Abstract
In the previous chapter, I have focused on three classes of responsive predicates/particles from cross-linguistic data—English predicates of relevance, Estonian contemplative predicates, and Japanese sentence-final particles—and argued that their interpretations call for a question-oriented analysis, given the observation that they lack the semantic property of Q-to-P entailment. In this chapter, I return to more familiar responsive predicates—know, surprise, and agree—and argue that they, too, require a question-oriented analysis, though, for reasons independent from Q-to-P entailment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
To illustrate the relevant observation, it is necessary to use non-exhaustivity-neutral complements. This is the reason why I will use which students passed the exam in the examples in this chapter, instead of exhaustivity-neutral ones used in the other chapters.
- 2.
This is so because, in order for the first conjunct to be true, p(w) and K w(x, p) have to hold. Assuming that knowledge entails belief, this entails the second conjunct.
- 3.
Cremers and Chemla’s (2016) task forced participants to choose between ‘true’ and ‘false’, and thus their results do not address the question of whether FAS is an assertive condition or a presupposition condition.
- 4.
Following a suggestion by a reviewer, the exact examples are modified from George’s original to include three newspaper stands. This is to ensure that WE and MS do not coincide in the relevant reading.
- 5.
- 6.
See Chemla and George (2016) for relevant experimental investigation into the interpretations of agree-wh sentences. Though, note that they use agree-wh sentences with plural subjects rather than the construction \({\ulcorner }\)x agrees with y on wh... \({\urcorner }\), which is relevant here.
- 7.
Here, I use a generalized version of the AnsF operator anchored to a set C of propositions, defined as follows (following similar formulations of the answerhood operator in Cremers 2016; Lahiri 2002):
-
(i)
-
a.
\({\mathsf {AnsF}}^{\prime }_{C}\) \(:=\lambda Q_{{\langle {st,t}\rangle }}\colon \,\underline {\exists p[p \in {\textsc {Max}^{\mathrm{weak}}_{\mathrm{inf},C}}(Q)]}.\ \{{p| p \in {\textsc {Max}^{\mathrm{weak}}_{\mathrm{inf},C}}(Q)}\}\)
-
b.
\({\textsc {Max}^{\mathrm{weak}}_{\mathrm{inf},C}}(Q) := \{{p| p\in Q \cap C \wedge \forall {q[(q\in Q\cap C)\rightarrow q} \not {\!\!{\subset }} p]}\}\)
-
a.
Roughly speaking, while A n s F w is anchored to the evaluation world w and restricts the set of answers to those that are true in w, AnsF is anchored to C and restricts the set of answers to those that are in C. In the case of agree-with-y-wh, \({\mathsf {AnsF}}^{\prime }_C\) is used to restrict the set of answers to those that are believed by y.
-
(i)
- 8.
The presupposition failures in the 3rd/4th rows result from the factivity and knowledge presupposition of surprise. \({\ulcorner }\) Alice/Zoe is surprised that Dana passed the exam \({\urcorner }\) is a presupposition failure because of the factivity (as Dana didn’t pass the exam). \({\ulcorner }\) Alice/Zoe is surprised that Dana didn’t pass the exam \({\urcorner }\) is a presupposition failure because of the knowledge presupposition (as neither Alice nor Zoe believes that Dana didn’t pass the exam).
- 9.
Uegaki (2015) also proposes a similar exhaustification-based analysis of non-reducible reading of know-wh although it is set within a question-oriented theory.
- 10.
There is one technical problem with this derivation, as noted in Uegaki (2015, 87–92). To restrict the set of alternatives to negate, we need to compare the strength of the proposition of the form
(where w is the evaluation world) to the alternatives. However, this proposition cannot be easily retrieved as the semantic value of the prejacent, as the extension of the prejacent would look like 
while its intension would look like 
. Uegaki (2015, 87–92) offers a solution to this problem by reformulating Exh as an operator that binds into the world argument of AnsD. - 11.
‘SEP’ in AnsSEP stands for ‘Strong Exhaustivity—Presuppositional’.
- 12.
- 13.
In the case of agree, it would be more accurate to refer to the relevant condition as ‘sensitivity to the answers not believed by the y-argument’. However, I will refer to the condition as false-answer sensitivity (FAS), for the sake of brevity.
- 14.
See fn. 7 for the definition of A n s F ′.
(where w is the evaluation world) to the alternatives. However, this proposition cannot be easily retrieved as the semantic value of the prejacent, as the extension of the prejacent would look like 
while its intension would look like 
. Uegaki (References
Bassi, I., Del Pinal, G., & Sauerland, U. (2019). Presuppositional exhaustification. Manuscript, MIT, UIUC and ZAS.
Berman, S. R. (1991). On the semantics and logical form of wh-clauses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Büring, D., & Križ, M. (2013). It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–29.
Chemla, E., & George, B.R. (2016). Can we agree about agree? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(1), 243–264.
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2012). Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (vol. 3, pp. 2297–2332). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cremers, A. (2016). On the semantics of embedded questions. Ph.D. Thesis, École normale supérieure.
Cremers, A., & Chemla, E. (2016). A psycholinguistic study of the exhaustive readings of embedded questions. Journal of Semantics, 33(1), 49–85.
Fauconnier, G. (1984). Mental spaces. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox, D. (2013). Mention-some readings. Ms. MIT and HUJI.
Fox, D. (2020). Pointwise exhaustification and the semantics of question embedding. Manuscript, MIT.
George, B. R. (2011). Question embedding and the semantics of answers. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.
George, B. R. (2013). Knowing-wh, mention-some readings, and non-reducibility. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2(2), 166–177.
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.
Karttunen, L. (1973). The last word. University of Texas, Austin .
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–94.
Klinedinst, N., & Rothschild, D. (2011). Exhaustivity in questions with non-factives. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4(2), 1–23.
Lahiri, U. (2002). Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Preuss, S. M.-L. (2001). Issues in the semantics of questions with quantifiers. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.
Romero, M. (1998). Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Ph.D. Thesis, UMass Amherst.
Spector, B. (2005). Exhaustive interpretations: What to say and what not to say. Unpublished paper, presented at the LSA workshop on Context and Content, Cambridge, July 15, 2005.
Spector, B. (2007). Modalized questions and exhaustivity. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (vol. 17). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., & Aloni, M. (2018). A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 409–466.
Uegaki, W. (2015). Interpreting questions under attitudes. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Uegaki, W. (2019). The semantics of question-embedding predicates. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(1), 1–17.
Xiang, Y. (2016). Complete and true: A uniform analysis for mention-some and mention-all. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20.
Xiang, Y. (2021). Higher-order readings of wh-questions. Nat Lang Semantics 29, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09166-8.
Zeevat, H. (1991). Aspects of discourse semantics and unification grammar. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Uegaki, W. (2022). Knowing, Again: Non-reducibility of Responsive Predicates. In: Question-orientedness and the Semantics of Clausal Complementation. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 106. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15940-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15940-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15939-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15940-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)