as meaning that she ate some of them, but not all of them. 00:50:00.380 --> 00:50:02.340 align:middle line:84% So if I say "Mary ate some of the cookies," 00:50:02.340 --> 00:50:03.470 align:middle line:84% and then you go over and discover 00:50:03.470 --> 00:50:05.000 align:middle line:84% that the plate of cookies is empty, 00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:08.660 align:middle line:84% you have a tendency to be discouraged. 00:50:08.660 --> 00:50:15.513 align:middle line:84% But if "some" just means the set of, 00:50:15.513 --> 00:50:16.805 align:middle line:90% "Mary ate some of the cookies." 00:50:16.805 --> 00:50:25.190 align:middle line:90% 00:50:25.190 --> 00:50:30.470 align:middle line:84% If "some" just establishes a relation between the cookies 00:50:30.470 --> 00:50:34.190 align:middle line:84% and the things that Mary ate and says, 00:50:34.190 --> 00:50:37.310 align:middle line:84% the set of cookies and the set of things that Mary ate has 00:50:37.310 --> 00:50:39.350 align:middle line:84% a nonempty intersection, if that's all it 00:50:39.350 --> 00:50:41.608 align:middle line:84% means, then if Mary ate all of the cookies, 00:50:41.608 --> 00:50:42.650 align:middle line:90% then this should be true. 00:50:42.650 --> 00:50:45.270 align:middle line:90% 00:50:45.270 --> 00:50:47.270 align:middle line:84% And there are two things we could do about that. 00:50:47.270 --> 00:50:49.730 align:middle line:84% One would be to say, well, we need a different definition 00:50:49.730 --> 00:50:53.180 align:middle line:84% of "some" then, because that's not our reaction if it turns 00:50:53.180 --> 00:50:54.762 align:middle line:90% out she ate all of the cookies. 00:50:54.762 --> 00:50:56.720 align:middle line:84% But there's another move that people standardly 00:50:56.720 --> 00:50:59.090 align:middle line:84% make, which is to say, if "I say Mary 00:50:59.090 --> 00:51:02.070 align:middle line:84% ate some of the cookies," what you do is you listen to me 00:51:02.070 --> 00:51:02.570 align:middle line:90% say that, 00:51:02.570 --> 00:51:06.050 align:middle line:84% and you mentally bear in mind the fact that I said "some," 00:51:06.050 --> 00:51:09.230 align:middle line:90% and I didn't say "all." 00:51:09.230 --> 00:51:11.090 align:middle line:84% And you're thinking about other kinds 00:51:11.090 --> 00:51:13.310 align:middle line:90% of things I could have said. 00:51:13.310 --> 00:51:17.330 align:middle line:84% And if I had said "all," I would have been, in a sense, 00:51:17.330 --> 00:51:18.380 align:middle line:90% more informative. 00:51:18.380 --> 00:51:22.400 align:middle line:84% I would have been telling you that there are no cookies left. 00:51:22.400 --> 00:51:25.880 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so on that approach, we're OK. 00:51:25.880 --> 00:51:27.835 align:middle line:84% Our existing definition of "some" is OK. 00:51:27.835 --> 00:51:29.960 align:middle line:84% We get to just say, yeah, "some" just means there's 00:51:29.960 --> 00:51:31.850 align:middle line:90% a nonempty intersection. 00:51:31.850 --> 00:51:33.650 align:middle line:84% And then there's this tendency that you 00:51:33.650 --> 00:51:35.480 align:middle line:84% have to listen to a quantifier and think 00:51:35.480 --> 00:51:37.700 align:middle line:84% about other quantifier that you could have said. 00:51:37.700 --> 00:51:39.320 align:middle line:84% And I think there's something similar going on-- 00:51:39.320 --> 00:51:40.650 align:middle line:84% I'm sorry, this is taking a long time-- 00:51:40.650 --> 00:51:41.420 align:middle line:84% I think there's something similar 00:51:41.420 --> 00:51:42.545 align:middle line:90% going on with your example. 00:51:42.545 --> 00:51:45.350 align:middle line:84% But if you say "less than ten billion people," 00:51:45.350 --> 00:51:49.970 align:middle line:84% I'm invited to wonder why you are describing 00:51:49.970 --> 00:51:52.010 align:middle line:90% all existing people that way. 00:51:52.010 --> 00:51:54.590 align:middle line:84% Why aren't you just saying "everyone"? 00:51:54.590 --> 00:51:57.530 align:middle line:84% And I think there's something similar, 00:51:57.530 --> 00:52:01.710 align:middle line:84% some way of relating that fact to this fact I think-- 00:52:01.710 --> 00:52:02.210 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:52:02.210 --> 00:52:04.970 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So you say there is a principle 00:52:04.970 --> 00:52:08.600 align:middle line:84% that we assume that when we have conversations 00:52:08.600 --> 00:52:11.460 align:middle line:84% that the other person [INAUDIBLE].. 00:52:11.460 --> 00:52:14.670 align:middle line:90% 00:52:14.670 --> 00:52:16.410 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yes, yes, and then 00:52:16.410 --> 00:52:18.510 align:middle line:84% there's a really interesting question about what 00:52:18.510 --> 00:52:20.273 align:middle line:90% I mean when I say informative. 00:52:20.273 --> 00:52:21.690 align:middle line:84% We have to try to figure that out. 00:52:21.690 --> 00:52:27.480 align:middle line:84% That idea is an idea by a guy named Grice. 00:52:27.480 --> 00:52:29.790 align:middle line:84% His idea was that when you hear people speak, 00:52:29.790 --> 00:52:32.340 align:middle line:84% you make assumptions about the conversational moves 00:52:32.340 --> 00:52:33.360 align:middle line:90% that they will make. 00:52:33.360 --> 00:52:34.915 align:middle line:84% You assume that they will be honest 00:52:34.915 --> 00:52:36.540 align:middle line:84% and that they will tell you everything. 00:52:36.540 --> 00:52:39.990 align:middle line:84% They will be maximally informative, and so on. 00:52:39.990 --> 00:52:42.960 align:middle line:84% And some of the interesting kinds 00:52:42.960 --> 00:52:46.050 align:middle line:84% of inferences that we make about things that people say 00:52:46.050 --> 00:52:49.350 align:middle line:84% come from cases where we're following these assumptions 00:52:49.350 --> 00:52:51.790 align:middle line:84% about what people will be doing-- 00:52:51.790 --> 00:52:55.050 align:middle line:90% [COUGHS] excuse me. 00:52:55.050 --> 00:53:01.590 align:middle line:84% And one of the other things that he's interested in showing is 00:53:01.590 --> 00:53:03.090 align:middle line:90% he'll-- 00:53:03.090 --> 00:53:07.800 align:middle line:84% so we will do things which obviously violate Grice's-- 00:53:07.800 --> 00:53:10.050 align:middle line:84% they're called maxims, Grice's maxims. 00:53:10.050 --> 00:53:11.820 align:middle line:84% And then you get to draw conclusions when 00:53:11.820 --> 00:53:12.945 align:middle line:90% I do those kinds of things. 00:53:12.945 --> 00:53:14.740 align:middle line:90% So there's a classic example. 00:53:14.740 --> 00:53:20.350 align:middle line:84% If somebody asks me, "How did the students do on the test? 00:53:20.350 --> 00:53:22.920 align:middle line:90% and I say, "Well, Mary passed." 00:53:22.920 --> 00:53:26.880 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:53:26.880 --> 00:53:29.520 align:middle line:90% That tells you that Mary passed. 00:53:29.520 --> 00:53:33.300 align:middle line:84% And the fact that I didn't completely answer your question 00:53:33.300 --> 00:53:37.050 align:middle line:84% leads you to make conclusions about why. 00:53:37.050 --> 00:53:39.853 align:middle line:84% You get to ask yourself, so why didn't he 00:53:39.853 --> 00:53:41.520 align:middle line:84% tell me about any of the other students? 00:53:41.520 --> 00:53:43.350 align:middle line:90% Oh dear. 00:53:43.350 --> 00:53:46.050 align:middle line:84% And the answer-- there could be various answers. 00:53:46.050 --> 00:53:48.510 align:middle line:84% Maybe the answer is everyone else failed. 00:53:48.510 --> 00:53:52.590 align:middle line:84% Maybe the answer is I happen to believe for some reason 00:53:52.590 --> 00:53:55.290 align:middle line:84% that you're entitled to know how Mary did, but not about anybody 00:53:55.290 --> 00:53:55.790 align:middle line:90% else. 00:53:55.790 --> 00:53:58.530 align:middle line:84% Maybe you're Mary's dad or something. 00:53:58.530 --> 00:54:00.570 align:middle line:90% There are various ways that-- 00:54:00.570 --> 00:54:03.430 align:middle line:84% conclusions you could draw, depending on the circumstances. 00:54:03.430 --> 00:54:06.000 align:middle line:84% But that's another kind of example of Grice's maxims 00:54:06.000 --> 00:54:06.730 align:middle line:90% in action. 00:54:06.730 --> 00:54:08.910 align:middle line:84% This is a domain of linguistics, which 00:54:08.910 --> 00:54:12.210 align:middle line:84% I'm not planning to talk about at all, and yet here I am. 00:54:12.210 --> 00:54:14.850 align:middle line:90% It's called pragmatics. 00:54:14.850 --> 00:54:17.760 align:middle line:84% And I'm not planning to talk about it because, I think 00:54:17.760 --> 00:54:20.510 align:middle line:84% I've said this before, when you're teaching intro classes 00:54:20.510 --> 00:54:23.010 align:middle line:84% in anything-- this is probably true of your other professors 00:54:23.010 --> 00:54:25.475 align:middle line:90% and your other intro classes-- 00:54:25.475 --> 00:54:27.600 align:middle line:84% the professor presumably has a specialty, something 00:54:27.600 --> 00:54:28.770 align:middle line:90% that they mainly work on. 00:54:28.770 --> 00:54:30.930 align:middle line:84% And for the rest of the class they're 00:54:30.930 --> 00:54:32.940 align:middle line:84% doing their best to make everything 00:54:32.940 --> 00:54:34.260 align:middle line:90% look reasonably plausible. 00:54:34.260 --> 00:54:36.570 align:middle line:84% And I think I told you, the part where I have 00:54:36.570 --> 00:54:38.550 align:middle line:90% a specialty, that was syntax. 00:54:38.550 --> 00:54:41.220 align:middle line:84% So everything else-- I haven't been making it up. 00:54:41.220 --> 00:54:43.200 align:middle line:84% I've been doing my best to show you 00:54:43.200 --> 00:54:44.910 align:middle line:90% things that were really true. 00:54:44.910 --> 00:54:46.650 align:middle line:90% But I'm not a semanticist. 00:54:46.650 --> 00:54:50.700 align:middle line:90% And I so I'm a syntactician. 00:54:50.700 --> 00:54:51.840 align:middle line:90% I'm not a semanticist. 00:54:51.840 --> 00:54:53.917 align:middle line:84% And I am really, really not a pragmaticist. 00:54:53.917 --> 00:54:55.500 align:middle line:84% And there are people who work on that, 00:54:55.500 --> 00:54:56.860 align:middle line:90% and I'm just not one of them. 00:54:56.860 --> 00:55:01.080 align:middle line:84% So I I've already told you more about pragmatics than I know. 00:55:01.080 --> 00:55:01.740 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:55:01.740 --> 00:55:04.740 align:middle line:84% Well, I won't try to tell you anything else. 00:55:04.740 --> 00:55:08.370 align:middle line:84% Your TAs, for example, might be able to undo some of the damage 00:55:08.370 --> 00:55:10.410 align:middle line:90% tomorrow. 00:55:10.410 --> 00:55:12.690 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So by communicating [INAUDIBLE]---- 00:55:12.690 --> 00:55:13.980 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: You're going to ask me about pragmatics, 00:55:13.980 --> 00:55:14.700 align:middle line:90% aren't you. 00:55:14.700 --> 00:55:16.435 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHS] Go ahead. 00:55:16.435 --> 00:55:17.060 align:middle line:90% It's all right. 00:55:17.060 --> 00:55:18.305 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I'm trying to understand 00:55:18.305 --> 00:55:19.230 align:middle line:90% what you said about Grice. 00:55:19.230 --> 00:55:20.938 align:middle line:84% So if you say, "I go to school," and when 00:55:20.938 --> 00:55:22.560 align:middle line:84% someone asks where you go to school, 00:55:22.560 --> 00:55:25.140 align:middle line:84% you say "North of Boston," which is true. 00:55:25.140 --> 00:55:28.320 align:middle line:84% Then if I went to school in, like, Greenland, 00:55:28.320 --> 00:55:29.760 align:middle line:90% it's north of Boston. 00:55:29.760 --> 00:55:34.260 align:middle line:84% But if that person found out that I do actually 00:55:34.260 --> 00:55:36.540 align:middle line:84% go to school in Greenland, they'd 00:55:36.540 --> 00:55:38.340 align:middle line:84% think that I was being dishonest. 00:55:38.340 --> 00:55:40.845 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: Yeah, they would feel that-- yes, exactly. 00:55:40.845 --> 00:55:44.250 align:middle line:90% 00:55:44.250 --> 00:55:50.047 align:middle line:84% Yeah, that's a good example, particularly if-- 00:55:50.047 --> 00:55:52.380 align:middle line:84% there was some reason to think that when you said "North 00:55:52.380 --> 00:55:56.730 align:middle line:84% of Boston," you were leaving open the possibility that you 00:55:56.730 --> 00:56:00.600 align:middle line:84% were going to school in various fine educational institutions 00:56:00.600 --> 00:56:01.650 align:middle line:90% north of Boston. 00:56:01.650 --> 00:56:03.788 align:middle line:84% I probably shouldn't try to name any in particular. 00:56:03.788 --> 00:56:05.580 align:middle line:84% And then if it turns out that, in fact, you 00:56:05.580 --> 00:56:07.350 align:middle line:84% were in someplace in Greenland that's 00:56:07.350 --> 00:56:11.430 align:middle line:84% not all that famous, they might think, ah, I've been tricked. 00:56:11.430 --> 00:56:12.360 align:middle line:90% Yes, right. 00:56:12.360 --> 00:56:13.860 align:middle line:90% You're absolutely right. 00:56:13.860 --> 00:56:15.810 align:middle line:84% They get to ask why you did that. 00:56:15.810 --> 00:56:19.710 align:middle line:84% Why were you vague when you could have been specific? 00:56:19.710 --> 00:56:24.720 align:middle line:84% Yeah, anything else I can make up about pragmatics? 00:56:24.720 --> 00:56:25.510 align:middle line:90% Yes, Raquel? 00:56:25.510 --> 00:56:27.510 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I was thinking about the-- 00:56:27.510 --> 00:56:29.260 align:middle line:84% and I don't know if this is iconic or not. 00:56:29.260 --> 00:56:33.520 align:middle line:84% But there's this one scene in Pink Panther where he says, 00:56:33.520 --> 00:56:34.740 align:middle line:90% "Does your dog bite"? 00:56:34.740 --> 00:56:36.510 align:middle line:90% And then the guy's like, "Nope." 00:56:36.510 --> 00:56:37.440 align:middle line:90% And the dog bites. 00:56:37.440 --> 00:56:39.240 align:middle line:84% And he's like, I/" thought you said your dog didn't bite." 00:56:39.240 --> 00:56:40.860 align:middle line:84% And the guy's like, "That's not my dog." 00:56:40.860 --> 00:56:41.070 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:56:41.070 --> 00:56:42.780 align:middle line:84% NORVIN RICHARDS: "That is not my dog." 00:56:42.780 --> 00:56:43.530 align:middle line:90% It's a classic. 00:56:43.530 --> 00:56:45.030 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so a lot of comedy is built 00:56:45.030 --> 00:56:48.430 align:middle line:84% on failing to obey Gricean maxims. 00:56:48.430 --> 00:56:51.840 align:middle line:84% Yeah, that's exactly right Yeah, so 00:56:51.840 --> 00:56:54.600 align:middle line:84% in this case, the maxim of relevance-- so when he asks, 00:56:54.600 --> 00:56:57.750 align:middle line:84% "Does your dog bite," the guy is supposed to think, 00:56:57.750 --> 00:56:59.040 align:middle line:90% "Why is he asking me this? 00:56:59.040 --> 00:57:01.410 align:middle line:84% Oh, he must be assuming that this is my dog. 00:57:01.410 --> 00:57:04.090 align:middle line:84% That must be what he wants to know about." 00:57:04.090 --> 00:57:07.020 align:middle line:84% So this is a kind of navigation of people's expectations 00:57:07.020 --> 00:57:09.540 align:middle line:84% in conversation, that people always have to do. 00:57:09.540 --> 00:57:14.910 align:middle line:84% That's right-- unless you're Inspector Clouseau. 00:57:14.910 --> 00:57:16.050 align:middle line:90% Yeah, OK, good. 00:57:16.050 --> 00:57:17.970 align:middle line:84% Let's end a little bit early today then. 00:57:17.970 --> 00:57:19.260 align:middle line:90% And have a good weekend. 00:57:19.260 --> 00:57:22.340 align:middle line:90% And I will see you next week. 00:57:22.340 --> 00:57:30.000 align:middle line:90%