Counterexpectation, free choice, and concessives in Tibetan

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

Morphologically, yin.n’ang is transparently:
Tibetan yin.n’ang ཡི ན་ནའང་ — variably yin.na.yang ཡི ན་ན་ཡང་ or yin.n’i /yine/ ཡི ན་ནའི ་ — appears to have three distinct uses:① Counterexpectational:②“Tashi’s tall.”ཡིན་ནའང་སྤྱང་པ ོ་མི ་འདུགyin.n’ang sbyang.po mi-’dug.
YIN.N’ANG
cleverNEG-AUX‘However, [he] isn’t smart.’

Forming wh free choice items:③Context: Pema is very friendly.
སུ་ཡིན་ནའང་ལ་སྐད་ཆ་བཤད་གི ་རེ ད།su yin.n’ang=la skad.cha bshad-gi-red.
who YIN.N’ANG=DAT speech talk-IMPF-AUX‘[She] talks to anyone.’① Counterexpectational ‘but/however’“yin.n’ang q” is anaphoric to a previous assertion p and commits
the speaker to p, q, and an expectation that “if p, likely not q.”
Proposal: Yin.n’ang conventionally cooccurs with an unpronounced propositional anaphor p, as in (1). EVEN scopes over theentire clause and associates with the proposition p.
(1) [[ pro(=p) ]F yin-na] =yang q
COPULA -COND EVEN

LF: EVEN ( if it’s [p]F, q )• p is asserted prior and not denied.

⇒p• Let P be a set of relevant alternatives to p, including p.

Concessive scalar particle:
Context: Don’t worry. The test is easy.
དེབ་གཅི ག་ཡིན་ནའང་ཀླ ོག་ན་ཡི ག་ཚད་མཐར་འཁྱ ོལ་གི ་རེ ད།
dep gcig yin.n’ang klog-na, yig.tshad mthar.'khyol-gi-red.
book one YIN.N’ANG read-COND exam
succeed-IMPF-AUX≈ ‘If [you] read even just one book, [you] will pass the exam.’I thank Kunga Choedun, Pema Yudron, and Tenzin Kunsang for patiently
sharing their language with me, as well as Rahul Balusu, Chris Davis, Hadas
Kotek, Elin McCready, and the audience at the 2019 Singapore Summer Meetingfor comments and discussion.

I document these uses and present compositionalsemantics for ①, ②, ③ from these ingredients.
Particles with similar ranges of uses and morphologicalmakeup are also attested in Dravidian (Balusu, tomorrow)and Japanese (demo).

③ Concessive scalar particle (CSP)

Taking its morphology at face value — COPULA + COND + EVEN —yin.n’ang is a conditional clause.

“[CSPs are] licensed in two types of environments: DE and modal
environments. It is glossed with even in DE environments and underexistential modals; it is glossed with at least in imperatives, underuniversal modals and under attitude predicates. The associate of [a CSP] isthe lowest element on the pragmatic scale.”— Crnič 2011: 5

But “X yin.n’ang” is in argument position in ② and ③!
See especially ② above, where X-yin.n’ang is dative marked.
Ø I adopt Shimoyama’s (1999) E-type approach for (Japanese)head-internal relatives: the clause is interpreted as adjoined atLF, with a pronoun interpreted in its surface position:• Literal ②: She talks to [even if they’re who] ⇒• LF: EVEN ( [if theyi’re who], she talks to themi )Ø This requires low credence in “if p, q,” supported by anexpectation that “if p, likely not q”↝ if p, likely not q

Selected references: Alonso-Ovalle 2016. Are all concessive scalar particles
the same? SALT • Crnič 2011. On the meaning and distribution of concessive
scalar particles, NELS 41 • Erlewine 2019. Wh-quantification in Alternative
Semantics, GLOW in Asia XII • Lahiri 2010. Some even’s are even (if) ... only: Theconcessive “even” in Spanish • Shimoyama 1999. Internally headed relative
clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora, JEAL • von Fintel 1994. Restrictions
on quantifier domains, UMass> ཡི ན་ནའང་ > ཡི ན་ནའི ་yin.n’ang yin.n’i

On the syntax of X yin.n’ang in argument position• EVEN requires “if p, q” less likely than “if p’, q” for all other p’ in P

• If P exhausts all relevant possibilities, the assertion of “EVEN ( ifit’s [p]F, q )” implicates the truth of the consequent q↝q(von Fintel 1994 §5.3.3).

ཡིན་ + ན་ + ཡང་yinnayang
COPULA + COND + EVEN

② Wh-yin.n’ang free choice items
Proposal: I adopt the denotation for wh-phrases with no ordinary
semantic value (Ramchand 1997, Beck 2006, Kotek 2014), andErlewine 2019’s covert ∃ to create an existential ordinary value.
Complete LF: EVEN [α if ∃[they’re whoi], she talks(HABITUAL) to themi ]⟦α⟧o = ^if theyi’re someone (= if they exist), she talks to themi⟦α⟧alt = {^if theyi’re x, she talks to themi : x human}

LF for ③: EVEN [α if iti’s (just) [one]F book, [if you read iti, you will pass]]

Ø The prejacent ⟦α⟧o is the least likely (or most noteworthy)
among its alternatives, satisfying EVEN.
(③ is ungrammatical with other numerals.)(2) བཀྲ་ཤི ས་ཨང་གསུམ་པ་ཡིན་ནའི ་ལེ ན་མི ་འདུག / *ལེ ན་འདུག
bKra.shis ang [gsum]F-pa yin.n’i len-mi-’dug / *len-’dug.
Tashi
#3-rd
YIN.N’ANG get-NEG-AUX / *get-AUX‘Tashi didn’t even get third place.’ / *‘got yin.n’ang third’
LF: EVEN [ if iti’s thirdF place, Tashi didn’t get iti ]Ø Assuming that getting first place is least likely (or mostnoteworthy), not getting third place will be the least likely,
satisfying EVEN. (Considering only first, second, third place.)(3) ཁ་ལག་ཏིས་ཡིན་ནའི ་ཟ་དང།
kha.lag [tis]F yin.n’i za-(dang)!
fooda.little YIN.N’ANG eat-IMP‘Eat at least a little food!’ (e.g. to a child)
LF: EVEN [ IMP [ if iti’s [a little]F food, you eat iti ] ]Ø EVEN(α) asserts ⟦α⟧o, which expresses the free choice effect:
for any animate individual x, in a situation that minimally differsfrom our own where “x exists” is true, “she talks to x” will be true.

Ø In a context where a stronger request — e.g. IMP [if it’s a lot of food,you eat it] — is also appropriate, the speaker’s choice to make theweaker request with ‘a little’ is noteworthy, satisfying EVEN.

• The prejacent ⟦α⟧o asymmetrically entails each alternative in⟦α⟧alt, so the presupposition of EVEN is satisfied.

This derives the ‘at least’ flavor of concessive scalar particles, also
described as a “settle for less” interpretation (Alonso-Ovalle 2016).