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
Summary
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.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
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