Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 26, Issue 3–4, pp 193–251 | Cite as

Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions

  • Alexandre Cremers
Open Access
Article
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

Questions embedded under responsive predicates and definite descriptions both give rise to a variety of phenomena which can be grouped under the term plurality effects: quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects. This similarity has not gone unnoticed, and many proposals have taken inspiration in theories of definite plurals to account for these effects with embedded questions (Dayal in Locality in WH quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996; Lahiri in Questions and answers in embedded contexts, Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002; a.o.). Recently these phenomena have received less attention, as the field has focused on the so-called intermediate exhaustive reading of embedded questions instead, after Spector (Exhaustive interpretations: what to say and what not to say, Presentation at LSA Workshop: ‘Context and Content’, 2005) called into question the traditional dichotomy between weak and strong exhaustive readings. As a result, the intermediate exhaustive reading has been accounted for at the expense of empirical coverage in other areas. In this paper, I propose a modular theory which derives the currently much discussed exhaustive readings without giving up the rich semantics necessary to account for plurality effects. My account of quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects builds on recent work on these phenomena in the nominal domain by adopting a categorial approach to embedded questions, while the strong and intermediate exhaustive readings are implemented using an independent strengthening mechanism suggested in Klinedinst and Rothschild (Semant Pragmat 4(2):1–23, 2011). The resulting theory not only recovers important results on plurality effects; it offers new, simple solutions for some puzzles presented in George (Question embedding and the semantics of answers, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 2011; Thought J Philos 2(2):166–177, 2013) and Paillé and Schwarz (in: Stockwell (ed) Proceedings of WCCFL 36, vol 36, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, 2018), naturally derives readings that had been postulated in previous literature (Preuss in Issues in the semantics of questions with quantifiers, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 2001), makes correct predictions in many unexplored cases, and is compatible with recent results in psycholinguistics. In the last sections I justify my assumptions and show how possible limitations I inherit from the theories I build on can be accommodated under standard assumptions.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has benefited from helpful feedback from so many people that I’m not entirely sure I should claim authorship. I am very grateful to Maria Aloni, Richard Breheny, Lucas Champollion, Emmanuel Chemla, Danny Fox, B. R. George, Hadas Kotek, Manuel Križ, Clemens Mayr, Friederike Moltmann, Floris Roelofsen, Bernhard Schwarz, Yael Sharvit, Anna Szabolcsi, Wataru Uegaki, Yimei Xiang, and the audiences at SuB 20 (Tübingen), the “Questions and Attitudes” Workshop (CMU), the “Sentences and Embedded Clauses” workshop (IHPST), and presentations at MIT, NYU, and the UvA. The manuscript benefited from detailed comments from Angelika Kratzer and Irene Heim, as well as two anonymous reviewers, and careful copy editing by Christine Bartels. All remaining errors are mine. I am particularly indebted to Benjamin Spector for in-depth discussions on many aspects of this work. I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

References

  1. Aloni, M., D. Beaver, B. Clark, and R. Van Rooij. 2007. The dynamics of topics and focus. In Questions in Dynamic Semantics., vol. 17, ed. M. Aloni, A. Butler, and P. Dekker, 123–145. CRiSPI. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Anvari, A. 2018. Logical Integrity: from Maximize Presupposition! to mismatching implicatures. Ms., ENS.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, C. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4): 407–444.Google Scholar
  4. Barner, D., N. Brooks, and A. Bale. 2011. Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children's pragmatic inference. Cognition 118: 87–96.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D.I. 1995. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. (PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh).Google Scholar
  6. Beck, S., and H. Rullmann. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7 (3): 249–298.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, S., and U. Sauerland. 2000. Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8 (4): 349–371.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, S., and Y. Sharvit. 2002. Pluralities of questions. Journal of Semantics 19 (2): 105–157.Google Scholar
  9. Berman, S.R. 1991. On the semantics and logical form of wh-clauses. (PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst).Google Scholar
  10. Champollion, L. 2010. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
  11. Champollion, L. 2014. Each vs. all: distributivity, cumulativity, and two types of collectivity. Talk at the 4th Cornell Workshop in Linguistics and Philosophy, Ms., NYU.Google Scholar
  12. Champollion, L. 2017. Distributivity, collectivity and cumulativity. In Companion to Semantics, ed. L. Matthewson, H.R. Meier, and T.E. Zimmermann. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Chemla, E. 2008. An epistemic step for anti-presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 25: 141–173.Google Scholar
  14. Chemla, E., and B.R. George. 2016. Can we agree about `agree'? Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7 (1): 243–264.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Structures and Beyond, vol. 3, ed. A. Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. 2012. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, 2297–2331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Ciardelli, I., J. Groenendijk, and F. Roelofsen. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: a new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (9): 459–476.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, R. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and Semantics 10: 61–92.Google Scholar
  19. Coppock, E., I. Ciardelli, and F. Roelofsen. 2016. Implicatures of modified numerals: quality or quantity? Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 21, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  20. Cremers, A., and E. Chemla. 2016. A psycholinguistic study of the exhaustive readings of embedded questions. Journal of Semantics 33 (1): 49–85.Google Scholar
  21. Cremers, A., and E. Chemla. 2017. Experiments on the acceptability and possible readings of questions embedded under emotive-factives. Natural Language Semantics 25 (3): 223–261.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9135-x.Google Scholar
  22. Cremers, A., L. Tieu, and E. Chemla. 2017. Children's exhaustive readings of questions. Language Acquisition 24 (4): 343–360.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1366207.Google Scholar
  23. Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Dummett, M. 1978. Truth and other enigmas. Cambride: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fagin, R., J.Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Vardi. 1995. Reasoning about Knowledge, vol. 4. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, D. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicature. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, ed. U. Sauerland, and P. Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Fox, D. 2012. Lecture notes on the semantics of questions. Class notes (MIT Seminars).Google Scholar
  28. Fox, D. 2018. Partition by exhaustification: Comments on Dayal 1996. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Franke, M. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (1): 1–82.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.1.Google Scholar
  30. Franke, M., and G. Jäger. 2016. Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes' rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 35 (1): 3–44.Google Scholar
  31. Gajewski, J.R. 2002. On analyticity in natural language. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Gajewski, J.R. 2005. Neg-raising: Polarity and presupposition. (PhD dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
  33. Gajewski, J.R., and Y. Sharvit. 2012. In defense of the grammatical approach to local implicatures. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1): 31–57.Google Scholar
  34. George, B.R. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers. (PhD dissertation, UCLA).Google Scholar
  35. George, B.R. 2013. Knowing-`wh', mention-some readings, and non-reducibility. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 2 (2): 166–177.Google Scholar
  36. Geurts, B., and R. Nouwen. 2007. At least et al.: the semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83 (3): 533–559.Google Scholar
  37. Geurts, B., and R. van der Sandt. 1999. Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives. In Domain restriction, ed. RvdS Peter Bosch, 268–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (2): 175–233.Google Scholar
  39. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Guerzoni, E., and Y. Sharvit. 2007. A question of strength: on NPIs in interrogative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3): 361–391.Google Scholar
  41. Hackl, M. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17 (1): 63–98.Google Scholar
  42. Hamblin, C.L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10 (1): 41–53.Google Scholar
  43. Heim, I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Handbuch der Semantik, ed. A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Heim, I. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen's semantics for ``know''. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual meeting of the IATL, ed. R. Buchalla, and A. Mittwoch, 128–144. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  45. Heim, I., and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1): 3–44.Google Scholar
  47. Klinedinst, N., and D. Rothschild. 2011. Exhaustivity in questions with non-factives. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (2): 1–23.Google Scholar
  48. Kotek, H. 2014. Composing questions. (PhD dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
  49. Kotek, H. 2015. On the semantics of wh-questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20, ed. N. Bade, P. Berezovskaya, and A. Scholler, 430–447. Germany: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  50. Kratzer, A. 2008. On the plurality of verbs. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, Language, Context and Cognition, ed. J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, and M. Schäfer, 269–300. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  51. Krifka, M. 1986. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. (PhD dissertation, Universität München). (Published by Wilhelm Finck, Munich, 1989).Google Scholar
  52. Krifka, M. 1996. Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. In Proceedings of SALT 6, vol. 6, ed. T. Galloway, and J. Spence, 136–153. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Križ, M. 2015. Aspects of homogeneity in the semantics of natural language. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  54. Križ, M. 2015. Homogeneity, trivalence and embedded questions. In Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. T. Brochhagen, F. Roelofsen, and N. Theiler, 207–216. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  55. Križ, M., and E. Chemla. 2015. Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language Semantics 23 (3): 205–248.Google Scholar
  56. Lahiri, U. 1991. Embedded interrogatives and predicates that embed them. (PhD dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
  57. Lahiri, U. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 2. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Lassiter, D., and N.D. Goodman. 2014. Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives. In Proceedings of SALT 23, ed. T. Snider, 587–610. Washington, D.C: LSA.Google Scholar
  59. Leffel, T., A. Cremers, J. Romoli, and N. Gotzner. 2018. Vagueness in implicature: The case of modified adjectives. Journal of Semantics. (in press).Google Scholar
  60. Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, ed. R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  61. Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4 (4): 279–326.Google Scholar
  62. Löbner, S. 2000. Polarity in natural language: predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (3): 213–308.Google Scholar
  63. Magri, G. 2014. An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures, ed. S.P. Reda, 99–145. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Mayr, C. 2012. Focusing bound pronouns. Natural language semantics 20 (3): 299–348.Google Scholar
  65. Mayr, C. 2017. Predicting polar question embedding. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, ed. R. Truswell, 1–18. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  66. Meyer, M.-C. 2013. Ignorance and grammar. (PhD dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
  67. Paillé, M., and B. Schwarz. 2018. Knowing whether and ignorance inferences. In Proceedings of WCCFL 36, vol. 36, ed. R. Stockwell. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  68. Percus, O. 2006. Antipresuppositions. In Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Reference and Anaphora: Toward the Establishment of Generative Grammar as an Empirical Science, ed. A. Uyema, 52–73. Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.Google Scholar
  69. Phillips, J., and B.R. George. 2018. Knowledge wh and false beliefs: Experimental investigations. Journal of Semantics 35 (3): 467–494.  https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/ffy004.Google Scholar
  70. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3): 365–424.Google Scholar
  71. Preuss, S. M.-L. 2001. Issues in the Semantics of Questions with Quantifiers. (PhD dissertation, Rutgers University).Google Scholar
  72. Qing, C., and M. Franke. 2014. Gradable adjectives, vagueness, and optimal language use: A speaker-oriented model. In Proceedings of SALT 24, vol. 24, ed. T. Snider, S. D'Antonio, and M. Weigand, 23–41. Washington, D.C: LSA.Google Scholar
  73. Rawlins, K. 2013. About `about'. In Proceedings of SALT 23, vol. 23, ed. T. Snider, 336–357. Washington, D.C: LSA.Google Scholar
  74. Romero, M. 2015. Surprise-predicates, strong exhaustivity and alternative questions. In Proceedings of SALT 25, ed. S. D'Antonio, M. Moroney, and C.R. Little, 225–245. Washington, D.C: LSA.Google Scholar
  75. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with focus. (PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst).Google Scholar
  76. Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of Focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar
  77. Sauerland, U. 1998. Plurals, derived predicates and reciprocals. In The Interpretive Tract, number 25 in MITWPL, ed. U. Sauerland, and O. Percus, 177–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Sauerland, U. 1998. The meaning of chains. (PhD dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
  79. Sauerland, U. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Sentence and Context: Language, Context, and Cognition, ed. A. Steube, 581–600. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  80. Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., and Janssen, T.M.V., editors, Formal Methods in the Study of Language, volume 2, pages 131–158. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam. Reprinted in Groenendijk et al. (eds), Truth, Interpretation and Information, Foris Publications, Dordrecht (1984).Google Scholar
  81. Schlenker, P. 2007. Transparency: An incremental theory of presupposition projection. In Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, ed. U. Sauerland, and P. Stateva, 214–242. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Schlenker, P. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2 (3): 1–78.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3.Google Scholar
  83. Selkirk, E. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory 1, ed. J. Goldsmith, 550–569. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  84. Sharvit, Y. 2002. Embedded questions and `de dicto' readings. Natural Language Semantics 10: 97–123.Google Scholar
  85. Sharvit, Y. 2004. Some remarks on quantificational variability and question-embedding predicates (U. Lahiri, Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts). English Linguistics, 21(2): 541–569.Google Scholar
  86. Sharvit, Y. 2017. A note on (Strawson) entailment. Semantics and Pragmatics 10 (1): 1–38.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.1.Google Scholar
  87. Singh, R. 2008. Modularity and locality in interpretation. (PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
  88. Singh, R. 2009. Maximize Presupposition! and informationally encapsulated implicatures. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, ed. A. Riester, and T. Solstad, 513–526. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  89. Solt, S. 2016. On measurement and quantification: The case of most and more than half. Language 92 (1): 65–100.Google Scholar
  90. Spector, B. (2005). Exhaustive interpretations: What to say and what not to say. Presentation at LSA Workshop: `Context and Content'.Google Scholar
  91. Spector, B. 2013. Bare numerals and scalar implicatures. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (5): 273–294.Google Scholar
  92. Spector, B., and P. Egré. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese 192 (6): 1729–1784.Google Scholar
  93. Spector, B., and Y. Sudo. 2017. Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: how scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact. Linguistics and Philosophy 40 (5): 473–517.Google Scholar
  94. Sternefeld, W. 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6 (3): 303–337.Google Scholar
  95. Theiler, N. 2014. A multitude of answers: Embedded questions in typed inquisitive semantics.(Master's thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  96. Theiler, N., F. Roelofsen, and M. Aloni. 2016. A truthful resolution semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Amsterdam: Manuscript, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  97. Theiler, N., F. Roelofsen, and M. Aloni. 2017. What's wrong with believing whether. In Proceedings of SALT 27, ed. D. Burgdorf, J. Collard, S. Maspong, and B. Stefánsdóttir, 248–265. Washington, D.C: LSA.Google Scholar
  98. Theiler, N., F. Roelofsen, and M. Aloni. 2018. A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics 35 (3): 409–466.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy003.Google Scholar
  99. Uegaki, W. 2015a. Interpreting questions under attitudes. (PhD dissertation, MIT).Google Scholar
  100. Uegaki, W. 2015b. Predicting the variation in exhaustivity of embedded questions. Cambridge: Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  101. Uegaki, W. 2018. On the projection of the presupposition of embedded questions. In Proceedings of SALT 28, ed. S. Maspong, and B. Stefánsdóttir. Washington, D.C: LSA.Google Scholar
  102. van Tiel, B., E. van Miltenburg, N. Zevakhina, and B. Geurts. 2016. Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics 33 (1): 137–175.Google Scholar
  103. Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4): 467–522.Google Scholar
  104. von Fintel, K., D. Fox, and S. Iatridou. 2014. Definiteness as Maximal Informativeness. In The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, MITWPL 70, ed. L. Crnič, and U. Sauerland, 165–174. Cambride: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  105. Williams, A. 2000. Adverbial quantification over (interrogative) complements. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, ed. R. Billerey, and B.D. Lillehaugen, 574–587. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  106. Winter, Y. 2000. Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8 (1): 27–69.Google Scholar
  107. Winter, Y., and R. Scha. 2015. Plurals. In Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd ed, ed. S. Lappin, and C. Fox, 77–113. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  108. Xiang, Y. 2015. Complete and true: A uniform analysis for mention some and mention all. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. 20, ed. N. Bade, P. Berezovskaya, and A. Schöller, 815–832. Germany: Tübingen.Google Scholar
  109. Xiang, Y. 2016. Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers. (PhD dissertation, Harvard).Google Scholar
  110. Xiang, Y. 2018. A hybrid categorial approach of question composition. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  111. Zuber, R. 1982. Semantic restrictions on certain complementizers. In Hattori, S. and K. Inoue. editors, Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguists, 434–436, Tokyo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ILLC – Universiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations