Presupposition Projection and the Interpretation of which-Questions

No abstract

A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses

This squib presents two puzzles related to an ambiguity found in for-infinitival relative clauses (FIRs). FIRs invariably receive a modal interpretation even in the absence of any overt modal verb. The modal interpretation seems to come in two distinct types, which can be paraphrased by finite relative clauses employing the modal auxiliaries should and could. The two puzzles presented here arise because the availability of the two readings is constrained by factors that are not otherwise known to affect the interpretation of a relative clause. Specifically, we show, first, that “strong” determiners require the FIR to be interpreted as a SHOULD-relative while “weak” determiners allow both interpretations (the Determiner-Modal Generalization). Secondly, we observe that the COULD-interpretation requires a raising (internally headed) structure for the FIR, while the SHOULD-interpretation is compatible with either a raising or a more standard matching (externally headed) structure (the Raising/Matching Generalization)

Maximality in the semantics ofwh-constructions

This dissertation provides evidence that the notion of maximality plays a central role in the semantics of wh-constructions, in particular wh-questions, comparatives, and free relatives. It is argued that the semantics of each of these constructions involves reference to the maximal element of a certain set. The way maximality manifests itself depends on the algebraic structure of that set. Degrees are ordered linearly and the maximal element of a set of degrees is therefore the highest degree in that set. In a set in which the elements are only ordered in a join semi-lattice the maximal element is the sum of all the elements in the set. In chapter 2, I show how the maximality account of comparatives can account for their semantic properties, in particular with respect to the distribution of negative polarity items and the interpretation of disjunction. Chapter 3 extends the maximality analysis to questions and free relatives. In free relatives maximality has a \u27universalizing\u27 effect, whereas in questions it gives rise to the exhaustiveness. In chapter 4 discusses a particular kind of questions, namely how many-questions, focussing on the scope interactions between the how many-phrase and other elements in the sentence. A common thread running through the dissertation is the interaction between wh-movement and negation. \u27Negative\u27 elements can block wh-movement in certain cases, a phenomenon which is known in the literature as the negative island effect. In the rest of chapter 1 the negative island effect is introduced and the accounts of it found in the literature are briefly discussed. In chapters 2, 3, and 4 it is shown how maximality can account for the negative island effect. In chapter 5 certain remaining issues are discussed including the question whether the maximality account of negative island effects can be extended to other kinds of \u27weak\u27 or \u27selective\u27 islands, in particular wh-islands. A central issue in this matter is the proper division of labor between syntax and semantics. The chapter also discusses the role played by pragmatics in the explanation of the negative island effect and a maximality effect induced by focus

2 + 2 = 3: Number contrasts in Blackfoot

Blackfoot nominals are singular, plural or general in number. The existence of languages with either a singular-plural opposition or a plural-general opposition is well-attested in the literature. Following Bliss (2013), we argue that Blackfoot has both systems, albeit in different contexts. We propose that the co-existence of these two systems in Blackfoot is due to the exceptional nature of plural specification in this language – it is alternatively realized as a head or modifying feature in the syntactic representation (in the sense of Wiltschko 2008). We show that regardless of whether plural is syntactically a head or a modifying feature, the semantic interpretation is the same. This is consistent with Rullmann & You’s (2006) finding that plural marking has the same denotation no matter whether it contrasts with singular or with general number