Search

This paper considers phenomena related to embedded interrogatives that do not fit the canonical profile of subordinate clauses. It focuses on restrictions on such noncanonical cases of subordination, here referred to as quasi-subordination, and makes the following claims. There are three points in the interrogative left periphery for building question meaning. The lowest point is CP, where interrogatives are differentiated semantically from declaratives. All embedding verbs that can take interrogative complements, can take CP+WH. The highest point is SAP. When its head is specified SAASK, the question denoted by the interrogative becomes a request for information by the speaker, directed towards the addressee. This is the structure we find in matrix questions (and quotations). In between these two levels is what I call PerspectiveP. Its head PerspCQ introduces PRO, an individual for whom the interrogative CP+WH is a potentially active question. That is, PRO is the perspectival center, the one from whose point of view the interrogative can be a request for information (signaled by the specification CQ for centered question). When PRO is bound by the speaker argument in the Speech Act Phrase, we get a matrix question; when PRO is bound by the subject of a matrix predicate we get quasi-subordination. Quasi-subordination is a hybrid between true subordination (with respect to pronominal interpretation, for example) and nonsubordination (with respect to intonation, for example). Restrictions on quasi-subordination are claimed to be regulated, in addition to standard selectional restrictions, by semantic compatibility between the implied ignorance of the individual who is the perspectival center of the question and the meaning of the embedding clause. Empirical support for this view of the interrogative left periphery comes from a range of phenomena from unrelated languages. While the idea of an articulated left periphery goes back to Rizzi (1997), the details of the present proposal are new. The paper discusses several implications of this view of the interrogative left periphery, connecting the specific claims to similar proposals about other clause types and to developments in our understanding of how complement selection works.

Jenks (2018) argues that Mandarin bare NPs cannot be classified as definites simpliciter. Adopting the distinction between weak- and strong-article definites in Schwarz 2009, he proposes that Mandarin makes a lexical distinction between the two types of definites: bare nouns are weak definites, demonstratives are strong definites. He further proposes that their distribution is regulated by a principle called Index!. In this article, we first point out some problems with the empirical generalizations presented in Jenks’s description of Mandarin and then sketch an alternative approach to the distinction between Mandarin demonstratives and bare nouns. We end with some comments about the kind of further empirical work that needs to be done before definitive claims can be made about the competition between demonstratives and other types of definites.

Across many languages, multiple sluicing obeys a clausemate constraint. This can be understood on the empirically well-supported assumption that covert phrasal wh-movement is clause-bounded and subject to Superiority. We provide independent evidence for syntactic structure at the ellipsis site and for locality constraints on movement operations within the ellipsis site. The fact that the distribution of multiple sluicing is substantially narrower than that of multiple wh-questions, on their single-pair as well as their pair-list reading, entails that there must be mechanisms for scoping in-situ wh-phrases that do not rely on covert phrasal wh-movement. We adopt the choice-functional account for single-pair readings. For pair-list readings, we develop a novel functional analysis, argue for the functional basis of pair-list readings, and present a new perspective on pair-list readings of questions with quantifiers.

We distinguish between two types of interrogative particles, (regular) question particles and polar question particles. The first, canonically exemplified by Japanese -ka, occurs in all interrogatives, in matrix as well as embedded contexts. The second, the object of the present study, is exemplified by the Hindi-Urdu particle kya:. Polar kya: occurs in polar questions but not in wh questions, and it occurs optionally in matrix questions but only in a restricted way in embedded questions. We analyze this particle as presupposing that its prejacent denotes a singleton propositional set and as partitioning the questioned proposition into two parts that can be characterized as at-issue and not at-issue. These two aspects of its meaning are shown to capture several facets of the behavior of the polar question particle kya: that have not previously been analyzed or even systematically described. The paper also touches upon well-known phenomena, such as interrogative selection and alternative questions, but from a new perspective and opens up a way of looking at interrogative particles in other languages that do not seem to neatly fit the mold of regular question particles.

Determiners and bare nouns raise questions about the interface between morphosyntax and semantics. On the syntactic side, the primary issue is whether bare nouns have a null determiner making all noun phrases structurally uniform. On the semantic side, the primary issue involves determining and deriving the range of permissible readings. Of primary significance are the availability of definite and indefinite readings for bare nouns and how such readings relate to the presence or absence of lexical exponents of (in)definiteness in a language. Further refinements include the special scope properties of kind terms versus regular indefinites, differences between singular and plural kind terms, number distinctions within the noun phrase, and the role of incorporation. We present the theoretical and typological advances that have been made in addressing these issues and identify which considerations are purely syntactic or purely semantic in nature and which considerations have implications for the interface.

Manetta (2010) argues that Hindi-Urdu has feature-driven overt wh-movement to Spec,vP, a position from which wh-expressions can take clausal scope. This is argued to provide a unified account of the following aspects of question formation in the language: the tendency of wh-expressions to occur in preverbal position, the possibility of overt long wh-movement, and the use of scope marking to question out of finite complements. Here, I first probe some hidden assumptions in Manetta’s account, revealing crucial gaps in the argumentation. I then discuss new facts, as well as some old ones, that challenge central components of the proposal. As a whole, the discussion establishes that the move to capture question formation in Hindi-Urdu through wh-movement to Spec,vP does not deliver the promised results.

The gap between a definite and an indefinite is reduced in the case of specific indefinites, in the sense that they both have determined reference. This fact is reflected in most accounts, particularly so in the analysis of Schwarzschild (2002) where specific indefinites are argued to quantify over singleton sets. If definites and specific indefinites share the singleton domain property, how are we to separate the two? The Privacy Principle, which is cued to the information state of discourse participants, is argued to apply to definites as well as indefinites (among other quantifiers), making it even harder to draw the line between definites and specific indefinites. We look at issues surrounding the distinction between definiteness and specificity through the lens of two empirical phenomena, bare nominals and specificity markers. Bare nominals in languages with determiners, for example, English, and bare nominals in languages without determiners, for example, Hindi, highlight different aspects of the problem. English bare plurals are known to have indefinite readings but not specific indefinite readings. Hindi bare nominals are thought to have definite and indefinite readings but can be shown not to have specific indefinite readings. The second empirical phenomenon we consider are specificity markers like certain. In many languages, they require a determiner in the singular but not in the plural, raising questions about their syntactic status as determiners or modifiers. They also do not occur in certain constructions, for example, imperatives. Probing such restrictions provides a window into their semantic profile. This paper thus presents some puzzles that center around the creation of singleton sets and its relation to the Privacy Principle.

Natural language allows questioning into embedded clauses. One strategy for doing so involves structures like the following: [CP-1 whi [TP DP V [CP-2 … ti …]]], where a wh-phrase that thematically belongs to the embedded clause appears in the matrix scope position. A possible answer to such a question must specify values for the fronted wh-phrase. This is the extraction strategy seen in languages like English. An alternative strategy involves a structure in which there is a distinct wh-phrase in the matrix clause. It is manifested in two types of structures. One is a close analog of extraction, but for the extra wh-phrase: [CP-1 whi [TP DP V [CP-2 whj [TP…t­j­…]]]]. The other simply juxtaposes two questions, rather than syntactically subordinating the second one: [CP-3 [CP-1 whi [TP…]] [CP-2 whj [TP…]]]. In both versions of the second strategy, the wh-phrase in CP-1 is invariant, typically corresponding to the wh-phrase used to question propositional arguments. There is no restriction on the type or number of wh-phrases in CP-2. Possible answers must specify values for all the wh-phrases in CP-2. This strategy is variously known as scope marking, partial wh movement or expletive wh questions. Both strategies can occur in the same language. German, for example, instantiates all three possibilities: extraction, subordinated, as well as sequential scope marking. The scope marking strategy is also manifested in in-situ languages. Scope marking has been subjected to 30 years of research and much is known at this time about its syntactic and semantic properties. Its pragmatics properties, however, are relatively under-studied. The acquisition of scope marking, in relation to extraction, is another area of ongoing research. One of the reasons why scope marking has intrigued linguists is because it seems to defy central tenets about the nature of wh scope taking. For example, it presents an apparent mismatch between the number of wh expressions in the question and the number of expressions whose values are specified in the answer. It poses a challenge for our understanding of how syntactic structure feeds semantic interpretation and how alternative strategies with similar functions relate to each other.

This paper investigates the expression of plurality in Bangla. Like other languages that use classifiers in cardinal constructions, Bangla does not mark the singular–plural distinction on the noun....

This paper argues that Hindi incorporation is, in fact, pseudo-incorporation, involving noun phrases rather than nouns. Furthermore, it shows that there is no requirement that the incorporated nominal surface as a morphological or even a syntactic unit with the verb. Such loosely aligned nominals can nevertheless be identified as incorporation on the basis of semantic intuitions having to do with number interpretation, anaphora, and certain properties typically associated with lexical processes. Contrary to standard assumptions, it is argued that the target of pseudo-incorporation is specified for number. Singular incorporated nominals in Hindi are shown to be semantically singular, with number neutrality arising as a consequence of interaction with aspectual operators. Taking aspectual information into account is also shown to have interesting implications for current approaches to the semantics of incorporation, one in which the incorporated nominal introduces a discourse referent, and one in which it functions as a predicate modifier. A closer look at the effect of aspect on anaphora, for example, does not unequivocally support the predicate modification view of pseudo-incorporation. The paper draws on data from Hungarian, and to some extent Danish, to explore the cross-linguistic applicability of the claims made on the basis of Hindi. Most notably, a distinction between Hungarian verbs with respect to incorporation of bare singulars provides striking confirmation of the claim that number morphology is semantically visible in pseudo-incorporation. It also addresses restrictions on the productivity of pseudo-incorporation in light of the proposed analysis of pseudo-incorporation.

Mahajan (1997) and Simpson and Bhattacharya (2003) analyze Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi-Urdu and Bangla as SVO. We argue against this position, drawing on rightward scrambling in Hindi-Urdu to make this point. We propose an account of the phenomenon in terms of rightward remnant-VP movement. This account differs from proposals that posit rightward movement of individual arguments as well as from the antisymmetric proposals mentioned above, which treat rightward scrambling as argument stranding. Our rightward remnant movement analysis better captures two empirical properties of rightward scrambling that remain elusive in the other accounts: the correlation between linear order and scope, and restricted scope for rightward- scrambled wh-expressions.

This paper deals with two well-established types of incorporation, canonical incorporation of N0 categories and pseudo-incorporation of NP/NumP. It also deals with the proposal that there is a third type of incorporation, involving definite DPs. In addressing this range of incorporation types, it navigates between morpho-syntactic and semantic notions of incorporation and identifies the properties relevant to each. Incorporation, in its various guises, is argued to be morpho-syntactically and semantically distinct from standard complementation as well as compounding. The central thesis is that incorporation involves a nominal with more structure than compound nominals and less structure than normal complements, that incorporated nominals may be attached higher in the verbal spine than compound nominals but lower than than normal complements. The rule of semantic incorporation interprets every node in the morpho-syntax of the structure, with the special effects associated with incorporation arising from the meanings of the componnents and the mode of composition. The paper also argues against a single rule of semantic incorporation applicable to both morpho-syntactically incorporated nominals and unincorporated weak indefinites.

This paper adds to the ongoing debate about the quantificational status of English FC any. It argues that any is a universal, though its universality is such that it can be conjoined with an existential statement. This is established by showing, first of all, that various properties that are amenable to a universal account of FC any remain elusive in recent accounts that treat it as an indefinite. Secondly, it presents a detailed description of supplementary/numeral any, cases in which any occurs with an indefinite. Such cases have been assumed to provide evidence for the indefinite-any view but an explicit semantics for the constructions is given, showing that any invariably contributes universal quantificational force. Existential force always comes from other elements. The paper also discusses alternative formulations that preserve the key insights of the universalist position and the role of cross-linguistic variation in the study of FC items.

This paper explores the link between number marking and(in)definiteness in nominals and their interpretation. Differencesbetween bare singulars and plurals in languages without determinersare explained by treating bare nominals as kind terms. Differencesarise, it is argued, because singular and plural kinds relatedifferently to their instantiations. In languages with determiners,singular kinds typically occur with the definite determiner, butplural/mass kinds can be bare in some languages and definite inothers. An account of singular kinds in terms of taxonomic readingsis proposed, with number marking playing a crucial role inexplaining the obligatory presence of the determiner. The variationbetween languages with respect to plural/mass kinds is explained bypositing a universal scale of definiteness, with individual languageschoosing different cut-off points for lexicalization of the definitedeterminer. The possibility of further cross-linguistic variation isalso considered.

It is a well-accepted generalization that wh-in-situ can take unbounded scope. This squibe examines the diagnostic of paired answers on which this generalization is based and argues that a more refined understanding of the diagnostic leads to a reassessment of the claims about in-situ and scope

The primary theoretical focus of this paper is on Free Choice uses of any, in particular on two phenomena that have remained largely unstudied. One involves the ability of any phrases to occur in affirmative episodic statements when aided by suitable noun modifiers. The other involves the difference between modals of necessity and possibility with respect to licensing of any. The central thesis advanced here is that FC any is a universal determiner whose domain of quantification is not a set of particular individuals but the set of possible individuals of the relevant kind. In a theory of genericity utilizing situations, an any phrase can be seen as having a universal quantifier binding the situation variable of the common noun. This inherent genericity is argued to be at the heart of the intuition that any statements support counterfactual inferences and do not involve existential commitments. A conflict in presuppositions is shown to account for the incompatibility of unmodified any phrases in affirmative episodic statements and the crucial role played by modification in ameliorating this clash is explicated. In the case of modals of necessity, the interaction between the universal force of any and the particular modal base is shown to be crucial. In view of these facts it is argued that FC any is not directly licensed by modal or generic operators as generally assumed but that its felicitous use is sensitive to the pragmatics of epistemic modality. Turning to its polarity sensitive uses, language internal as well as crosslinguistic evidence is presented to distinguish it from FC any in having the existential quantificational force typical of indefinites. The paper concludes by suggesting that the common tie between them is that they both occur in statements that apply to a class of entities, rather than to particular members of the class.

This chapter takes the universal force of free choice items (henceforth FCIs) to be an implicature that arises when an assertion with existential force interacts with a set of lexically triggered exhaustified alternatives, as proposed by Chierchia (to appear). It departs from him in capturing the distribution of FCIs through a Viability Constraint on alternatives, adapting the notion of fluctuation in Dayal (2009) to the view of FCIs as existential. A substantive consequence of the proposed viability constraint is that FCIs can only ever be licensed if they take wide scope over modals (of the appropriate sort). The chapter establishes that apparent counterexamples involve nontrivial interactions between FCIs and modality. When the FCI is complex it can participate in split-quantification, with one part taking scope over the modal and the other taking scope under it. Alternatively, if there are two modals, the FCI can be scopally lower than one but still be licensed because it has scope over the other. A striking confirmation of this approach comes from imperatives. Though long thought to unconditionally admit FCIs, it is shown here that this is not so. In addition to accounting for the more nuanced empirical generalization regarding imperatives, the viability constraint is argued to be generally a simpler way of predicting the distribution of FCIs than the one proposed by Chierchia.

In certain languages, scope-marking structures are used to express long-distancewh-dependencies along with or instead of the more familiar extraction structure. The existence of these two strategies raises an interesting question for the mapping between syntactic structure and semantic representation. Should apparent semantic equivalence be taken as a guide and syntactic parallelism posited at an abstract level of syntax? Or should the surface syntactic distinction between them be maintained and an alternative explanation sought for the similarity in meaning? In this paper I show that theoretical as well as empirical considerations argue against the first approach. I present a syntactic analysis of scope-marking structures in which the dependency betweenwh-expressions is indirect (in contrast to extraction structures which encode directwh-dependencies). I draw attention to certain differences between scope marking and extraction structures which show that they are not really equivalent. The interpretive procedure given for indirectwh-dependencies derives the considerable similarity in meaning between the two structures while maintaining the necessary distinctions.

This article explores the empirical validity of the generalization that scrambling of indefinites correlates with the loss of non-specific readings. There are two issues relevant to the generalization that have not been fully investigated in previous literature. The first is the status of contrastive readings, which do survive scrambling. If contrastive readings are non-specific, and it is argued here that in some cases they must be, the generalization has to be restated to prohibit non-specific indefinites from scrambling without the additional support of contrast. It will be shown, furthermore, that a more liberal notion of contrast than is generally assumed is sufficient to license the scrambling of non-specifics. The second issue relevant to the generalization is the directionality of scrambling. The constraint on scrambling of nonspecifics must be restricted to leftward scrambling since rightward scrambling readily allows non-specific readings without contrast. The article uses these empirical facts to assess current approaches to the question of how syntactic displacement relates to interpretation. The fact that non-specific readings are preserved under scrambling, albeit with contrast, suggests that scrambling cannot be restricted to a class of expressions we may be willing to classify as specific. Approaches that take scrambled nominals to be mapped outside the domain where nonspecific readings could arise also appear to be untenable. An approach that allows expressions to scramble, regardless of their inherent or compositional semantics, but imposes discourse requirements appears more promising. Obviously, such requirements would have to be sensitive to the directionality of scrambling, since contrast behaves differently in the two cases. The ultimate goal is to identify discourse principles which would explain why contrast plays a crucial role in preserving non-specific readings of leftward scrambled nominals, but is not required for preserving such readings of rightward scrambled nominals. This paper is an attempt in this direction. The primary data is drawn from scrambled bare nominals in Hindi. Nominals without overt determiners are of particular importance to this study since they can be shown not to have specific indefinite readings. Bare plurals in English, for example, cannot take scope over negation, adverbials or attitude verbs. If such nominals have indefinite readings under scrambling, they would have to be characterized as nonspecific. Since English does not allow scrambling it is not possible to test the effects of scrambling on bare plurals, though discussion of scrambling in other Germanic languages

No abstract.

This paper deals with differences between Hindi bare nominals in the availability of existential readings and the possibility of discourse anaphora. Hindi bare singulars are more restricted than bare plurals in both respects. These differences are discussed in light of two questions that are of relevance beyond the facts of Hindi. Is reference to kinds a mediating factor in object level quantification of bare nominal expressions? How does the semantics of bare nominals interact with incorporation? The description of the core facts is based on earlier work (Dayal 1 992 and Porterfield and Srivastav 1 988). Hindi bare nominals have a variety of readings which can be described in terms familiar from Carlson' s 1 977 discussion of bare plurals . ( 1 ) and (2) show that both the bare singular and the bare plural are compatible with kind level predicates, establishing their status as kind denoting

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.

In recent years, substantive work has been done on question formation strategies in the languages of North India. Hindi question formation has been investigated, for example, by Davison (1984, 1988, 1994), Gurtu (1985), Mahajan (1987, 1990, 1993), Bains (1990) and Srivastav (1990, 1991a, 1991b). Dasgupta (1980) and Bayer (1990, 1993) deal with Bangla questions and Wali (1988) with questions in Kashmiri and Marathi. The primary focus of these studies is to accommodate certain locality effects manifested by wh in-situ in these languages within the principles of universal grammar. In this chapter I look at Hindi wh in-situ, drawing on my own previous work (Srivastav 1990, 1991a) as well revisions and modifications prompted by the work of other scholars. I show that the scope properties of Hindi wh in-situ can be explained in terms of the phrase structure of the language if subjacency is recognized as a constraint on LF movement as well as S-structure movement.