Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

240
(17) a. Because theyi know mek, Hervor considers us/*them/*youi+k friends.
→ b. Hervor considers me and one or more others friends.
(362) a. [ 1 st ] = λx.x includes the speaker.x
b. [ 2 nd ] = λx.x includes the addressee (and excludes the speaker).x
c. [ 3 rd ] = λx.(x excludes the speaker and the addressee).x
d. [ singular ] = λx.x is an atom.x
e. [ plural ] = λx.(x is a plurality).x
Consider the analysis where phi-features introduce presuppositions along the
lines of (362) (Heim and Kratzer 1998, Schlenker 2005, Sauerland 2008, Heim
2008, Kratzer 2009). Both the 1 st and 3 rd person pronouns introduce a variable.
The former presupposes that the variable refers to the speaker. The latter may explicitly
presuppose that it does not refer to the speaker. Alternatively, it may rather
implicitly presuppose it through a principle to Maximize Presuppositions which
forces the choice of 1 st person to refer to the speaker (see (398) below). These presuppositions
give the pattern of compatibility and entailment among expressions
in (17). They are in the first place grammaticality judgments, not a speaker's conceptualization
of the world. French route 'road' and femme 'woman' share the
feminine gender, pont 'bridge' and homme 'man' masculine, including for pronominal
anaphora, but it need not follow that a speaker believes that they share
extralinguistic properties (but see Boroditsky, Schmidt, and Phillips 2003, and the
articles in Gentner and Goldin Meadow 2003).
Mismatches between the phi-features of syntax and interpretation are plentiful
but often only apparent. Among them are different ways of referring to the same
entities, including different descriptions of the speaker and addressee in (363),
(364), (365). Nothing need prevent a 3 rd person description from accidentally or
necessarily referring to the speaker, in the same way that two and an even prime
corefer: the one who writes/wrote these words, the present writer, this writer,
yours truly, my person. Reference to the speaker lets these 3 rd person descriptions
share some patterns of anaphora and entailment with the dedicated 1 st person pronouns
I, we, as well as participate in others of their own. Their reference is not restricted
to the speaker, unless some means singles her or him out, I in (363), we in
(365). Baker (2008: 126f.) and Collins and Postal (2008) discuss the properties of
such 3 rd -for-1 st /2 nd person 'impostors' from different perspectives.
(363) The group in which I was presented itself/*ourselves/us to its/our hosts.
(364) Theyi know the present writerk. Jane considers usi+k/*themi+k friends.
(365) The present writersi/j think that theyi/wej have been misrepresented.
(i may include the speaker, or refer to the authors of what one is reading)
((365) from Collins and Postal 2008)
Likewise, only apparent is the different mismatch in (366), discussed by Sauerland
(2008), Heim (2008). Here 3 rd person is permitted to refer to the