Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 443–478 | Cite as

Interpreting concealed questions

Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

Concealed questions are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions (e.g., John knows the capital of Italy ≈ John knows what the capital of Italy is). This paper offers a novel account of the interpretation of concealed questions, which assumes that an entity-denoting expression α may be type-shifted into an expression ?z.P(α), where P is a contextually determined property, and z ranges over a contextually determined domain of individual concepts. Different resolutions of P and the domain of z yield a wide range of concealed question interpretations, some of which were not noted previously. On the other hand, principled constraints on the resolution process prevent overgeneration.

Keywords

Concealed question Quantification under conceptual cover Context-dependence 

References

  1. Aloni, M. (2001). Quantification under conceptual covers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Aloni, M. (2008). Concealed questions under cover. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 191–216. Special issue on Knowledge and Questions edited by Franck Lihoreau.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C. (1968). Indirect questions in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  4. Fox, D. (1999). Focus, parallelism and accommodation. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX.Google Scholar
  5. Frana, I. (2006). The de re analysis of concealed questions. In C. Tancredi, M. Kanazawa, I. Imani, & K. Kusumoto (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI.Google Scholar
  6. Frana, I. (2010a). Concealed questions. In search of answers. Ph.D. thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  7. Frana, I. (2010b). Copular questions and concealed questions. In M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, & S. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. Vienna: University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  8. Greenberg, B. (1977). A semantic account of relative clauses with embedded question interpretations. Manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  9. Grimshaw J. (1979) Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 279–326Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Gundel J., Hedberg N., Zacharski R. (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamblin C.L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  13. Harris, J. (2007). Revealing concealment: A (neuro-) logical investigation of concealed questions. MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I. (1979). Concealed questions. In R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I. (1994). Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In R. Buchalla & A. Mittwoch (Eds.), The proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics. Jerusalem: Academon.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, I. (1997). Predicates or formulas? Evidence from ellipsis. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventh conference on semantic and linguistic theory (pp. 197–221). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  17. Heim, I. (2009). Nouns as predicates of individual concepts? Handout presented at the frequently asked concealed questions workshop in Göttingen.Google Scholar
  18. Karttunen L. (1977a) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karttunen, L. (1977b). To doubt whether. The CLS book of squibs. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  20. Nathan, L. (2006). On the interpretation of concealed questions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Percus, O. (2010). Uncovering the concealed question (and some shifty types). Handout presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory XX.Google Scholar
  22. Roelofsen, F. (2008). Anaphora resolved. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Roelofsen, F., & Aloni, M. (2008). Perspectives on concealed questions. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVIII. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. Romero M. (2005) Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(5): 687–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romero, M. (2007). Connectivity in a unified analysis of specificational subjects and concealed questions. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Romero, M. (2010). Concealed questions with quantifiers. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, & K. Schulz (Eds.), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected and revised papers from the Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 21–31). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Rooth, M. (1992). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S. Berman & A. Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart workshop on ellipsis.Google Scholar
  28. Schwager, M. (2007a). Bodyguards under cover: The status of individual concepts. In M. Gibson & T. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory XVII. Ithaca,NY:Cornell University.Google Scholar
  29. Schwager, M. (2007b). Keeping prices low: An answer to a concealed question. In A. Gronn (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung XII. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations