Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects*

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • A. Akmajian (1970) ArticleTitle‘On Deriving Cleft Sentences from Pseudocleft Sentences’ Linguistic Inquiry 1 140–168

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Beck H. Rullmann (1999) ArticleTitle‘A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions’ Natural Language Semantics 7 249–298 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008373224343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Z. Bošković (1997) ArticleTitle‘Pseudoclefts’ Studia Linguistica 51 235–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisson, C.: 1998, Distributivity, Maximality, and Floating Quantifiers, Rutgers Ph.D dissertation.

  • D. Büring (1998) ‘Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall’ D. Strolovitch A. Lawson (Eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII CLC, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 36–54

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Caponigro (2004) ‘The Semantic Contribution of Wh-words And Type-Shifts: Evidence from Free Relatives Crosslinguistically’ R. Young (Eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIV CLC, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 38–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Caponigro, I. and D. Heller: 2003, ‘The Non-Concealed Nature of Free Relatives: Implications for Connectivity’, talk at the Workshop on Direct Compositionality, Brown University. To appear in P. Jacobson and C. Barker (eds.), Direct Compositionality.

  • C. Cecchetto (2000) ‘Connectivity and Anti-connectivity in Pseudoclefts’ M. Hirotani A. Coetzee N. Hall J.-Y. Kim (Eds) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 30 GLSA, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 137–151

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Chomsky (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use Praeger New York

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Dikken Particleden A. Meinunger C. Wilder (2000) ArticleTitle‘Pseudoclefts and Ellipsis’ Studia Linguistica 54 41–89 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9582.00050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Donnellan (1966) ArticleTitle‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’ Philosophical Review 75 281–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, D.: 1993, ‘Modal Anchoring and NP Scope’, Linguistics Research Center working paper LRC-93-08, UC Santa Cruz.

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984,Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • P. K. Halvorsen (1978) The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions University of Texas Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Heggie, L.: 1988, The Syntax of Copular Structures, USC Ph.D. dissertation.

  • I. Heim (1979) ‘Concealed Questions’ R. Bäuerle U. Egli A. Stechow Particlevon (Eds) Semantics from Different Points of View Springer Berlin 51–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1994, ‘Interrogative Semantics and Karttunen’s Semantics for Know’, in R. Buchalla and A. Mittwoch (eds.), Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics I, Jerusalem.

  • I. Heim A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar Blackwell Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Heller (2002) ArticleTitle‘On the Relation of Connectivity and Specificational Pseudoclefts’ Natural Language Semantics 10 243–284 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1022152007523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Heycock A. Kroch (1999) ArticleTitle‘Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level’ Linguistic Inquiry 30 365–397 Occurrence Handle10.1162/002438999554110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Heycock A. Kroch (2002) ‘Topic, Focus, and Syntactic Representations’ L. Mikkelsen C. Potts (Eds) Proceedings of WCCFL 21 Cascadilla Press Somerville, MA 141–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R.: 1973, The Pseudocleft Construction in English, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT [revised version published by Garland, New York, 1979; page references are to this version].

  • P. Jacobson (1994) ‘Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences’ M. Harvey L. Santelmann (Eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV CLC, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Karttunen (1977) ArticleTitle‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1 3–44 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00351935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Kratzer (2002) ArticleTitle‘Facts: Particulars or Information Units?’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25 655–670 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1020807615085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Link (1983) ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms’ R. Bäuerle C. Schwarze A. Stechow Particlevon (Eds) Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language Walter de Gruyter Berlin 302–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, L.: 2004, Specifying Who: On the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses, UCSC Ph.D. dissertation.

  • F. Moltmann (1997) ArticleTitle‘Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers’ Natural Language Semantics 5 1–52 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008245409172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Moro (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Partee (2000) ‘Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian’ K. Kusumoto E. Villalta (Eds) UMOP 23: Issues in Semantics and its Interface GLSA, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 198–208

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Partee M. Rooth (1983) ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’ R. Bäuerle C. Schwarze A. Stechow Particlevon (Eds) Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language Walter de Gruyter Berlin 361–383

    Google Scholar 

  • O. Percus (2000) ArticleTitle‘Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax’ Natural Language Semantics 8 173–229 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1011298526791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Romero (2004a) ArticleTitle‘Intensional Noun Phrases with Know and Be’ Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3 147–178

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Romero (2004b) ‘Tense and Intensionality in Specificational Copular Sentences’ R. Young (Eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIV CLC, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 271–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M.: To appear, ‘Connectivity in a Unified Analysis of Specificational Subjects and Concealed Questions’, in P. Jacobson and C. Barker (eds.), Direct Compositionality.

  • J. R. Ross (1972) ‘Act’ D. Davidson G. Harman (Eds) Semantics of Natural Language Reidel Dordrecht 70–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. R.: 2000, ‘The Frozenness of Pseudoclefts – Towards an Inequality-Based Syntax’, ms. University of North Texas.

  • P. Schlenker (2003) ArticleTitle‘Clausal Equations (A Note on the Connectivity Problem)’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21 157–214 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1021843427276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Y. Sharvit (1999) ArticleTitle‘Connectivity in Specificational Sentences’ Natural Language Semantics 7 299–339 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008390623435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Y. Sharvit (2003) ArticleTitle‘Tense and Identity in Copular Constructions’ Natural Language Semantics 11 363–393 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1025528225951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Williams (1983) ArticleTitle‘Semantic vs Syntactic Categories’. Linguistics and Philosophy 6 423–446

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Zimmermann (1993) ArticleTitle‘On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs’ Natural Language Semantics 1 149–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, E.: To appear, ‘Coercion vs. Indeterminacy in Opaque Verbs’, in R. Kahle (ed.), Intensionality, [Available at http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb10/zimmermann/].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, 610 Williams Hall, Pennsylvania, PA, 19104-6305, USA

    Maribel Romero

Authors
  1. Maribel Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maribel Romero.

Additional information

I thank Irene Heim, Caroline Heycock, Anthony Kroch, Barbara H. Partee and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and criticisms on several versions of this paper. This paper has also benefited from the input of the audiences at the Penn Copular Sentence Workshop (November 2001), the Mayfest at the Univ. Maryland (May 2002), Sinn und Bedeutung VII (Univ. Konstanz, October 2002), UC Santa Cruz Linguistics speaker series (Spring 2003), the Workshop on Direct Compositionality (Brown University, June 2003), the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (January 2004), and the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (July 2004). Special thanks to Ivano Caponigro, Danny Fox, Daphna Heller, Line Mikkelsen, Lance Nathan, Chris Potts, Martí Quixal, Yael Sharvit and Alexander Williams, and to the editors of this journal, Daniel Büring and Pauline Jacobson, for their comments and insightful questions. All remaining errors are mine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romero, M. Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects*. Linguist Philos 28, 687–737 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation