Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002

Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002): Indeterminate Pronouns #

@cite{kratzer-shimoyama-2002}

"Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese." In C. Lee et al. (eds.), Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 91, 123-143.

Core Thesis #

Hamblin alternative semantics, originally designed for questions, is the right architecture for all quantification. Indeterminate pronouns (Japanese dare, nani, doko...) denote sets of individual alternatives that expand pointwise via functional application until caught by an operator (∃, ∀, Neg, Q). Quantification is operator selection, not DP movement.

Formalized Contributions #

  1. Hamblin operators (§2): The four sentential operators over propositional alternative sets.
  2. Pointwise FA = Set applicative (§3): K&S's Hamblin FA is exactly the set applicative from @cite{charlow-2020}, already formalized in Applicative.lean.
  3. GQ as special case (§2): Determiner quantification falls out when alternatives are individuals — [∃]({P(x) : x ∈ A}) ↔ ∃x∈A, P(x).
  4. Singleton collapse: When alternatives are a singleton (ordinary semantics), Hamblin modals reduce to standard Kripke modals.
  5. Modal–indefinite interaction (§7): Possibility/necessity modals are sensitive to Hamblin alternatives in their scope.
  6. Distribution requirement as implicature (§6, §8): The free choice effect is derived via Gricean reasoning, not semantic entailment.
  7. End-to-end FC derivation: Hamblin T-content + implicature = FC.
  8. Selectivity (§9): Non-selective (Japanese) vs. selective (Indo-European) indeterminate systems, with Beck effect data.
  9. Cross-linguistic paradigm (§1): Latvian indeterminate series.

Integration Points #

§2-3: Hamblin Interpretation System #

In a Hamblin semantics, all expressions denote sets of alternatives. Most lexical items denote singleton sets; indeterminate pronouns denote sets of individuals. Composition is pointwise functional application.

@[reducible, inline]

A Hamblin denotation is a set of alternatives of type α. This is exactly the carrier of @cite{charlow-2020}'s set monad.

Equations
Instances For

    Hamblin Functional Application (§3): pointwise application of a set of functions to a set of arguments.

    ⟦α⟧ = {a ∈ Dσ : ∃b ∈ ⟦β⟧ ∃c ∈ ⟦γ⟧, a = c(b)}

    Equations
    Instances For

      Bridge: Hamblin FA = the set applicative from Applicative.lean.

      §2: Sentential Operators over Propositional Alternatives #

      The alternatives created by indeterminate phrases expand until caught by an operator. Where A is a set of propositions (p. 126-127):

      [∃](A): existential closure over propositional alternatives.

      Equations
      Instances For

        [∀](A): universal closure over propositional alternatives.

        Equations
        Instances For

          [Neg](A): negative closure over propositional alternatives.

          Equations
          Instances For

            [Q](A): question operator — identity on propositional alternatives.

            Equations
            Instances For

              Neg is the pointwise negation of ∃: [Neg](A)(w) ↔ ¬[∃](A)(w).

              theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.opForall_entails_opExists {W : Type} (A : HamblinDen (WProp)) (hne : ∃ (p : WProp), A p) (w : W) (h : opForall A w) :

              ∀ entails ∃ on non-empty alternative sets.

              Map from operator tags to their semantic implementations.

              Instances For
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  The question operator returns the alternative set unchanged: [Q](A) = A. This is distinct from the propositional operators because it does not collapse alternatives to a truth value.

                  theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.opExists_gq_special_case {E W : Type} (A : HamblinDen E) (P : EWProp) (w : W) :
                  opExists (fun (p : WProp) => ∃ (x : E), A x p = P x) w ∃ (x : E), A x P x w

                  Determiner quantification as special case (p. 126): "Determiner quantification falls out as a special case, the case where the alternatives are individuals."

                  When an indeterminate denotes a set of individuals A and a predicate lifts each individual to a proposition, sentential [∃] over the resulting propositional alternatives equals the standard GQ existential: [∃]({P(x) : x ∈ A})(w) ↔ ∃ x ∈ A, P(x)(w).

                  theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.opForall_gq_special_case {E W : Type} (A : HamblinDen E) (P : EWProp) (w : W) :
                  opForall (fun (p : WProp) => ∃ (x : E), A x p = P x) w ∀ (x : E), A xP x w

                  Universal counterpart: [∀] over individual alternatives = standard ∀. [∀]({P(x) : x ∈ A})(w) ↔ ∀ x ∈ A, P(x)(w).

                  Compositional Derivation of dare(-ga) nemutta #

                  Japanese indeterminate pronouns denote sets of individuals. Composed with a predicate via pointwise FA, they produce propositional alternative sets. An operator then closes the set (p. 126):

                  We simplify by working extensionally (dropping the world parameter on the restrictor), which is faithful for the core point that operator selection = quantification.

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    ⟦dare⟧ = the set of all humans (extensional simplification).

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      ⟦dare nemutta⟧ = {slept(a), slept(b), slept(c)} via Hamblin FA.

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        dare-ka nemutta = [∃]({slept(a), slept(b), slept(c)}) = ∃x.slept(x)

                        theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.dare_mo_derivation (slept : PersonProp) :
                        (∀ (p : Prop), dareNemutta slept pp) ∀ (x : Person), slept x

                        dare-mo nemutta = [∀]({slept(a), slept(b), slept(c)}) = ∀x.slept(x)

                        §7: Modals over Hamblin Alternative Sets #

                        The key insight: modals can be sensitive to the propositional alternatives introduced by indeterminate phrases in their scope (p. 132-133).

                        Possibility/necessity modals over an alternative set A:

                        ⟦kann α⟧(w) = ∃w'[R(w,w') ∧ ∃p[p ∈ A ∧ p(w')]]
                        ⟦muss α⟧(w) = ∀w'[R(w,w') → ∃p[p ∈ A ∧ p(w')]]
                        

                        The distribution requirement (to be derived as implicature in §8):

                        ∀p[p ∈ A → ∃w'[R(w,w') ∧ p(w')]]

                        distributes alternatives over accessible worlds.

                        Note: We use Prop-valued accessibility here (rather than the Bool-valued Core.ModalLogic.AccessRel) to stay in Prop throughout the Hamblin semantics. The singleton collapse theorem below shows these Hamblin modals reduce to standard Kripke modals when the alternative set is a singleton.

                        @[reducible, inline]

                        Prop-valued accessibility relation for Hamblin modal semantics. Named distinctly from Core.ModalLogic.AccessRel (which is Bool-valued) to avoid shadowing.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Possibility modal over Hamblin alternatives (§7, p. 133): True at w iff some accessible world satisfies some alternative.

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Necessity modal over Hamblin alternatives (§7, p. 133): True at w iff every accessible world satisfies some alternative.

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              The distribution requirement (§7, p. 133): for every alternative p in A, there exists an accessible world where p is true.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Singleton collapse: when the alternative set is a singleton {p}, Hamblin possibility reduces to standard Kripke possibility. This is the paper's core architectural claim: ordinary semantics is the special case where all denotations are singletons.

                                Singleton collapse for necessity: when alternatives are a singleton, Hamblin necessity reduces to standard Kripke necessity.

                                theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.hamblinNec_entails_hamblinPoss {W : Type} (R : HamblinAccessRel W) (A : HamblinDen (WProp)) (w : W) (h : hamblinNec R A w) (hacc : ∃ (w' : W), R w w') :

                                Necessity entails possibility (when some accessible world exists).

                                The distribution requirement is NOT entailed by necessity (§6, p. 131). Necessity only requires some alternative per world, not that every alternative is witnessed. The distribution requirement is an implicature.

                                Countermodel: R reflexive-only, A = {p₁, p₂} where p₁ holds at true, p₂ holds at false. From w = true, only true is accessible: necessity holds (p₁ witnesses true) but distribution fails (p₂ is unwitnessed).

                                §7: Domain Widening #

                                ein Mann denotes a contextually restricted subset of men (Schwarzschild 2000: singleton indefinites). irgendein Mann widens to the full set (p. 132).

                                This is the same mechanism as contextual domain restriction in DomainRestriction.lean: ein selects from a contextually restricted domain C ∩ P, while irgend- removes the restriction.

                                A simple indefinite selects from a contextually restricted subset.

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  An irgend- indefinite widens to the full predicate extension.

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For
                                    theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.simple_entails_widened {E : Type} (D : Set E) (P Q : EProp) :
                                    (∃ xsimpleIndef D P, Q x)xirgendIndef P, Q x

                                    Widening weakens existentials: restricted entails widened.

                                    §6 & §8: Pragmatic Derivation of the Free Choice Implicature #

                                    §6 establishes that the distribution requirement is a conversational implicature: cancelable (ex. 11), disappears in DE contexts (ex. 12, 14).

                                    §8 derives it via Gricean reasoning about why the speaker widened. Widening could serve: (a) strengthening, (b) avoiding a false claim, (c) avoiding a false exhaustivity inference (p. 134).

                                    Three cases over alternatives {A, B}:

                                    (16) Possibility: Du kannst dir irgendeins leihen #

                                    (17) Necessity: Du musst dir irgendeins leihen #

                                    (18) Negated possibility: auf keinen Fall #

                                    theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.fc_possibility (pA pB : Prop) (h_tcontent : pA pB) (h_implic : pA pB) :
                                    pA pB

                                    (16) Possibility: T-content + implicature → FC. ◇(A ∨ B) with ◇A ↔ ◇B yields ◇A ∧ ◇B.

                                    theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.fc_necessity_total (nAB pA pB : Prop) (h_nAB : nAB) (h_nec_to_poss : nABpA pB) (h_poss_implic : pA pB) :
                                    nAB pA pB

                                    (17) Necessity total meaning (p. 135). □(A∨B) → ◇(A∨B) → ◇A ∨ ◇B, combined with ◇A↔◇B, gives □(A∨B) ∧ ◇A ∧ ◇B.

                                    (18) Negated possibility: implicature canceled. ¬◇(A ∨ B) implies ¬◇A ∧ ¬◇B. Widening adds nothing.

                                    theorem Phenomena.ModalIndefinites.Studies.KratzerShimoyama2002.fc_end_to_end_possibility {W : Type} (R : HamblinAccessRel W) (p q : WProp) (w : W) (h_tcontent : hamblinPoss R (fun (r : WProp) => r = p r = q) w) (h_implic : (∃ (w' : W), R w w' p w') ∃ (w' : W), R w w' q w') :
                                    (∃ (w' : W), R w w' p w') ∃ (w' : W), R w w' q w'

                                    End-to-end FC derivation for (16): Given two propositional alternatives under a possibility modal, the T-content is exactly hamblinPoss, and applying the biconditional implicature yields FC.

                                    This connects the modal semantics (§7) to the pragmatic derivation (§8) in a single theorem.

                                    Bridge to @cite{chierchia-2013}. K&S's pragmatic derivation (Gricean reasoning) and Chierchia's grammatical derivation (double exhaustification) both yield ◇A ∧ ◇B. Different mechanisms, same empirical prediction.

                                    §9: Non-Selective vs. Selective Indeterminate Systems #

                                    Japanese: non-selective — same base (dare) + different particles (ka → ∃, mo → ∀, demo → FC). Base does not change shape.

                                    Indo-European: selectiveirgendein associates only with [∃], not [∀], [Neg], or [Q]. Explained via uninterpretable features (p. 138): selective indeterminates carry uninterpretable [∃] that must be checked against an interpretable counterpart via feature movement.

                                    Beck Effects (§9, p. 139) #

                                    When feature movement of uninterpretable [∃] is blocked by an intervening scope-bearing element, ungrammaticality results:

                                    An indeterminate pronoun paradigm: which operators it associates with, and whether its morphology changes per operator.

                                    Instances For
                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For

                                        Japanese dare: non-selective. Associates with all four operators via different particles. Base form does not change.

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For

                                          German irgend-: selective. Associates only with [∃] (§9, p. 137). Cannot associate with [∀] (ex. 20c), [Neg] (ex. 21), or [Q].

                                          Equations
                                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                          Instances For

                                            An intervention datum: an element between a wh-phrase and its in-situ associate, and whether the result is grammatical.

                                            Instances For
                                              Equations
                                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                              Instances For

                                                Beck effect paradigm (examples 23a-g): scope-bearing elements block feature movement of [∃]/[Q]; non-scope-bearing elements don't.

                                                Pattern: *Was hat sie [INTERVENER] WEM gezeigt?

                                                Equations
                                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                Instances For

                                                  The generalization: scope-bearing = ungrammatical, non-scope-bearing = OK.

                                                  §1: Indeterminate Pronoun Paradigms Cross-Linguistically #

                                                  @cite{haspelmath-1997} (p. 277, diacritics omitted). The Latvian paradigm illustrates a selective system: each operator association is morphologically marked by a distinct prefix (kaut- existential, ne- under direct negation, jeb- indirect negation/comparatives/FC).

                                                  Latvian paradigm data imported from Fragments/Latvian/IndeterminatePronouns.lean.