Free Relatives and "Ever": Identity and Free Choice Readings

This paper explores three questions about the semantics of free relatives (FRs). One, do FRs have a uniform meaning? Two, related to one, what is the contribution of "ever"? And three, perhaps less discussed than the other two, what is the relation between identity and free choice (FC) readings of FRs with "ever"? It claims that FRs are always definite. "Ever" introduces a type of modality that is independent of the verbal system by enforcing universal quantification over epistemic alternatives to the world of evaluation. In so doing, it endows the FR with properties typically associated with universal quantifiers. There is no formal distinction between identity and FC readings of FRs. The crucial distinctions have to do with the interaction of uniqueness requirements typical of definites, NP-internal modality and episodic vs. non-episodic interpretations determined by tense and aspect

Determining (In)definiteness in the Absence of Articles

This paper addresses the view that bare nominals in languages without articles can be definites or indefinites. In particular, it challenges the status of bare nominals as indefinites, providing contexts in which English uses the indefinite article but an article-less language like Hindi must resort to a numeral construction. The empirical generalization based on Hindi is that bare nominals are ambiguous between definites and kind terms and that bare plurals, but not bare singulars, can have kind derived indefinite readings. The indefinite readings available to bare singulars can be traced to NP external factors. The paper then provides an explanation for these facts within a Neo-Carlsonian approach to bare nominals. The last section of the paper extends the insights gained from the case study of Hindi bare nominals to other languages, highlighting empirical and theoretical issues of relevance in determining whether bare nominals in a given language are definites or indefinites

Bare NP's, Reference to Kinds, and Incorporation

No abstract

Licensing "any" in Non-Negative / Non-Modal Contexts

No abstract

Single-pair vs. Multiple-pair Answers: Wh in-situ and Scope

this paper does not rest on the availability of single-pair answers in simple questions but on the fact that multiple-pair answers readily available in simple questions seem to be unavailable in contexts like (3a). As Pope points out, REF-Qs are intonationally distinct from echo questions. REF-Qs have a fall at the end while the rise is maintained in echo questions. 4 199