Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects*

Romero, Maribel

doi:10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9

Cited by 106 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Frana (2006) and Schwager (2008) argue that CQs denote properties and that a CQ-reading expresses a de re belief ascription, with the DP-CQ providing both the individual (res) argument and the property ascribed to it by the holder of the attitude (9c), linking the analysis of CQs to the factivity of the embedding predicate (Kratzer 1990(Kratzer , 2002. Finally, Heim (1979) entertains the hypothesis, later developed by Romero (2005), that CQs denote individual concepts (functions from indices to individuals) and that a CQ-sentence like (7b) should be 4 As noted in the literature (Heim 1979;Romero 2005, a.o. ), the lexical ambiguity hypothesis is supported by the fact that other languages distinguish between two different predicates corresponding to know; e.g.…”

Section: Background: Acquaintance and Cq-readingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The account of quantified CQs I propose is cast within the 'individual concept' approach (henceforth, IC-approach). 3 I start by showing that the version of the IC-approach provided by Heim (1979) and Romero (2005) to account for definite CQs can be extended to quantified CQs with functional nouns (pair-list readings). This is implemented by allowing quantification over meaningfully sorted concepts (cf.…”

Section: Set Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The paper is structured in the following way. Section 2 introduces the ICapproach for simple definite CQs (Heim 1979;Romero 2005). Section 3 extends Heim/Romero's IC-approach to quantified CQs with functional nouns (pair-list readings).…”

Section: Set Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…analyzed along the lines of (9d (Heim 1979;Romero 2005;Frana 2010) In this paper, I will frame my account of quantified CQs within an individualconcept-based analysis. Heim (1979) suggests that definite descriptions with CQ-readings, like the underlined DP in (10), may be analyzed on a par with definite descriptions in temporally intensional contexts, like the underlined DP in (11).…”

Section: Background: Acquaintance and Cq-readingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quantified concealed questions

Frana

2013

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel treatment of quantified concealed questions (CQs), examining different types of NP predicates and deriving the truth conditions for pair-list and set readings. A generalization is proposed regarding the distribution of the two readings, namely that pair-list readings arise from CQs with relational head nouns, whereas set readings arise from CQs whose head nouns are not (or no longer) relational. It is shown that set readings cannot be derived under the 'individual concept' approach, one of the most influential analyses of CQs on the market. The paper offers a solution to this problem. It shows that once we adopt an independently motivated view of traces-according to which traces are copies with descriptive content (Fox, Linguist Inq 30:157-196, 1999; Fox, Linguist Inq 33:63-96, 2002)-nothing else needs to be postulated to derive set readings within an individual-concept-based analysis. Thus, what seemed to be a challenge for this type of analysis turns out to be an argument in its favor.

show abstract

Section: Background: Acquaintance and Cq-readingsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Set Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Set Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background: Acquaintance and Cq-readingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantified concealed questions

Frana

2013

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If projection-i.e., the mapping from semantic type signatures to syntactic type signatures-were one-to-one, we would expect distinct interpretations for (2a) and (2b). But as Baker (1968) notes, there is only one interpretation: the noun phrase in (2b) is a so-called concealed question (CQ) (Heim 1979;Romero 2005;Nathan 2006;Frana 2010;Aloni & Roelofsen 2011 The overgeneration of (4b) is problematic for a view wherein the only way to license a particular syntactic structure is by projection from a semantic type signature. Two approaches have been taken to resolving this problem, both of which rely on idiosyncratic lexical properties.…”

Section: Additive and Multiplicative Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A computational model of S-selection

White

Rawlins

2016

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a probabilistic model of S(emantic)-selection that encodes both the notion of systematic mappings from semantic type signature to syntactic distribution-i.e., projection rules-and the notion of selectional noise-e.g., C(ategory)-selection, L(exical)-selection, and/or other independent syntactic processes. We train this model on data from a large-scale judgment study assessing the acceptability of 1,000 English clause-taking verbs in 50 distinct syntactic frames, finding that this model infers coherent semantic type signatures. We focus in on type signatures relevant to interrogative and declarative selection, arguing that our results suggest a principled split between cognitive verbs, which select distinct proposition and question types, and communicative verbs, which select a single hybrid type.

show abstract

Pseudoclefts and Other Specificational Copular Sentences

Dikken

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a survey chapter on specificational copular sentences, including specificational pseudoclefts. Section 1 will address the typology of copular sentences in some detail, laying out the various types of copular constructions identified in the literature and highlighting their properties and differences. Section 2 will repeat the typological exercise of section 1 with specific reference to a subtype of copular sentence referred to as the pseudocleft construction. Sections 3 and 4 will subsequently home in on specificational copular sentences (pseudocleft and non‐cleft alike) and discuss their characteristics. Sections 5 and 6 address questions arising specifically in the context of specificational pseudoclefts and discusses the various analyses proposed for these constructions in the literature. Finally, section 7 discusses semi‐clefts (constructions that superficially resemble pseudoclefts but lack a wh ‐operator) and their relationship with pseudoclefts.

show abstract

Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects*

Cited by 106 publications

References 23 publications

Quantified concealed questions

Quantified concealed questions

A computational model of S-selection

Pseudoclefts and Other Specificational Copular Sentences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About