Abstract

The projection pattern of the existential/uniqueness presupposition of a wh-complement varies depending on the predicate that embeds it. This variation poses problems for existing accounts that treat the presupposition as a semantic contribution of an operator merging with the wh-complement (Dayal in Locality in Wh-quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996) or of the embedding predicate (Uegaki in Interpreting questions under attitudes. Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation, Cambridge, 2015). I propose that the problems can be solved if the existential/uniqueness presupposition is contributed by the propositions corresponding to the answers of the embedded question, under the Hamblin/Karttunen semantics for questions.

Highlights

  • I have shown that the projection pattern of the uniqueness presupposition (UP)/existential presupposition (EP) observed in Sect. 2 can be properly captured, once we assume that the answers to the embedded question carry the uniqueness/existential presupposition (UP/EP)

  • I have demonstrated that, once we assume that the UP/EP comes from the answers, we can correctly capture the projection patterns of the UP/EP in sentences involving whcomplements embedded under predicates such as know, be certain and agree

  • Extending Dayal’s (1996) account based on the Ans-operator to question-embedding predicates in general incorrectly predicts that the UP/EP projects to the matrix level even with non-veridical predicates

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There has been a renewed interest in the semantic analysis of embedded questions (e.g., George 2011; Spector and Egré 2015; Uegaki 2015; Cremers 2016; Xiang 2016; Theiler et al 2018), following earlier pioneering works (e.g., Karttunen 1977; Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984; Heim 1994; Dayal 1996; Lahiri 2002). Assuming the Hamblin/Karttunen semantics for questions, I will argue that such a unified analysis is possible only if the UP/EP is contributed by the proposition(s) corresponding to the answer(s) of the question.3 It should be made clear at this point that a goal of this paper is not to offer an argument for a particular compositional mechanism of question-embedding, such as the question-to-proposition reduction (e.g., Karttunen 1977; Heim 1994; Lahiri 2002; Spector and Egré 2015), the proposition-to-question reduction (Uegaki 2015), or the uniform analysis based on Inquisitive Semantics (Theiler et al 2018).

Data and problems for existing accounts
Embedding under non-veridical predicates
A simple-minded account: always anchoring ANS to the evaluation world
Uniform semantics for complementation
Problem 1: be certain that
Problem 2: agree that
Diagnosing the problems
Proposal: presuppositional answers
The existential semantics for question-embedding
The presupposition projection properties of individual predicates
Presupposition triggers within an interrogative complement
Application of the analysis to particular predicates
Internal composition of wh-complements
Section summary
Matrix questions and rogative predicates
Projection from under rogative predicates
Conclusions and open issues

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.