Lab members are currently involved in many different projects. Some project blurbs are featured below:<\/p>\n
Disjunction and alternative questions in W\u00e1\u2219\u0161iw <\/strong>(Ryan Bochnak) Polar question denotations\u00a0<\/b>(Lisa Matthewson) n\u026ce\u0294kepmxci\u0301n Gitksan Conjectural questions in Ktunaxa<\/strong> (Ana Laura Arrieta Zamudio and Ryan Bochnak) Lab members are currently involved in many different projects. Some project blurbs are featured below: Disjunction and alternative questions in W\u00e1\u2219\u0161iw (Ryan Bochnak) This project explores the composition of alternative questions in W\u00e1\u2219\u0161iw (isolate; USA). Two key features of the … Continue reading
\nThis project explores the composition of alternative questions in W\u00e1\u2219\u0161iw (isolate; USA). Two key features of the language raise challenges for the analysis. First, the connective used to separate the alternatives is underspecified between a disjunction and a conjunction reading. In particular, the conjunction reading is obligatorily contrastive (i.e., is translated as \u201cbut\u201d in English, rather than with plain conjunction \u201cand\u201d). Second, an additive focus particle occurs cliticized to the connective in alternative questions.<\/p>\n
\nThis project tackles the debate about whether polar questions have bipolar semantics (denoting a set of propositions {p, \u00acp<\/i>}), monopolar semantics (denoting a single proposition), or both. I am investigating the issue in two understudied Indigenous languages spoken in British Columbia: n\u026ce\u0294kepmxci\u0301n and Gitksan.<\/p>\n
\n<\/i>I argue that natural language has both bipolar and monopolar questions, and that n\u026ce\u0294kepmxci\u0301n morphosyntactically distinguishes the two. I further argue that bipolar questions come in two types, which are also morphosyntactically distinguished in n\u026ce\u0294kepmxci\u0301n: exhaustive (presupposing that\u00a0p\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0\u00acp\u00a0<\/i>are the only two answer options), and non-exhaustive (allowing alternative answers beyond\u00a0p\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0\u00acp<\/i>). I thus argue that n\u026ce\u0294kepmxci\u0301n\u2019s three-way morphosyntactic contrast in polar question forms reflects a three-way semantic contrast.<\/p>\n
\n<\/i>Gitksan also provides evidence for a distinction between bipolar and monopolar questions, and adds a further twist. In Gitksan, biased questions with a pragmatic profile very similar to English declarative questions are morphosyntactically simpler than neutral polar questions. I argue that neutral polar questions are created in a two-step process: first, the speaker\u2019s commitment to\u00a0p\u00a0<\/i>is removed, and second, a question operator forms a bipolar set. This invites us to re-examine our assumptions (inherited from English) about the default status of neutral questions and the \u2018special\u2019 status of declarative questions.<\/p>\n
\nThis project investigates conjectural questions (CQs; e.g., \u201cWho could be at the door?\u201d) in Ktunaxa (isolate; eastern BC, northern Montana and Idaho). Cross-linguistically, CQs are often formed with inferential evidentials or other epistemic modals, and have a pragmatic profile that does not assume that the addressee will answer. CQs in Ktunaxa are formed using the weak necessity modal xma<\/em>, which can have both epistemic and circumstantial readings. We argue that conjectural questions can be derived as a special case of epistemic xma<\/em> in questions, based on the pragmatics of epistemic xma<\/em> more generally.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"