Captación de ayuda externa mundial y estancamiento de los ODM en India

We will now provide a very simple view on who. The section is split into two subsections. We start by providing a logical form of who-questions in matrix form. The compositional derivation of it is easier, yet yields superficially the same results as the account of Champollion et al. (2017) (modulo the differences in type theory). Afterwards, we consider the denotation of who-questions. We will see that, as is the case in Champollion et al. (2017), we derive mention-some-readings in this way. Mention-all-readings are the subject of§5.3.

5.2.1

The logical form of

who-questions

Before turning towho let us repeat the meaning of Qin CRISP:

Definition 5.2.1. (Semantics of Qin CRISP) ⟦Q⟧o_∶=λP

⟨⟨a,e⟩n,T⟩.(⟨?⟩ ∃∃ ⃗x.P(⃗x))!⟨?⟩ ∃∃ ⃗x.P( ⃗x)

In this thesis we will assume a very simple semantics for who. Unlike Champollion et al. (2017) the meaning rule forwhowill not include !. We will treat this as an aspect ofwh-questions triggered by intonation. Moreover, we will also not assign it a functional form. The proposal is different from the usual inquisitive semantics treatments, as in Theiler (2014) and Ciardelli et al. (2016) for that matter:

Definition 5.2.2. (⟦who⟧oand⟦who⟧f)3 ⟦who⟧o_=x

i which is of type⟨a, e⟩ Ifwho bears focus:

⟦who⟧f =D⟨a,e⟩

Otherwise:

⟦who⟧f = {⟦who⟧o}

We treatwhobasically likehen in Montague’s PTQ. And our derivations will somewhat look like indirect derivations by means of S8nas the tree below illustrates. In particular, we can observe the following differences and similarities to the treatment of rootwh-questions in Champollion et al. (2017). First, as in Champollion et al. (2017) we start with generatingwh-questionsin situ. However, unlike in Champollion et al. (2017), we add an intermediary step between thein situ wh-phrase and the abstract i, namely we add the operator!:

Definition 5.2.3. (⟦!⟧o) ⟦!⟧o=λPT.!P

This reflects our earlier strategy. In particular, we will take it that!is triggered by final falling intonation together with the presence of who in subject position. This means that we split the meaning postulate

of Champollion et al. (2017) in its two parts. We take who only to denote an index (or in our case a free variable which we index, as is the case in Montague’s PTQ). The informative projection is realized afterwards by another operator,!. Note that the meaning of! asks for a propositional argument. The rest of the derivation is then the same as in Champollion et al. (2017) as is clear from the tree below.

(42) S Q 1 ! λP.!P who x1 dance ˆ D

The simpler meaning postulate forwho also allows for simpler compositional derivations of multiplewh- questions with a wh-phrase in object position. We do not need to type-shift (cf. Champollion et al. (2017): 7). We demonstrate this by an example of Champollion et al. (2017)Who loves whom?:

(43) S Q 1 2 ! who1 x1 love ˆ L=λx.λy.λs.αs⊆πs∧αs⊆λi.L(y)(x)(i) who2 x2

Last, the reader should note that the problematic case mentioned earlier can be dealt with successfully. We said that when we use the semantics of lists for the compositional derivation of the meaning of a dis- junctive phrase such as walks or talks in Who walks or talks?, we in principle may be forced to derive the disjunctionλx.[! ˆW(x)⩔! ˆT(x)]which denotes an inquisitive meaning. However, two facts must be considered. First, unlike in the case of disjunctive questions, the final falling tone is not taken to trigger Closed. We assume that the presence of who in subject position stops this mechanism, instead leading in combination with the prosodic structure to the triggering of!. Second,!turns anything of typeT within its scope into an expression denoting an non-inquisitive and informative proposition. This avoids the earlier mentioned issues, by simply not letting them arise.

The motivation for our position is twofold. One reason is the above stated argument. There seems no conclusive argument to assign who the meaning it receives in Champollion et al. (2017). Second, if the meaning ofwho is simply a free variable, we have an easier time for calculating the focus value of it.

Last, the reader should note that we do not face any disadvantages from this. In particular, we still have all the nice features of Champollion et al. We can generate wh-questions fromwh-phrasesin situ, thus avoiding island constraints. And, we get along with inquisitive abstracts due to the logical form we assigned such questions.

5.2.2

Denotation of

who-questions in CRISP

So far we dealt with the logical form of matrixwho-questions. Now we want to know what denotations these have. We want to address this question by means of an example. We will consider “Who smokes?”, which has the logical form displayed in (44):

(44) S ∃∃x.Sˆ(x)_!∃∃x.Sˆ(x) Q1 1 ! who x1 smoke ˆ S

We use again a diagram to make clear what the denotation of the formula is assuming the logical space L = {⟨w∅, ga⟩,⟨w∅, gb⟩,⟨wa,b, ga⟩,⟨wa,b, gb⟩,⟨wa, ga⟩,⟨wa, gb⟩,⟨wb, ga⟩,⟨wb, gb⟩}:

⟨w∅, ga⟩ ⟨wa,b, ga⟩ ⟨wa, ga⟩ ⟨wb, ga⟩

⟨w∅, gb⟩ ⟨wa,b, gb⟩ ⟨wb, gb⟩ ⟨wa, gb⟩

Figure 5.2: Denotation of “Who smokes?” given the logical spaceL.

It is important to note that the above gives us only mention-some readings, i.e. readings on which it is sufficient to specify some witness for the existential. The reason for this is two-fold. One reason is that the meaning of the question morphemeQis based on the inquisitive existential quantifier. The other reason is that we cannot express answers such as “Everyone”. This is related to the inquisitive existential. It is clause (iii) which will not allow for such an answer given our current system. The mentioned reply usually corresponds to the overlap of all the alternatives in the question denotation, as can be seen from the denotation displayed in 5.1. Clause (iii) leads to mutual exclusivity and so no overlapping alternatives will ever be part of our question denotation forwho-questions.

reading we are obliged to mentionall witnesses of the existential. This corresponds to the so-called weakly exhaustive reading of wh-questions. Yet, another reading is the so-called strongly exhaustive reading. On this reading we are not only obliged to mention all witnesses of the existential, but also to mention all non-witnesses. We will address the derivation of strongly-exhaustive readings in the next section.4

Last, we want to address the shape of the denotation. In particular, we want to address why the pos- sibilities ⟨wb, ga⟩and ⟨wa, gb⟩ do not make up part of the denotation. The reason for this lies with (i) the presupposition triggered byQ, namely that there is an answer to the question, and (ii) in the way assignments work in CRISP. The presupposition triggered by Qin this case is

!∃∃xSˆ(x)(s⊺) = ∃_T[⊔_T=_s⊺∧ ∀_t∈_T ∶ ∃∃_x.Sˆ(_x)(_t)] = ∃T[⊔T=s⊺∧ ∀_t∈_T ∶ ∃_s′[_t[_x]_s′∧_Sˆ(_x)(_t)] = ∃T[⊔T=s⊺∧ ∀ t∈T ∶ ∃s′[ t=s′∧ ∀ i, i′∈ s′[ xgi=xgi′] ∧α_s′⊆π_s′∧α_s′ ⊆S(x)]

It is the condition αs′⊆S(x)which cannot be met by the possibilities under consideration, for these assign

xvalues which are not within the set of smokers. And for this reason these possibilities are not part of any supportive state of the question denotation.