Advertisement

The *hope-wh puzzle

  • Wataru UegakiEmail author
  • Yasutada Sudo
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements; (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder) are only compatible with interrogative complements; and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it has been proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar semantic explanation for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope, which are anti-rogative, unlike their veridical counterparts such as be happy, which are responsive.

Keywords

Selectional restrictions Attitude predicates Clausal complementation Question embedding Preferential predicates 

Notes

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2004. Why surprise-predicates do not embed polar interrogatives. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 81: 203–222.Google Scholar
  2. Abrusán, Márta. 2019. Semantic anomaly, pragmatic infelicity, and ungrammaticality. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, Pranav, and Valentine Hacquard. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6 (8): 1–59.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (2): 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver, David I., and Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14 (1): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, Sigrid, and Hotze Rullmann. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7 (3): 249–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Post-posed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14 (1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (9): 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciardelli, Ivano, and Floris Roelofsen. 2015. Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese 192 (6): 1643–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cremers, Alexandre. 2016. On the semantics of embedded questions. PhD thesis, École Normale Supérieure, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Cremers, Alexandre, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2016. A psycholinguistic study of the exhaustive readings of embedded questions. Journal of Semantics 33 (1): 49–85.Google Scholar
  15. Cremers, Alexandre, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2017. Experiments on the acceptability and possible readings of questions embedded under emotive-factives. Natural Language Semantics 25: 223–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo, and Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (2): 159–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. d’Avis, Franz-Josef. 2002. On the interpretation of wh-clauses in exclamative environments. Theoretical Linguistics 28 (1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egré, Paul. 2008. Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (1): 85–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gajewski, Jon. 2002. L-analyticity and natural language. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  21. George, B.R. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers. PhD thesis, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  22. George, B.R. 2013. Which judgments show weak exhaustivity? (And which don’t?). Natural Language Semantics 21 (4): 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10 (2): 279–326.Google Scholar
  24. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In Meaning, content, and argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI international workshop on semantics, pragmatics, and rhetoric, ed. J. M. Larrazabal and L. Zubeldia. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
  26. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Grohne, Gisela. 2017. Aspect and embedded questions. Talk presented at the workshop ‘Inquisitiveness below and beyond the sentence boundary 1’, Broek in Waterland.Google Scholar
  28. Guerzoni, Elena. 2007. Weak exhaustivity and ‘whether’: A pragmatic approach. In Proceedings from SALT 17, ed. T. Friedman and M. Gibson, 112–129. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
  31. Harner, Hillary Jane. 2016. Focus and the semantics of desire predicates and directive verbs. PhD thesis, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  32. Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9 (3): 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heim, I. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In Proceedings of IATL 1, ed. R. Buchalla and A. Mittwoch, 128–144. Jerusalem: IATL.Google Scholar
  34. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klinedinst, Nathan, and Daniel Rothschild. 2011. Exhaustivity in questions with non-factives. Semantics and Pragmatics 4 (2): 1–23.Google Scholar
  37. Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Handout from a talk honoring Anita Mittwoch on her 80th birthday at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, July 4, 2006.Google Scholar
  38. Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  39. Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lassiter, Daniel, and Noah Goodman. 2017. Adjectival vagueness in a Bayesian model of interpretation. Synthese 194: 3801–3836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayr, Clemens. 2019. Triviality and interrogative embedding: Context sensitivity, factivity, and neg-raising. Natural Language Semantics 27 (3): 227–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moulton, Keir. 2014. Simple event nominalizations: Roots and their interpretation. In Cross-linguistic investigations of nominalization patterns, ed. I. Paul, 119–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicolae, Andreea Cristina. 2013. Any questions? Polarity as a window into the structure of questions. PhD thesis, Harvard.Google Scholar
  44. Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  45. Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero syntax, vol. 2: Infinitives. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  46. Portner, Paul, and Aynat Rubinstein. 2012. Mood and contextual commitment. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. A. Chereches, 461–487. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Qing, Ciyang, and Michael Franke. 2014. Gradable adjectives, vagueness, and optimal language use: A speaker-oriented model. In Proceedings of SALT 24, ed. T. Snider, S. D’Antonio, and M. Weigand, 23–41. Washington, DC: LSA.Google Scholar
  48. Rawlins, Kyle. 2013. About ‘about’. In Proceedings of SALT 23, ed. T. Snider, 336–357. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Roelofsen, Floris. (2019). Surprise for Lauri Karttunen. In Lauri Karttunen Festschrift, ed. C. Condoravdi. Stanford, CA: CSLI. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/T/bo45997447.html.
  50. Roelofsen, Floris, Michele Herbstritt, and Maria Aloni. 2019. The *whether puzzle. In Questions in discourse, ed. K. von Heusinger, E. Onea, and M. Zimmermann, 172–197. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  51. Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  52. Romero, Maribel. 2015. Surprise-predicates, strong exhaustivity and alternative questions. In Proceedings of SALT 25, ed. S. D’Antonio, M. Moroney, and C. Little, 225–245. Washington, DC: LSA.Google Scholar
  53. Romero, Maribel. 2016. Strong exhaustivity, alternative questions and monotonicity: Some thoughts on Cremers and Chemla (2016). Handout presented at the XPrag workshop ‘Disjunction Days: Theoretical and experimental perspectives on the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction’. ZAS Berlin, June 2016.Google Scholar
  54. Rooth, Matts. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  56. Rubinstein, Aynat. 2012. Roots of modality. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  57. Sæbø Kjell Johan. 2007. A whether forecast. In Logic, language, and computation, ed. B. ten Cate and H. Zeevat, 189–199. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Schwabe, Kerstin, and Robert Fittler. 2009. Semantic characterizations of German question-embedding predicates. In TbiLLC 2007: Logic, language, and computation, ed. P. Bosch, D. Gabelaia, and J. Lang, 229–241. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Sharvit, Yael. 2002. Embedded questions and ‘de dicto’ readings. Natural Language Semantics 10 (2): 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Modalized questions and exhaustivity. In Proceedings of SALT 17, 282–299. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Spector, Benjamin, and Paul Egré. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese 192 (6): 1729–1784.Google Scholar
  62. Theiler, Nadine. 2014. A multitude of answers: Embedded questions in typed inquisitive semantics. MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  63. Theiler, Nadine, Floris Roelofsen, and Maria Aloni. 2018. A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics 35 (3): 409–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Theiler, Nadine, Floris Roelofsen, and Maria Aloni. 2019. Picky predicates: Why believe doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles. Natural Language Semantics 27 (2): 95–134.Google Scholar
  65. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts, and Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89 (1): 66–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Uegaki, Wataru. 2015. Interpreting questions under attitudes. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  67. van Benthem, Johan. 1989. Logical constants across types. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 (3): 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Villalta, Elisabeth. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4): 467–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. White, Aaron Steven, and Kyle Rawlins. 2016. A computational model of S-selection. In Proceedings of SALT 26, ed. M. Moroney, C.-R. Little, J. Collard, and D. Burgdorf, 641–663. Washington, DC: LSA.Google Scholar
  70. Wold, Dag E. 1996. Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed. T. Galloway, and J. Spence, 311–328. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publication.Google Scholar
  71. Xiang, Yimei. 2016. Complete and true: A uniform analysis for mention-some and mention-all questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20, ed. N. Bade, P. Berezovskaya, and A. Schöller, 815–832. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  72. Zuber, Richard. 1982. Semantic restrictions on certain complementizers. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguists, ed. S. Hattori and K. Inoue, 434–436. Tokyo: Proceedings Publication Committee.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

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.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations