7

,{{

DRT3

Extending the Fragment: Negation,

Conditionals, f,Irirwsal Quanfifiers (1)

1. Negation. KamP

& ReYle (1993)

inforrnationtrue in the real

So far we have concentrated on types of discourse which cornmrmicate
gurding in their analysis was tlat the DRS derived from such a sentence gives some

world- The intuition

kind of schematic picture of the world, a picture which is right

if its discourse

referents can be taken as

relations' There was some correct map

representations of real objects satisfying the depicted properties and

from the set of discourse referents to objects in &e world

Assertions antl denials (negative

A: "ril/here will you be spending your

(1)

assertions)"

holiday?'

B: "Wetl I wan'a be gomg to France any

more-' '

A: "What does her future husband look like?'

B: "Well,

he is not

.- j*q"

-rrt$*fl
\

tall but he has a good figrrre'"

by
The effect of denial is to reject somethiag that has been put forth tentatively or confidently
is no map from its
else. The force of denial is that a certain picture "is not corrct", i.e., there

someone

referents to objects such that &ese objects satisfy the depictetl conditions.

Representing the content af a rentence

which is the negation of some other sentence d' T,,.e

sentence Q, which Q nsgds'

representaticn of the sefiterce g should somehow include &e representation of

fimctiotr
The contcrt of the negative s,rtenct is a ftnstion of the embdded affirmative setrtstce, a
represented as

in symbolic logic. Negation is a truth fimctional operator

negated sentence.

(5)
(6)

JanesdoesnotownaPorsche'

on the representation of

tle non-

We slrould see the DRS above as including a discourse referent and two conditions. The familiar Jcnes (x)
and the second consisting of the internal box with its contents, affixed by

'-'.

One feature which

drstinguishes this DRS from previous onrs is thatit contains a DRS as companent.
The condition will be verified by an embeddingfunctionf ( which associates an individual a to x) only
there is

no yr/ay

if

of associating an irdividual b withthe discourse referem y of the nepted DRS. In other

words f satisfies the condition" if there is no b, b is a Parsche such that f(x) owns b.
The scope ofnegation. The scop ofnegation does not usually include the subjec! as seen by inspecting

(7). There is an asymmetry betweer subjects and objects. Subjects scope above negation, objects mostly
scope inside negation

(7)

a.

s"ry:P#jggilolsH
"?

PH;fl[e; r

b.

Ond 6aii ilidn't vbte anO

,.lt'{their caddidate failed.

U.

He didn't say

d-

Many arrows hit the arget

e.

The target wasn'thrtby many arrows.

0
rro
tJ r:c/:ff
-rR
lw
uJY#17"."

l.L

Syntax

The inventory of PSRs is enriched with a nrte for the auxiliary component, since unlike affirmative
sentstrces,

neptive sente,res always inctrde an auxiliary:

Negatiou ispart cf the auxiliary:

(8)

PSRS

s+ l\F ^ IP',

VP')
Aux

(8)

Aux^not^\lP

lT

(Motlalxhave+n) (be-irg)

Aux

\--*

.-----IIP
I D", '---

'l

oJ,

own I

$oron"

(e)

x
Jone (x)
[x does not orrnaPorsche ]

(10)

x
Jones (x)

[xowns a Parschel

1.2. proper names and indefinite descriptions under negation- Accessibility.

In expanding a subordinate DRS introdrced by negation rre may draw on discourse referents
processing (12) we may
rntroduced earlier (into a main or higher box), as wi& anaphoric prurouns Thus in
link the pronoun it, \yith the referent

(11)

I $Fy) which is in the main box'

John owns a Porsche. He des not like

it

(12)

x,yz
Jones

(x)

Porsche (Y)

x owns y

z=x

- tZ-Ii[AE
(13)

Jones

(x)

Ponche (y)

x or*rl}$y

inxshordttdc boxisnd ocessible to m anaphuic

be amphorically li*ed to a Porsche . Ilaving arived at

In confias! a discourse referent iffiodused

pronoun in subseqrrcnt dismrurie. In (l4L i/ cannot

(14) is not
15, we cannot ao$vert it into (16). This.is in agreement with our imrftion that dismurse
ameptable. The referers y is inacessihle &om the position of

(14)

Jones does not own aPorsche. #IIe

liks it##

it

IIe washes it daily.

(15)

Porsche Cy)

[x owns y]

*(16)

Porsche (y)

xownsy

2. Aecmsibility

A referent xis accessible to a pronorm

a,

ifftk condition T &om which the prcroun is to be

eliminatod belongs t0 the DRS oontaining x or to aDRS subordirnte to it-

In other words only discourse rderents in fhe mrin box or in a box higher than that containing the pronoun
are accessible to pfonorss. Compme (17) qrhich ooiltains Fqper

(17)

Jone doesn't ownUlysses. Yet,

he

liks

(18)

Jone {x}
Ulysses (y)

l-ownsy

it

mms (rigid dsignators)-

The difference betrveen the hl.o DRSs lies rn the

ffierent construction principles for indefinite descriptions

and for proper rutmes.

local

is to become part of the

lVhereas the discourse referent i$roduced for an indef,nite description
propff I]ame, as well as
DRS, which contains the relevant denotation- the referent introduced for the

of the main DRS' Sinceybelongs

the condition containing the proper name, mustbe added to the universe
for i/ withy'
to the same DRS as the condition z likes it,lve may link the discourse referent er lr.e introduce
by means of the condition u =

Y-

(1e)
Jones (x)

Ulysses (y)

2.1. Models Verification,

DRS K

Tmth, Accessibility

is true in the wdel M tf there is away of associating members of UMwith the discourse referents

of K so that each af the conditions of K is verified in M.

Technical Notions

Two functions (embeddings)

are

compatibb

tf

they assign

ttr

same values to those

argrlnents for which

they are both define4 i.e. for any a which belongs to both Dom(0 and Dom(g), i-e., f(a) = c(a)
nunction g is an extension of f if g is compatible with f and the Domain cf g includes the domain of f.
Since the conditions of negation,

-,

crntain DRSs in their turq &is require

precise defitrition of what a

DRS is like.

Definition:
A DRS K confined to V (a vocabulary) alrd R

(:

a set of discourse rderents) is a pair corsisting

of a srbset UK (poesibly empty) of R and a set Conr of DRS conditions confined to V an'd R
A DRS condition confined to V and R is an expression of one of the following fonns:

(20) (a) x = y, $rhere x, Ybelong to R

O) ur(x), where x belongs to R and z is a proper name
(c) r1(x) where x belongs to R and 1 is a unary predicale,

conesponding to a cornrnon name from V-

(d)
(e)
(S

x(. where x belongs to R and ( is a unary predicate corresponding to an inhansitive rcrb from V.
x(y. rvhere x, y belong to R and ( is a binary predicate corresponding to a transitit

- i!

from V.

e verb

where K is a DRS confined to V and R-

Conditions may be atomic (simple) or complex ( those which have other DRSs as constituents).

Proper DR,1s: A DRS is proper iffno discurse referent is free in it-

Definition of Verification
Let K be a DRS confined to V and R, let y be a DRS<onditiorl and let f be an ernbeddrng (function) from
R into l\,{, i.e., a function s,hose domain is included in R and whose mnge is included in UM.
r1l\

(i)
(ii)

f verifies the DRS K itr M

ifff

f verifies the condition y in M

(a)
(b)

y is of the forrn

verifies each of the conditions belonging to ConK in M.

iff

x: y and f

y is of the form n(x) and

maps x and y onto &e same element of Uu.

maps x onto ttre elementa of

U1"1

such tlrat <n, a> belongs to

Namer"r

(c)

y is of the form q(x) rnd f rnaps x onfo fhe element a of Us srch that a belongs

16

predu(q).

(d)

y is of the forrn

x(

and f maps x onto

tle element a of Uy zuch that a belongs to

predu(O.

(e)

y is of the fcrm

dy,

and

f maps x and y onto the

elements a and b of

Uu such tlrat

<a, b>

belongs to Predu($.

(0

y is of the forrn
that

K'

andthere is no embedding g from R into M which extends f, such

DomG): Dom(fl

ur

Ur

and g verifieslC

inM

2.3 An iltustration. Considerthe following discourse and let us check whether it isverifred in ldr.

02)

Jones likes lllysses. I{e does not own aPorsche,

M1 = <Uyi, Nante y1,

Predla| where

Uuris the set of individuals {a, b, c,

4 e}

Namem is the set of pairs { <Jones, aZ <Smit[ bZ <Ulysses,

&,

<Candide e>}

PtedMr is the set consistingof

the pair < likes.

likeqn.

where likes M1 is the set of pairs

t <4 dZ <4

e>,

+,

e>)

i0
iir)

pairs {<e, a>,<b, dz<a, b>, <4 a>, <b, c>

the pair <owns, olvrlS1a1), where ownsMl is the set of
the pair<Por*che, Porschert>, where PorscheMl is the set {c}

the individual a afld the discourse referenty onto

The function f whichmaps the discourse referent xonto
with the DRS below in M1:
the individual d is an embedding of the fust sentence

(23)

Jones (x)

Ulysses (y)

x likes y

Thus < Jones, f(x)> and < ulysses,

(y)> belong to NameMl and <f(x), f(]IP belong to likes Ml' If we add

thesecondsentence,wewillbedealingwithacomplexcondition-K:

Q4)

Jones(x)

Uysses (Y)

xlike*y
FX
u

referefrs x
This DRS is verified by an embedding f which mape the discourse
andthe discourse refererry onto the individual

u It is straigltforwardto

ad

z onto the individual a

check the first four conditions'

<Jones'f(x)>and,<Ulyssegf(yPbelongtoNameMI,<(x)'f{y)>belongtolks}vl1andx'zars
map,pd onto the same elemqrt C-:onsider the last mndition now:

{2s}

fum t+y, q u| iato Uu which

above in M

We must show that thsre is no embedding g

Dom(f)

U6, and which verifies the DRS

extends f such Dom(g)

The only possibiliry* is that u is mappd orto c, the only indfuidual in the edension of Porsche.

Furthermore, h must also verift z o$.as u. Sinoe }(z)

: f(z): f (u): a" this is impossible. So no such h

exists and f r,erifies the discourse above.

Apvzzle: The Ilouble Negaliron problem- Karnunen(f9?6) noted that while

cannot outliye a single negation or a single verb with an inherently negative implication

a discourse referent

(fail

neglect,

forget), it will not be blocked by a double negation. While in (1) the pronoun if cannot be interpreted as
dependent on a question and in (2) th6 pfonour cannot deeild ofi an antswer, the definite in (3) roy depnd
on the preceding indefinite and the i, in (4) can be taken to ref,er to an umbrella.

it

(l)

Bill didn't

o)

John failedto findan answer. #Itwas wrong.

(3)

John ditln't fail to find an ansn,r. It was even right

(4)

John didn't remember not to briag an umbrella, afthough we had no room for iL

(5)

It is not troe that John didnt bring

dare !o ask a question # The lecturer answered

an umbrelln- It was prrple and in stood in the hallways.

DRSr

DRS

&y
John (x)

umbrella(y)

bdns(ay)
Double twgfiiofrurplugs

the

phtg otthefirst neggiorq instead of actiag

as a

*double plugl'-

t0