{"id":15424,"date":"2023-03-20T06:06:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-20T10:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=15424"},"modified":"2023-03-18T20:07:28","modified_gmt":"2023-03-19T00:07:28","slug":"lf-reading-group-3-22-tanya-bondarenko-harvard-universiy-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2023\/03\/20\/lf-reading-group-3-22-tanya-bondarenko-harvard-universiy-2\/","title":{"rendered":"LF Reading Group 3\/22 - Tanya Bondarenko (Harvard Universiy)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Speaker: <\/strong> Tanya Bondarenko (Harvard Universiy)

\nTitle: <\/strong>Veridicality mismatches in Javanese

\nTime: <\/strong>Wednesday, March 22nd, 1pm - 2pm

\n

\nAbstract: <\/strong>In this talk I discuss a violation of the Spector & Egr\u00e9’s generalization about the correlation between veridicality in declarative and interrogative embeddings, (1).<\/p>\n

(1)Spector & Egre (2015)’s Generalization:
\nA responsive predicate is veridical with respect to its interrogative complement (like know + question = knowing the true answer to the question) if and only if it is veridical with respect to its declarative complements as well (know + declarative entails —in fact presupposes— that the declarative is true). (Spector & Egre 2015: 1732)<\/p>\n

The counterexample to the generalization comes from Javanese: the verbs `know’ (ng\u00earti) and `remember’ (kelingan) in this language are veridical with respect to question embedding, (3), but, surprisingly, are not veridical with respect to the declarative embedding, (2).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I propose that this pattern emerges from a combination of two factors: (i) embedded clauses in Javanese are always adjuncts, and compose with verbs as modi?ers that specify the propositional content of the verbal eventuality (see Bogal-Allbritten 2016, Elliott 2017, Bochnak & Hanink 2021, Bondarenko 2022, a.o.), which leads to the lack of veridicality with declarative embedding; (ii) propositional content associated with ng\u00earti `know’ and kelingan `remember’ is required to be a single proposition, which in cases of interrogative embedding triggers insertion of an answerhood operator (Dayal 1996) that gives rise to veridicality. I furthermore show that while ng\u00earti `know’ is non-veridical with declarative complements, it is different from `think\/believe’: it comes with a presupposition that the embedded proposition is not known to be false. I suggest to encode this restriction as a definedness condition on the propositional content associated with the mental state that ng\u00earti denotes.<\/p>\n

References
\nBogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2016. Building meaning in Navajo. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
\nBochnak, Ryan & Emily Hanink. 2021. Clausal embedding in Washo: Complementation vs. modi?cation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 1-44.
\nBondarenko, Tatiana. 2022. Anatomy of An Attitude. MIT dissertation.
\nDayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH-quanti?cation: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
\nElliott, Patrick. 2017. Elements of clausal embedding. UCL (University College London) dissertation.
\nSpector, B. and Egr?e, P., 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese, 192, pp.1729-1784.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Speaker: Tanya Bondarenko (Harvard Universiy) Title: Veridicality mismatches in Javanese Time: Wednesday, March 22nd, 1pm - 2pm Abstract: In this talk I discuss a violation of the Spector & Egr\u00e9’s generalization about the correlation between veridicality in declarative and interrogative embeddings, (1). (1)Spector & Egre (2015)’s Generalization: A responsive predicate is veridical with respect to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15424"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15430,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15424\/revisions\/15430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}