Skip to main content

Relativized Exhaustivity: mention-some and uniqueness

Abstract

Wh-questions with the modal verb can admit both mention-some (MS) and mention-all (MA) answers. This paper argues that we should treat MS as a grammatical phenomenon, primarily determined by the grammar of the wh-interrogative. I assume that MS and MA answers can be modeled using the same definition of answerhood (Fox in Mention-some interpretations, MIT seminar, 2013) and attribute the MS/MA ambiguity to structural variations within the question nucleus. The variations are: (i) the scope ambiguity of the higher-order wh-trace and (ii) the absence/presence of an anti-exhaustification operator. However, treating MS answers as complete answers in this way contradicts the widely adopted analysis of uniqueness effects in questions of Dayal (Locality in wh quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi, 1996), according to which the uniqueness effects of singular which-phrases arise from an exhaustivity presupposition, namely that a question must have a unique exhaustive true answer. To solve this dilemma, I propose that question interpretations presuppose Relativized Exhaustivity: roughly, the exhaustivity in questions is evaluated relative to the accessible worlds as opposed to the anchor/utterance world. Relativized Exhaustivity preserves the merits of Dayal’s exhaustivity presupposition while permitting MS; moreover, it explains the local-uniqueness effects in modalized singular wh-questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. There is no clear consensus on what the lack of final fall contributes to meaning. I take it to mark the pragmatic imperfection of an answer, roughly read as ‘the best I can tell is ...’ For example, the lack of final fall in (i) (marked by ‘...’) indicates that A isn’t sure whether her answer is relevant to the question, not that the answer is possibly non-exhaustive.

    1. (i)
      figure b
  2. To be exact, Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984) assume that question interpretations are strongly exhaustive, namely, the extensional meaning of an interrogative not only affirms all the true answers but also rules out all the false ones. In this view, the interrogative who came denotes a function that maps a world w to the exhaustified proposition ‘only x came’ that is true in w. However, most recent works on question semantics take the weakly exhaustive meaning, which only affirms the true answers, as the basic meaning of an interrogative. For example, who came primarily denotes a function that maps a world w to the proposition ‘x came’ such that it’s true in w that only x came. Strong exhaustivity, then, is derived from weak exhaustivity via a separate operation.

  3. Not all question embeddings admit MS readings. For example, depends on-sentences (e.g., Where you can buy coffee depends on the time) only allow for exhaustive readings (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984; Dayal 2016).

  4. Note that in this scenario it is infelicitous to ask “Do you know which three places on campus one can hold a large conference?”, because this question presupposes that there are only three such places on campus.

  5. One might give a pragmatic explanation as follows: (23b) is read exhaustively because it is over-informative, in contrast to (23a), which is just as informative as needed. However, it remains puzzling why over-informativity forces exhaustivity. One would need to assume two distinct answerhood operations: (i) a pragmatic answerhood that seeks a (possibly non-exhaustive) answer that is as informative as needed and (ii) a semantic answerhood that demands an exhaustive answer. Nevertheless, this hybrid analysis cannot explain (22): when the questioner’s goal is ‘mention-three’, a mention-one answer wouldn’t be permitted by any answerhood operations—it is neither informative enough nor exhaustive.

  6. This paper stays neutral on how topical properties are compositionally derived. I only specify the composition of the question nucleus. Besides categorial approaches, which define questions as functions, dynamic approaches (Dotlačil and Roelofsen 2019; Li 2021) also allow for extraction of short answers from question denotations.

  7. Unlike focus alternatives, variable alternatives are specific to variable-like expressions and do not require focus marking.

  8. For any meaning α of type τ, we have: the Montague-lifted meaning of α is \(\alpha ^{\Uparrow}\) (of type 〈τt,t〉) s.t. \(\alpha ^{\Uparrow} := \lambda m_{\langle \tau , t\rangle}. m(\alpha )\). Boolean conjunctions and disjunctions are defined in terms of set intersection and union, respectively. For any meanings α and β of type τ, we have: \(\alpha ^{\Uparrow} \cap \beta ^{\Uparrow}:= \lambda m_{\langle \tau , t\rangle}. m(\alpha ) \wedge m(\beta )\), and \(\alpha ^{\Uparrow} \cup \beta ^{\Uparrow}:= \lambda m_{\langle \tau , t\rangle}. m(\alpha ) \vee m(\beta )\).

  9. What is particularly interesting about treating dou as an anti-exhaustification operator is that it accounts for multiple uses of dou. As argued in Xiang 2020, the function of dou varies depending on what alternatives participate in anti-exhaustification. Assuming a non-vacuity presupposition on the existence of such alternatives, this analysis accounts for the universal distributor use, the FC-trigger use, and the even-like use. Alternatively, by giving dou an even-like semantics, Liu (2016) derives the anti-exhaustivity effect indirectly (reviewed in Xiang 2020, Appendix B). For an account that derives the FC-trigger use of dou without assuming anti-exhaustification, see Zhao 2019.

  10. I don’t call such alternatives ‘innocently (I-)includable alternatives’, a notion coined by Bar-Lev and Fox (2020), because I-includable alternatives include also the prejacent itself (see (72) in Sect. 5.2.1).

  11. The FC-trigger use of dou is also subject to modal obviation (Xiang 2020): when the existential modal keyi ‘can’ is dropped or replaced with a universal modal like bixu ‘must’, dou cannot be grammatically associated with a pre-verbal disjunction.

    1. (i)
      figure av
  12. To be exact, although RelExcl is treated as a definedness condition of anti-exhaustification here, the effects of RelExcl are independent of whether universal FC is derived by anti-exhaustification. The only prerequisite for assuming RelExcl is that the formal theory used for deriving universal FC allows us to extract the subdomain alternatives from a disjunctive sentence.

  13. For a set of possible worlds W and a sentence ϕ, we have:

    1. (i)
      figure aw
  14. In this definition, ϕ is a syntactic expression, not a semantic value. RelExcl is formalized as such because it concerns the interpretations of the alternatives evaluated relative to different modal bases.

  15. RelExcl is very similar to Dayal’s (2013) Viability constraint, which says that every exhaustified alternative is true relative to a subset of the accessible worlds. The following formulates Viability analogously to (50):

    1. (i)
      figure ax

    The main difference between RelExcl and Viability is the following: in (53a), where the ◊-disjunction is parsed without local exhaustification, Viability predicts that universal FC is possible as long as \(\Diamond O \phi _{j}\) and \(\Diamond O \phi _{m}\) are true, regardless of the truth or falsity of \(\Diamond (\phi _{j} \wedge \phi _{m})\). However, as we shall see in Sect. 6.3.4, to account for the universal local-uniqueness inferences in can-questions with a disjunctive MA interpretation, there has to be an interpretation that requires \(\Diamond (\phi _{j} \wedge \phi _{m})\) to be false.

  16. Figure 5b is labeled as ‘dis/con-junctive MA’, because the conjunctive answer at the top and the disjunctive answer at the bottom are truth-conditionally equivalent. They both express the MA answer that Andy alone and Billy alone can chair.

  17. A similar constraint applies if one follows Fox (2018, 2020) and assumes that a wh-domain may include higher-order pluralities: singular which-phrases cannot quantify over higher-order pluralities, otherwise (60b) would have an exhaustive true answer based on {{a},{b}}.

  18. Dayal (2016, Sect. 3.2.1) provides two reasons for keeping choice interpretations separate from MS interpretations. One revolves around morphological differences among wh-expressions, and the other is concerned with the availability of MS interpretations in questions with a universal quantifier. Let me add two additional arguments here. First, choice questions do not have FC-disjunctive answers. In (i), the disjunctive answer only has an ignorance reading. The unavailability of a FC reading argues that the machinery that makes a can-question congruent with FC-disjunctive answers is unavailable to choice questions. As argued in Sect. 4.4, the disjunctive MA interpretation of a can-question is derived by applying an anti-exhaustification operator to the local IP. Nevertheless, as commonly assumed, the indefinite in a choice question scopes fairly high at LF (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984; Chierchia 1993; Szabolcsi 1997; Krifka 2001; Dayal 2016; Xiang 2022; a.o.) and therefore cannot interact with an anti-exhaustification operator.

    1. (i)
      figure bq

    Second, the two types of questions behave differently w.r.t. local uniqueness. In a singular can-question, the local uniqueness presupposition is universal—it applies to every accessible world that verifies a true answer (see (83)–(86) and (105)/(107)). In choice questions, however, the local uniqueness presupposition is existential. For example, the question in (i) implies that one of the boys watched exactly one movie, not that each boy watched at most one movie. This contrast argues that uniqueness is derived differently in these two types of questions.

  19. The analysis proposed by Fox (2018, 2020) is more complex than what is presented here. To account for negative island effects in higher-order interpretations, Fox argues for a non-vacuity principle: every proposition p in Q is such that the exhaustification of p is identical to a cell in the partition induced by Q. This principle predicts that non-modalized wh-questions do not have higher-order interpretations: in a higher-order interpretation, the answer space of a non-modalized wh-question contains plain disjunctions like \(\phi _{a} \vee \phi _{b}\), which cannot be paired with a partition cell by exhaustification. To account for the data in (77), Fox further assumes that the quantification domain of which children includes higher-order pluralities such as {{a,b},{c,d}}.

  20. Oddness arises even before the answer continuation “Chap. 3” is given, due to the problem we turn to next.

  21. RelExh is defined based on short answers because the meaning of a short answer is modal independent. In contrast, the meaning of a sentential answer to a modalized question varies as a function of the modal base.

  22. A reviewer points out that the definition of RelExh in (91) requires access to the modal base M, which is difficult to obtain from a compositional perspective. One way to solve this problem is to define modalized sentences as functions from modal bases to propositions, not as open propositions with a free modal base variable. This analysis allows the modal base to be retrieved as an argument of the sentential denotation. It also allows RelExh to be defined based on sentential answers, since sentential denotations are arrived at modal independently.

  23. In light of Uegaki 2021, to account for the projection of the uniqueness presupposition in embeddings, we can assume that the RelExh presupposition is carried by each max-informative true answer, rather than by the answer set as a whole.

  24. Relatedly, given the assumption in situation semantics that propositions can be characterized in terms of situations, we may also evaluate exhaustivity w.r.t. minimal situations. This option allows RelExh to be applied to non-modalized questions like Who has got a light?, which share many MS-related properties with can-questions (van Rooij 2004). For this question, MS is available if exhaustivity can be evaluated w.r.t. minimal situations that exemplify the proposition Someone has got a light.

  25. For example in (99b), ‘first-order (G)’ means that the first-order interpretation of (99a) yields global (G) uniqueness, and ‘narrow-scope higher-order (L)’ means that the narrow-scope higher-order interpretation of (99a) yields local (L) uniqueness.

  26. The discussion here is centered on have to-questions simply because the modal force of have to is unambiguously universal.

References

  • Abrusán, Márta. 2014. Weak island semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Abrusán, Márta, and Benjamin Spector. 2011. A semantics for degree questions based on intervals: Negative islands and their obviation. Journal of Semantics 28: 107–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Lev, Moshe E., and Danny Fox. 2020. Free choice, simplification, and innocent inclusion. Natural Language Semantics 28: 175–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09162-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Hotze Rullmann. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7: 249–298. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008373224343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caponigro, Ivano, and Kathryn Davidson. 2011. Ask, and tell as well: Question–answer clauses in American Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics 19: 323–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9071-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1: 181–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, and Ivano Caponigro. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. Talk at SuB 18, University of the Basque Country. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/chierchia/files/frs_and_qs_iii_2013-9-11.pdf.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, eds. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner, 2297–2332. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in wh quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2013. A viability constraint on alternatives for free choice. In Alternatives in semantics, ed. A. Fălăuş, 88–122. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dotlačil, Jakub, and Floris Roelofsen. 2019. Dynamic inquisitive semantics: Anaphora and questions. In Proceedings of SuB 23, eds. M. T. Espinal, E. Castroviejo, M. Leonetti, L. McNally, and C. Real-Puigdollers, 365–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, Kai, Danny Fox, and Sabine Iatridou. 2014. Definiteness as maximal informativeness. In The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, eds. L. Crnic and U. Sauerland, 165–174. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, eds. U. Sauerland and P. Stateva, 71–120. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2012. Multiple wh-questions: Uniqueness, pair-list and second order questions. MIT seminar. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/fox/uniqueness-pair-list.pdf.

  • Fox, Danny. 2013. Mention-some interpretations. MIT seminar. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/fox/class1-3.pdf.

  • Fox, Danny. 2018. Partition by exhaustification: Comments on Dayal 1996. In Proceedings of SuB 22, eds. U. Sauerland and S. Solt, 403–434. Berlin: ZAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2020. Partition by exhaustification: Towards a solution to Gentile and Schwarz’s puzzle. Manuscript, MIT. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TljZGNjZ/.

  • Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl. 2007. The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9004-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, B. R. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers, PhD dissertation, UCLA.

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995. Resolving questions, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 459–527. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25001601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Varieties of Formal Semantics 3: 143–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In Proceedings of IATL 1, eds. R. Buchalla and A. Mitwoch, 128–144. Jerusalem: IATL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, Aron, and Bernhard Schwarz. 2020. Singular which, mention-some, and variable scope uniqueness. In Proceedings of SALT 29, eds. K. Blake, F. Davis, K. Lamp, and J. Rhyne, 748–767. Washington: LSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, Filipe Hisao, and Vincent Rouillard. 2021. High and low uniqueness in singular wh-interrogatives. In Proceedings of SALT 30, eds. J. Rhyne, K. Lamp, N. Dreier, and C. Kwon, 714–733. Washington: LSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, eds. H. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, eds. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In The proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017903702063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Haoze. 2021. Mandarin wh-conditionals: A dynamic question approach. Natural Language Semantics 29: 401–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-021-09180-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, eds. C. Schwarze, R. Bäuerle, and A. von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Mingming. 2016. Varieties of alternatives: Mandarin focus particles. Linguistics and Philosophy 40: 61–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9199-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. On universal free choice items. Natural Language Semantics 18: 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9050-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, Morgan, and Kristen Syrett. 2019. (Non-)exhaustivity in embedded questions: Contextual, lexical and structural factors. In Proceedings of SuB 23, eds. M. T. Espinal, E. Castroviejo, M. Leonetti, L. McNally, and C. Real-Puigdollers. Vol. 2, 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolae, Andreea C. 2013. Any questions? Polarity as a window into the structure of questions, PhD dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, Hotze, and Sigrid Beck. 1998. Presupposition projection and the interpretation of which-questions. In Proceedings of SALT 8, eds. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson, 215–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 89: 607–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Modalized questions and exhaustivity. In Proceedings of SALT 17, eds. M. Gibson and T. Friedman, 282–299. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2008. An unnoticed interpretation for wh-questions: Elided answers and weak islands. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 677–686. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Quantifiers in pair-list readings. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 311–342. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Theiler, Nadine, Floris Roelofsen, and Maria Aloni. 2018. A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics 35: 409–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uegaki, Wataru. 2021. The existential/uniqueness presupposition of wh-complements projects from the answers. Linguistics and Philosophy 44: 911–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09309-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, Robert. 2003. Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 727–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, Robert. 2004. Utility of mention-some questions. Research on Language and Computation 2: 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, Yimei. 2016. Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers, PhD dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Xiang, Yimei. 2020. Function alternations of the Mandarin particle dou: Distributor, free choice licensor, and ‘even’. Journal of Semantics 37: 171–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, Yimei. 2021a. A hybrid categorial approach to question composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 44: 587–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09294-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, Yimei. 2021b. Higher-order readings of wh-questions. Natural Language Semantics 29: 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09166-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, Yimei. 2022. Quantifying into wh-dependencies: Multiple-wh questions and questions with a quantifier. Manuscript, Rutgers University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005097.

  • Xiang, Yimei, and Alexandre Cremers. 2017. Mention-some readings of plural-marked questions: Experimental evidence. In Proceedings of NELS 47, eds. A. Lamont and K. A. Tetzloff. Vol. 3, 261–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Zhuoye. 2019. Varieties of distributivity: From Mandarin dou to plurality, free choice and scalarity, Master’s thesis, ILLC, University van Amsterdam.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper supersedes Chaps. 2 and 3 of my dissertation (Xiang 2016) and the proceedings papers of Amsterdam Colloquium 20 and NELS 46. The analysis, especially the part on resolving the dilemma between uniqueness and mention-some, has been substantially reworked. I thank Gennaro Chierchia, Danny Fox, and C.-T. James Huang for guiding me during the early development of this work, as well as two exceptional reviewers of Natural Language Semantics and the handling editor Clemens Mayr for extremely helpful reviews. I also thank the audiences at the New York Language of Philosophy Workshop, TaLK 2022 at Keio University, and UConn Logic Group for feedback on the recent versions of this paper. I am especially grateful to Christine Bartels for her incredible editorial comments, which have greatly reshaped the presentation of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yimei Xiang.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiang, Y. Relativized Exhaustivity: mention-some and uniqueness. Nat Lang Semantics 30, 311–362 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-022-09197-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-022-09197-3

Keywords

  • Interrogatives
  • Questions
  • Answers
  • Mention-some
  • Uniqueness
  • Exhaustivity
  • Exclusivity
  • Free choice
  • Modality
  • Modal obviation
  • Higher-order interpretations