Abstract

Concealed questions (CQs) are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions: I know your age reads as I know what your age is. The availability of CQ readings of determiner phrases has recently been taken to depend on whether the DP head noun is relational (i.e., two-place, like age or capital) or sortal (one-place, like brick or city) (Barker 2016). This generalization is based on the observation that many definite DPs lack salient concealed question-readings when their head noun is an unmodified sortal. Relatedly, Frana (2013, 2017) argues that, while quantified DPs have multiple concealed question-readings when the head noun is relational, they have only one when the head noun is sortal. This remark brings together noted counterexamples to both generalizations, and argues on their basis for a pragmatic account of the availability of concealed question readings of determiner phrases. The proposed account refines the analysis of concealed questions developed by Aloni & Roelofsen (2011) through integrating it with (i) a standard analysis of the semantic distinction between relational and sortal nouns, and (ii) Barker's (2016) ideas about the role of salient sets of alternatives in licensing CQ interpretation. The resulting account is shown to deliver correct predictions for the counterexamples to both semantic generalizations, while simultaneously offering an explanation of the strong, yet imperfect, correlation of CQ readings of determiner phrases with a relational head noun. BibTeX info

Highlights

  • Concealed questions (CQs) are determiner phrases that read as embedded interrogatives (Baker 1968):(1) I know the time. ≈ I know what the time is

  • Concealed questions (CQs) are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions: I know your age reads as I know what your age is

  • The proposed account refines the analysis of concealed questions developed by Aloni & Roelofsen (2011) through integrating it with (i) a standard analysis of the semantic distinction between relational and sortal nouns, and (ii) Barker’s (2016) ideas about the role of salient sets of alternatives in licensing CQ interpretation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Concealed questions (CQs) are determiner phrases that read as embedded interrogatives (Baker 1968):. Frana (2013, 2017) defends a weaker, but related generalization, according to which only certain CQ readings of quantified DPs depend on the head noun type In this remark, I argue on the basis of examples like (4) for an analysis of CQs that makes more nuanced predictions about their distribution. The main contribution of this remark is to show that once we add a standard treatment of the relational-sortal distinction to Aloni & Roelofsen’s account, their analysis yields the correct predictions regarding the availability of CQ readings, and their link to relational nouns This solves an independent problem for the original account, by avoiding recourse to derived conceptual covers for the interpretation of quantified CQs. The paper is structured as follows.

Background
Quantified concealed questions
Counterexamples to a semantic contrast
Towards a pragmatic account
The proposal
Our additions
Predictions
Plain definite DPs
Possessive DPs
Quantified DPs
A note on modification
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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