Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 12, Article 19, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.19

This is an early access version of

Abenina-Adar, Maayan. 2019. Know whether and -ever free relative clauses. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(19). 1–46. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.19.

This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution.

©2019 Maayan Abenina-Adar This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access

Know whether and -ever free relative clauses * Maayan Abenina-Adar University of California, Los Angeles

Abstract Know whether sentences and -ever free relative clauses have not been studied together, but they have similar contextual constraints. This work offers an ex- planation of their similarities based on well-established pragmatic principles. These constructions are proposed to evoke equally informative alternatives with stronger presuppositions, and as a consequence of Heim’s (1991) pragmatic principle of Maximize Presupposition, the use of a know whether sentence or a sentence contain- ing an -ever free relative clause requires the presuppositions of all of its alternatives not to be satisfied. This gives rise to a variety of requirements, depending on what grammatical environment either construction appears in and how its presuppositions project. Although the modal implications of -ever free relative clauses are typically analyzed as a semantically-encoded component of their meaning, this work argues that a pragmatic explanation provides better coverage of a broad range of empirical observations.

Keywords: interrogatives, free relatives, ignorance, variation, maximize presupposition

1 Introduction

There are many similarities between know whether sentences and -ever free relative clauses, particularly in the contextual constraints on their use. A know whether sentence is unacceptable in a context where the answer to the whether-interrogative is common knowledge, as in (1).

(1) A: We can’t meet on Monday because there will be a talk B: Ok, should I tell Elsie? A: No need, Elsie knows {??whether, that} there will be a talk (Eckardt 2007: 448)

* For helpful feedback and judgments, I thank James Collins, Kai von Fintel, Tim Hunter, Jessica Rett, Bernhard Schwarz, audiences at UCLA and AFLA 26, and especially Dylan Bumford and Yael Sharvit. Three anonymous reviewers provided many useful comments about the content and form of this paper. Any errors are mine. early access 2 1 .Ti eatr smtvtdb h atta FC xii h aepatterns same the exhibit EFRCs that fact the by motivated is departure This 1997). h a ob goati 1-2,ado ht n() h nelctr ge nthe on agree interlocutors the (1), In what? of and (1)-(2), in ignorant be to has Who eletbihdpamtcpicpe.Tu,tetertclcmoeto hswork this of component theoretical the Thus, principles. pragmatic well-established .Ti sa notoesa nlsso 1,lreyi iewt previous with line in largely (1), of analysis uncontroversial an is This 1991). (Heim A h i ili aigi hrypie cherry a is baking is Bill pie The A: (2) n() h nelctr ulcyareo h eeetsiett nterlvn way, relevant a the unlike in infelicitous, identity referent’s is the EFRC on the knowledge. agree and common publicly is interlocutors referent EFRC’s the the (2), of In identity the when unacceptable are an containing sentences certain Likewise, rmisrqieet,aetefaue htcmlatcnet share. derived an contexts of utterance, compliant implications an that of of features sense the implications the are the in requirements, requirements; Readings, its contextual well. from from as derived here be used be can will utterance, assign term will the analysis EFRCs, the of judgments, readings acceptability contextual of form the whether take here data WH-clause the a Since of sale composition on internal was e.g., the what DP has wondered a that of construction distribution a external is the English, but in clause, relative free A (3). discourse, the improves knowledge common made explicitly whether Ignorance 1.1 ‘readings’ various the for explanation better account a pragmatic com- provides a that EFRCs modality, is of semantically-encoded involving 3, account Section an in to appearing pared argument, theoretical main The conservative. is proposals motivated independently existing, on of on syntax-semantics build the to similarities about possible these as of explanation much The as requirements. aims constructions’ titular the in ties that sentences Dayal quantificational (e.g., in modality generally, more or semantically-determined ignorance, the involves that EFRCs derive from assume of departure to which a meaning shown (2), is of is it accounts contrast, it predominant In but sentences. the 2019), quantificational Schwarz in patterns & new Paillé Presupposition some 2007, Maximize Eckardt as (e.g., known accounts principle pragmatic a and kind alternatives certain with competition a namely, of considerations, pragmatic same the from result h aneprclcnrbto fti oki oda teto otesimilari- the to attention draw to is work this of contribution empirical main The requirements contextual constructions’ both that is work this of claim main The etne n FC eurmns eas h FCltrtr ed otl bu different about talk to tends literature EFRC the Because requirements. EFRCs and sentences :Rgt n hr’ o fsgrin sugar of lot a there’s and Right, B: itroaiesase.Mnmlycagn 1 ota h nwri not is answer the that so (1) changing Minimally answer. -interrogative’s hr h aesrn sa nergtv clause). interrogative an is string same the where , nwwhether know nwwhether know htwso sale on was what the 2 -definite. -ever { etne n FC,tgte with together EFRCs, and sentences waee,the #whatever, rerltv clause relative free does. in li ogtwa a nsale on was what bought Elsie } i ei baking is he pie 2 1 FC allow. EFRCs hne EFRC) (hence, Abenina-Adar (cf. know Elsie early access can c are candi- c CK -interrogative to sentence is unaccept- whether are uniform with respect to sentences are also acceptable c . The elements of sentence is acceptable. CK c know whether CK to find out whether he is) 3 know whether you entails an answer. . For the answer to a c c know whether , a situation must be compatible with the mutual c CK CK (Now, I want B: No, it’s a rhubarb pie B: No, we can’t meet then. There actually is a talk. B: Ask Elsie. She knows whether there will be a talk A: (In any case,) there is a lot of sugar in whatever pie he is baking A: You’re wrong, just ask Elsie. She knows whether there will be a talk. Taken together, these judgments suggest that EFRCs’ contextual acceptability Similar facts hold of EFRCs. von Fintel 2000: 29 shows that examples like (6) . To qualify for membership in constraint should also be expressed in terms of common knowledge. In section3, it (7) A: The pie Bill is baking is a cherry pie the identity of the EFRC’s referent2011: but 177); the they speaker disagree is (inspired felt by toHeller treat & the Wolter identity of the EFRC’s referent as irrelevant. be common knowledge means thatthe all value elements of of the interrogative i.e., can be acceptable in contexts whereand the is speaker teasing knows exactly the what addressee. they are cooking (6) There’s a lot of garlic in whatever (it is that) I am cooking Stalnaker 1974, 1978, what isbe common thought knowledge of in as a a conversationaldates context set or of “live situations, options” abbreviated forc the topic situation under discussionpublic by beliefs the of interlocutors the in interlocutors in (5) A: Let’s meet on Monday since there won’t be a talk. expressed in terms of commonable knowledge: in the a context where the interlocutors publicly agree on the answer. Inspired by Finally, in contexts of disagreement likethere (5), is where no each common speaker knowledge, is the opinionated but in contexts where the speakernot, is as known to in know (5). the answer but the addressee(4) does Game show host: Aisha knows whether Ben is Canadian, and so do I know whether, -ever (3) A: Can we meet on Monday, or will there be a talk? Taken together, these facts suggest that the relevant contextual constraint should be An EFRC is also felicitous in (7) where each interlocutor is opinionated about As Paillé & Schwarz 2019: 313 observe, early access 4,‘...ifrat h r ofotdwt discourse a with confronted are who informants . . . ‘ 448, 2007: Eckardt to According be properties relevant of set a of member no that require EFRCs that shown be will eletbihdter fuacpaiiybsdo ekpeupstosalready presuppositions weak on based unacceptability of theory well-established li nw htteewl eatalk a be will there that knows Elsie 2 discussion. relevant for 2017 Schwarz & Rouillard presented, and be 2008 will Chemla given that see appropriate judgments though is acceptability which contextual knowledge, about common generalizations of the lack The a speaker-ignorance. derive namely, only needed, will is ignorance analysis 2015. of notion 2008, stronger Condoravdi a by that observed suggest as EFRC, the of referent the of hold to known xss hra iltoso anraels understood. less are a Manner but of offered, violations is whereas choice exists, presuppo- analytical its this particular, of in favor meaning, in its argument empirical of No because sitions. suboptimal be to with claimed comparison it’s to of unacceptability instead attributes but also alternatives, work This Manner. of alter- Maxim the the that information same the containing conveying native for complex unnecessarily is structure Quantity); of Maxim (1975) to Grice’s whether reduces of violation (8) (e.g., underinformativity of of on assertion unacceptability the The Therefore, same. ponens. modus the is answer, true the to the corresponding to of answer content which assertive known the it’s where context a In talk a be will there whether knows Elsie (8) as true, is interrogative 1977). the Karttunen to (e.g., answer whichever (8) knows in subject the that meaning as preference? reported that this saying underlie that by claim react the they to reflection, embedded even closer an pattern Upon the ill-formed. for grammatically dispreference is strong [(1)] a show usually [(1)] in like nwwhether Know ial,nt htoto-h-leifrniljdmns(seilywt EFRCs) with (especially judgments inferential out-of-the-blue that note Finally, 2007 , Eckardt to According set:I hr ilb ak li nw htteewl eatl,adif and talk, a be will there that knows Elsie talk, a be will there If Asserts: hr o’ eatl,Esekosta hr o’ eatalk a be won’t there that knows Elsie talk, a be won’t there and nwthat know that cas ol etepeerdoto nti otx. htmight What context.’ this in option preferred the be would -clause that ovy.I rca em,teueof use the terms, Gricean In conveys. otiuetesm e nomto bu li’ beliefs. Elsie’s about information new same the contribute nwwhether know nwwhether know nwwhether know nwwhether Know hni’ nw htteewl eatl,by talk, a be will there that known it’s when and 4 en uotmlbcueo t form, its of because suboptimal being nwthat know i ncetbebcueits because unacceptable is (1) in etne r tnadyanalyzed standardly are sentences nwwhether know whether iha meddclause embedded an with , nwwhether know itroaiei true, is -interrogative antb blamed be cannot Abenina-Adar violates know early access s 3 to φ ] 1 . Follow- c g ) = , the exis- 0 s such that ( believes in p α x (9b) does not affect in (1) contribute → ) s the , x in Eckardt’s discourse ( — whichever makes sense). and γ and the sets they characterize. OX a know that t D ∈ and 0 s [ 0 to true iff s ∀ φ . know whether e x λ is presuppositionally stronger (given the or the preceding discourse 5 are common knowledge, and the indefinite , which supplies an assignment function such that c 1 . Know whether α . firefighter in the other room is getting bored the (9a) } ) = s ( p know that (9a-b) ). To present the pragmatic analysis, some concrete ’ is read as the smallest function that maps any : γ #a, the . denotes the question in (11). { φ st p : know is the set of situations compatible with what λ ) . s λα sun is shining , s x } ( λ = OX c D K #a, the { B: I know, and know J where b. A: Aside from a firefighter, the other room is empty is given the factive, proposition-selecting denotation in (10) (Hintikka 1969). This work attributes the unacceptability of (or as the smallest function that maps any Expressions are interpreted relative toing aHeim context & Kratzer 1998,‘γ Next, inspired by Karttunen 1977,a an function interrogative is from taken situations to towhether denote sets there a will of question be i.e., true a answers. talk For example, the interrogative many of the choices are made for presentational ease. 2.1.1 Denotations and LFs (10) the same new information, but factive presupposition of assumptions about the meanings ofand the the relevant principle sentences, of the MP notionrely will of on be alternatives, the made. structure The of spirit the of sentences the or analysis the does notion not of particularly alternatives adopted here, and and uniqueness implications are presuppositionaltion (i.e., contributed not by part of a the definite),informativity. new Heim then informa- concludes the that choice a between distinctto principle convey a requires message speakers to who use intend the presuppositionally strongest, felicitousto utterance. a violation of MP, on par with Either because of world knowledge tence and uniqueness implications of article is unacceptable. Heim rejectsunderinformativity, the as possibility suggested that by its earlier unacceptability work; is on due the to assumption that existence Heim 1991 (also Sauerland 2008 Presuppositiona.o.) (MP) proposes explains that contrasts like a (9a-b). principle called Maximize (9) a. know whether, -ever 2.1 Proposal This work talks interchangeably about functions whose type ends in Know 3 early access 4 with hr xs ayveso o 1)i opstoal eie n o tcombines it how and derived compositionally is (11) how on views many exist There 1998). Kratzer & (Heim Abstraction Predicate of version A Gezn Sharvit presented. & be Guerzoni 2004, will Romero a.o.) & 2014, Han 1985 , Larson in (pursued interrogatives (11) 2011). Heim & in Fintel variables von situation by 2000, supplied Percus are (e.g., arguments LF situation where the assumed is system extensional An talk a be will there whether knows Elsie (14) in non-empty be to question-extension the requires represented (also if proposition the of or, domain abstraction the from as in resulting situations proposition of the set of sentence the condition equivalently, a domain of the is presupposition denoted to the proposition referred When partial) (possibly sentence. the the derive to by over abstracted be to assumed of interpretation disjunctive and LF the is (14) away (abstracting answer (13) true interrogatives). a polar is for there irrelevant as is long which so maximality, answers, from possible true the all of the interrogative, for order In [ [ [whether LF: a. (11). (12) in meaning the deriving (12c), question-intensions, to propositions of set, a into (12a) NS CK P RESUP obnswt situation a with combines hr ahdsuc orsod oapsil answer. possible a to corresponds disjunct each where , know c ⊆ c. b. J Asrs li nw h rease owehrteewl eatalk a be will there whether to talk answer a true be won’t the knows there Elsie or Asserts: talk a be will There Presupposes: c. knows- Elsie LF: b. a. J P hte hr ilb talk a be will there whether A (12b) ipicto fa dafrteLgclFrs(F)of (LFs) Forms Logical the for idea an of simplification A . RESUP ( NS whether p φ know J J ) { ∈ K whether or .A teac of utterance An ). c ,and 2006), Alonso-Ovalle (cf. K = [ c ( λ A hc eursapooiin ocmiewt the with combine to proposition, a requires which , φ λ = s L sabeitd.Truhu hsppr h variable the paper, this Throughout abbreviated). is -LF NS ) s 0 h rva rspoiinin presupposition trivial The . λ hr ilb akin talk a be will there . . K 1996). Dayal 1994, Heim (cf. assumed is (13) in -operator λ c p = st Q . λ λ h s P h q st h st st λ , s s t Whether , ii 0 hr ilb talk- a be will there 1 t . n usinitnin eunn h conjunction the returning question-intension, a and i { . A φ : p λ NS , sasmdt eflctu nacontext a in felicitous be to assumed is Q s li nw hte hr ilb talk a be will there whether knows Elsie K q . ( c - } { s s = ) 0 p nergtvshv ijntv LFs disjunctive have interrogatives 6 6= st λ hte hr ilb talk a be will there whether : s ∅ . { s p . 0 λ p whether ( T ] s r[ or , st bnesaeitrrtdb h ‘pedantic’ the by interpreted are -binders = ) [ Q λ : ( s p s λ s 0 (14b) 1 0 ( ) hr o’ eatl in talk a be won’t there . hr o’ eatalk- a be won’t there 2 s . s ∧ 1 = ) eoe ucinfo sets from function a denotes ] p oe from comes ∈ 1 φ ∧ Or P sdsusd htis what discussed, is } ahr t disjuncts its gathers A Abenina-Adar NS whether whether which , s c 4 2 s s only (the 0 like ] ] ] 0 ] }} is - - early access , (16b-c) since the using only ψ (15a) , but not . sentence a preferable c (16a-b) know that and can be derived from c 7 : c in (1). The question of what exactly alternatives are is relevant in and context φ ψ , φ ) iff ψ , φ know whether ( B: She treated five patientsA: (??in fact, Every she doctor treated who eight) treatedcream at sandwich. least Will five Dr. patients X will receiveB: receive an Yes, an she ice ice treated cream five sandwich? patients (in fact, she treated eight) c LT deletions, contractions, and substitutions (cf. Katzir 2007: 679) b. c. John ate some of the cookies John ate some but not all of the cookies b. A illustrate this. The ‘exactly’-interpretation is obligatory in In this work, alternatives are conceived as LFs that meet structural constraints (17) For any LFs is assumed to be relative to the question under discussion in and are relevant. The viewtraditional that Gricean they conception) allows are for LFsstructure discrepancies (rather and between than, pronunciation. their say, It hypothesized utterances, alsonot allows as directly for in correspond the a to possibility any ofEFRCs. utterance, alternatives that The which do notion will of be relevance discussed in in the the definition analysis of of the alternatives relation in (17) that alternatives are at most as structurally complex as(16) the original utterance. a. John ate all of the cookies structural congruency conditions. For example,to to be allow for alternatives for the computation of scalar implicatures, Katzir 2007 proposes but it is cancellable in (15b), where the implicature(15) is irrelevant. a. A: How many patients did Dr. X treat? of scalar inferences isaddressing dependent (van Kuppevelt on1996, whatRoberts 2012 ).finds question For that in example, avan scalar discourse Kuppevelt inference1996 ancurrent is generated utterance question when is under it provides discussion(15a-b) a (though stronger answer he to expressed the implicature the constitutes finding part differently). of the answer to the current question under discussion, alternative to and how they enter intoit the has computation of been pragmatic discussed inferencesMatsumoto primarily is in, 1995 complex, and connection Katzir to2007, scalar a.o.). implicatures (Horn One1972, robust finding is that the generation know whether, -ever 2.1.2 Alternatives and MP The pragmatic analysis pursued here makes a At the same time, it has been claimed that alternatives are structures that must meet early access hnvrdfie,tertuhi otneto h aetig aey li’ beliefs. Elsie’s namely, thing, same the on contingent is truth their defined, whenever presupposition the entail asymmetrically talk) a be won’t there that and talk, a be will h atv rspoiin otiue by contributed presuppositions factive The Eseknows- Elsie a. (18) answers. possible interrogative’s the of knowledge in from LFs the that the follows for it assumed LF the Given aetesau fantipresuppositions. of status the out-of-the-blue have with assumes associated it inferences judgments), ac- ignorance inferential contextual that out-of-the-blue on than focuses (rather work judgments this the ceptability Although use usable. presuppositionally to not the chose were that alternatives speaker infer stronger the can since hearer MP, the with alternative, comply weaker a to presuppositionally of speaker perspective the the takes From who presuppo- false. hearer the are that alternatives alternatives stronger weak presuppositionally presuppositionally of of sitions use the by generated ences of whether know in LFs the and the utters speaker the If (19) φ that Recall utter. may as satisfying context by contributed eoe o h e fstain nwihtepooiini defined). is proposition the which in situations of set the (or denotes nwwhether know (18a) :infer- 2006 ): (Percus ‘antipresuppositions’ explain to invoked been also has MP speaker a alternative which determining in relevant is (19), in defined as MP, (18a) terms; (1999) Fintel’s von in Strawson-equivalent, are alternatives The . P d. c. A b. a. knows- Elsie b. Eseknows- Elsie c. o n LFs any For (MP) Presupposition Maximize ydlto of deletion by CK { (18b-c) sepce ob neiios hsi h oreo h unacceptability the of source the is This infelicitous. be to expected is s RESUP LT A ∈ c sdiscourse. Eckardt’s in NS c ⊆ CK ( (18b) φ P in φ P , c r eeatatraie,tesekrvoae Padteueof use the and MP violates speaker the alternatives, relevant are ( RESUP ψ RESUP φ , : (18a) whether ψ ) ) J or φ (18b-c) ⊂ s s s n context and A K 0 0 0 c (18c) P NS [ [ ( A ( ( ta hr ilo hr o’ eatl) u nany in but talk), a be won’t there or will there (that φ RESUP s φ λ λ NS = ) , ) nwwhether know ) hr ilb talk- a be will there 1 hr o’ eatalk- a be won’t there 2 etnei otx where context a in sentence whether ersnstedmi odto fteproposition the of condition domain the represents speupstos hyaejs sinformative as just are they presuppositions, ’s - ol eatraie.TeeLscnb derived be can LFs These alternatives. be could s 1 0 } ( wehr[[ [ [whether ψ = c ) h speaker the , 8 { n h te disjunct. other the and , s know ∈ CK r[ or etne eetdi ulin full in repeated sentence, in c λ : hr ilb talk- a be will there 1 λ (18b-c) J c ψ hr o’ eatalk- a be won’t there 2 s utuse must 1 K s c ] 2 ( s φ ] nwwhether know = ) speupsto sstronger is presupposition ’s rsetvl,ta there that (respectively, CK 1 φ c } φ nal nanswer an entails if: qal informative Equally (18b-c) ol efelicitous be would Abenina-Adar Alternatives s sentences 1 attribute ] s (18a) 2 ] ] ] , early access is is } ) ) } s 1 x 1 ( ( c c K K ) = ) = ψ ψ x s J J ( ( c c : : K K s x know whether , is acceptable. ψ ψ ) binds into the J J : : } ⊆ { } ⊆ { x s 1 every 1 always sentences may be ac- ) = ) = } ⊆ { s } ⊆ { x ( 1 be a talk (when Mary came) 1 ( c c K K he will be picked up C ) = φ ) = J } J x s ( ( : c c : K s K x { appears in the scope of the situation φ C know whether { J J there would : : } -interrogative is known in both (20)-(21), x s -interrogative being common knowledge. { { 9 ??whether, that 1 iff 1 iff { whether whether = = know whether is defined only if is defined only if ??whether, that c K { c ] K ] st et ψ ] ψ st ] C et φ , (22)-(23). The answer is known in both (22)-(23), but only (22), . When defined, . When defined, } } sentence felicitous. always [[every [[always defined defined Context: On the first two Mondaysthe of other this two month, Mondays, there was therewould a be wasn’t. talk, a Mary and talk, had on but toElsie Elsie tell always read knew the Elsie whether schedule. when there there would beContext: a Every talk Monday (when this Mary month, came) when there there was would a be talk. a MaryElsie talk, had always but to knew Elsie tell read Elsie the schedule. J J Context: John, Bill, and Al areschool, the and boys. Al John doesn’t. and Someone BillNo asks get need, if picked every they up boy need after knows to whether be he remindedContext: will of John, be this. Bill, . picked . and up Alschool. are Someone the asks boys, if and they needNo they to need, all be every get boy reminded picked knows of up this. after . . -interrogative. A speaker may felicitously utter such a sentence when the , (20)-(21). The answer to the Universally quantified statements are commonly held to project universal pre- (23) suppositions (Heim ,1983 more recently presupposeChemla that,2009 every a.o.). individual This or means situationthe in that presuppositions the they restrictor of of its the nuclear quantifier scope, satisfies as in (24)-(25). (24) (25) (21) quantifier (22) answer is common knowledge, soevery long as the answer variesbut across only the in domain (20), of whereknow the whether answer varies across the set of(20) boys, is the use of the ceptable despite the answer toIn the such cases, different contextual requirementsdoes emerge. not For require example, ignorance whenwhether a distributive quantifier (e.g., know whether, -ever 2.1.3 Individual- and situational-variation requirements A similar contrast is found when where the answer varies across the situations quantified over by A new observation of this work is that certain early access hte ewl epce p n i a ii) and up, picked be will he whether aso aifigM;freape 2) nwhich in (27), example, for MP; satisfying of ways vntog h nwrfreeybyi nw,bcuetease varies answer the because known, is boy every for answer the though even (20), h Fin LF The Eeyboy- Every a. (26a). (26) the of presuppositions the entail asymmetrically (26b-c) of presuppositions ( alternatives explained. as be can requirements contextual observed newly the ignorance, of account icto febdigpeiae sgvni (28). in given is predicates embedding of sification just than predicates More Discussion 2.2 talk a be will there because Monday on true. meet is can’t We answer A: which unsettled be to it for is satisfied (27) be to MP for way without only because the is and This of ignorance. presupposition requires interrogative, the the binding, into bind not does but situation the between contrast the explains analysis (22)-(23). of quantificational line same The boys. across boys a i) constraint: this of meet presuppositions sets the entail cannot knowledge common of unacceptability the of source of the use be the and violated is MP (26a) as tive satisfying context any in But yptigtgte h supin bu nvra uniesadtepragmatic the and quantifiers universal about assumptions the together putting By Every If x nacnetweetepeupsto f e.g., of, presupposition the where context a in (26b-c) , (26b-c) y :N ed vroeknows everyone need, No A: Eeyboy- Every b. Eeyboy- Every c. :O,sol eleveryone? tell I should Ok, B: that and (26a) rspoe:Freeyboy every For Presupposes: boy every For Presupposes: boy every For Presupposes: x always l fte r otneto h os eif.I h pae utters speaker the If beliefs. boys’ the on contingent are them of All . r lentvsto alternatives are vr o nw hth ilwntb ikdup picked be will/won’t he that knows boy Every ilb ikdu n that and up picked be will ( vr o nw hte ewl epce up picked be will he whether knows boy Every utbn noteitroaiei re o hr ob different be to there for order in interrogative the into bind must s s s 0 0 0 know λ λ λ (26b-c) 1 1 1 (26a) ikdup- picked CK nwwhether know t t t 1 1 1 embed knows- knows- knows- c (26a) sti hc ti nete o tlatoeboy one least at for unsettled is it which in -set sepce ob neiios hsi rpsdto proposed is This infelicitous. be to expected is speupstos uttering presuppositions, ’s { CK whether whether ?hte,that ??whether, n h pae ned ouse to intends speaker the and 10 s s s s 0 0 0 2 x x x c , , either , sti hc ti ete o tlattwo least at for settled is it which in -set [ [ r[ or ] A y λ λ x x rjcsgoal,uafce by unaffected globally, projects NS o’.Tu,M a estse in satisfied be may MP Thus, won’t. he 2 he 2 o’ epce up picked be won’t up picked be will clas- (2002) Lahiri ’s -interrogatives. (21). in - s λ 0 1 1 x he 3 every wehr[[ [ [whether ilb ikdup- picked be will o’ epce up- picked be won’t ilb ikdu or up picked be will (26b) } 1 (26b-c) hr ilb talk a be will there o’ epce up- picked be won’t cpsover scopes scmo knowledge, common is ol have could ) w ye of types Two . (26a) λ .Oc gi,the again, Once ). he 2 nwwhether know sa informa- as is s 1 2 Abenina-Adar ilbe will s (26a) ] 2 x ] won’t (26b-c) s then , every 3 CK ] ] ] c - , early access - ) : the . . . vs. agree ) whether ) , but similar judg- there will be a talk -interrogatives are . know whether } does not. there will be a talk } whether agree on, be certain about Elsie wonders whether know whether know, hear, discover ??whether, that heard, discovered { implies her beliefs about who came are ??whether, that { 11 wonder, ask, depend on, investigate is replaced with other veridical responsive predicates that . . . ), whereas responsive predicates can embed declaratives know violates MP. In contrast, it appears that Elsie and Mary agree on who came to the party Non-veridical responsive predicates (e.g., is acceptable despite the true answer being common knowledge. Elsie knows who came to the party B: Right. We can’t tell whetheror the not, experimental but subjects one think thing it’s is in clear: Box they 1 agree on whether it’s in Box 1 B: Ok, should I tell Elsie? B: Ok, should I tell Elsie? b. c. Veridical responsive predicates (e.g., B: Ok, should I tell Elsie? A: No need, Elsie already heard A: Please do, Elsie is wondering whether there will be a talk A: No need, Elsie already discovered -sentences in (29)-(30) can evoke equally informative, presuppositionally whether Finally, the acceptability of non-veridical predicates with embedded The proposal above explained judgments about Elsie wonders that (32) A: The ball is hidden in Box 1 interrogatives does not seem inon any whether way to depend on what is known. In (32), not to accept declarative meanings, letinformative alternatives alone with be stronger factive. presuppositions Thus, that there are are relevant no for equally MP. (29) A: We can’t meet on Monday because there will be a talk use of fine under rogative predicates regardless of whether the answer(31) is known, (31). A: We can’t meet on Monday because there will be a talk whether stronger alternatives, and if these are salient in the evaluation of (29)-(30), then the interrogative, whereas non-veridical ones express aillustrate, relation to a possibletrue, answer. To whereas ments arise when are factive when they embed declaratives e.g., Rogative predicates embed only interrogatives (e.g., too. Veridical, responsive predicates express a relation to the true answer to an (30) A: We can’t meet on Monday because there will be a talk know whether, -ever (28) a. Rogative predicates (e.g., This is expected based on the analysis, since rogative predicates are typically thought These judgments can be explained along the same lines as * early access sthat is 2019, Schwarz & hr sntigmre bu ’ nlutrne n osbeepaainsug- explanation possible One utterance. final A’s about marked nothing is There h cetblt of acceptability The (35) (33) of acceptability the by shown as judgments, under embedded interrogatives expected. constituent is that inference serves MP-driven No profile. this fit not do alternatives by its ordered and are presuppositions whose entailment. alternatives equivalent asymmetric for relevant only is MP rease u loi npnoae bu h nwr hs neecsaenot are inferences These answer. the about unopinionated is also but answer true negative with associated inferences’ whether ignorance to equivalent ‘agent contextually discuss not 2019 is Schwarz it consideration, into taken Paillé are from arising might possibility, this Another why unchanged. clear are positive not contexts is the the It as that evaluation. kind given of same be, contexts the given of the alternatives in evoke evoke not statements do (34)-(35) that is sibility with (34)-(35) salient, are answers presup- possible the that up and passing as sentence, ‘hole’, presupposition positive presupposition underlying the a of is positions negation that assumed monly talk a be will there because Monday on meet can’t We A: (34) examples. between negated in contrast robust a less perceive question speakers second all The not constructed. whether are First, alternatives judgments. how variable on concerns work evoke future systematically for not topic a do that interrogatives kind constituent the of that alternatives is Eckardt by gested 4 ob- 448 2007: Eckardt questions. open as given are points two following The w osbeaaye ugs hmevs h rt(ahruitrsig pos- uninteresting) (rather first The themselves. suggest analyses possible Two :Pes o li os’ know doesn’t Elsie do, Please A: party the to come will who knows already Elsie need, No A: etne,wihaeifrne httesbetntol os’ eiv the believe doesn’t only not subject the that inferences are which sentences, col oen ssi hyne ob eiddo hs . . after knows this. up boy of picked no reminded get them, be all remind to they Please need they and if boys, asks the Someone are school. Al and Bill, John, Context: Elsie? tell I should Ok, B: not. Elsie? will tell Bill I Tom, and party. should John Ok, our and B: to come, invitations will the Linda of and all Sue, to responses received have We A: and that n spitdotb eiwr hs uget r even are judgments these reviewer, a by out pointed as and (1), in every whether ssc,i lentvsbsdo the on based alternatives if such, As . Agree nwwhether know whether n(4-3)i oehtsrrsn,snei scom- is it since surprising, somewhat is (34)-(35) in ihadcaaiei o atv,so factive, not is declarative a with itroaie o h hsmgtb slf as left is be might this Why do. -interrogatives sacpal eas neisimplicatures its once because acceptable is 12 { hte,that whether, whether { nwwho know hte,that whether, r xetdt eodd. be to expected are n(33). in know no } hr ilb talk a be will there } a h aeuniversal same the has whether ewl epce up picked be will he o’ rdc similar produce don’t nwthat know ge nwhether on agree -interrogative’s Abenina-Adar Pil & Paillé . know early access sentence, know whether sentences (e.g., to account for -alternative does not, rendering them that 13 know whether ), and modern theories of alternatives do not exclude #a sun is shining free relative clauses is acceptable in (34)-(35) because its pragmatically enriched meaning con- b. c. This toolbox contains whatever tools IWhoever own was in here last left the light on Plural sortal No sortal are three examples of EFRCs. An EFRC may have a singular NP sortal like Having established that a principle like MP is operative and that compliance with MP is needed independently of -Ever Link 1983). (37) is a piece of evidence in supportbeing of this contradictory view, continuations provided to by (37)Dayal (i.e., EFRCs exhibit homogeneity — Fodor more detailed discussion of when homogeneity inferences arise). EFRCs are definites, carrying ain presupposition of the the denotation existence of of a the maximal entity restrictor (e.g., Jacobson 1995, based on Sharvy 1980, 3.1 Data (36a-c) (36a), a plural NP sortal like (36b), or no(36) overt sortal at all like (36c). a. There is a lot of sugar in whatever pie Bill is baking Singular sortal that are attested with EFRCs.alternatives EFRCs that are carry analyzed stronger as presuppositions. definites Thispresupposition that analysis, projection evoke along under equivalent with quantifiers, MP is and shown to capture EFRCs’ readings. 3 may play a role inmarkedness, in as producing suggested the by described Eckardt), judgments andbetween it (e.g., is the unnecessary left effects formal for of future MP work vs. how to formal distinguish markedness. MP can in principle produceturns ignorance to and EFRCs. variation requirements, A this similar work line now of explanation can explain a wide range of readings pragmatic non-equivalence among alternatives. the oddity the comparison among alternatives assumed here.exclude Therefore, the there pragmatic is no analysis reason given to in the preceding subsection. Other factors patible with their unopinionatedness orwhether their believing the wrong answer). Perhaps non-equivalent. To flesh out this analysis,agent more ignorance, needs and to the be definition said of about MP the would source need of to be modified to account for know whether, -ever expected on the basis of the basic meaning of a negated veys agent ignorance inferences that the which logically implies only that the subject does not believe the true answer (com- 1995: 201. EFRCs pattern like plural definites rather than universal1970, quantifiersLöbner in ,1985 a.o. — though see Tredinnick , 2005 Šimík Forthcoming for a early access i suigta nER ovy that conveys EFRC an that assuming in 2015 , 2008 Condoravdi follows largely work be will which EFRCs, English for identified been have readings distinct five least At with pattern sortal singular a with EFRCs that is evidence of piece Another lhuhteett that entity the Although individual-denoting an with referent EFRC’s the identify can interlocutors the where (38) than . . but. ordered Sue things the of some liked John (37) cetbe o xml,i n nwta ilscer isaesmtmsmade sometimes are pies cherry Bill’s that know be B could and utterance A B’s if which example, in For acceptable. scenarios far-fetched some are pie there cherry Nonetheless, that baking is Bill (pointing): A unknown. remains presumably, (41) given; that is property flavor significant its a and of (40) to Accordingly, think unknown. pointed to is is harder flavor pie it’s pie’s the the where report that (41), speakers implies with example, B contrasts For EFRC, known. an are using properties in its of that all that case the necessarily pie that baking is Bill (pointing): A (40) contexts in like felicitous expression EFRC’s be the can of EFRCs hold why to explains known ignorance is on properties view salient This contextually referent. of set a of This conveyed. member is baking no ignorance is of Bill sort pie what whatever on in literature sugar the in of found lot are a views is Different There (39). (39) referent, its of identity the about on ignorance of centers signals up literature EFRC make The grammatical sentence. the by host EFRC’s conditioned the is availability Their turn. in discussed readings Ignorance 3.1.1 every *edd’ ietetig h ordered she things the like didn’t *he ordered she what(ever) ordered like c. she didn’t everything *he like didn’t he b. a. :? e.Gvnhstse hr’ o fsgri htvrpeh sbaking is he pie whatever in sugar of lot a there’s taste, his Given see. ?I B: baking is he pie whatever in sugar of lot a there’s taste, his Given see. I B: in sugar of lot a there’s #the and today, pies five baked Bill ncnet htd o aif nqees si (38). in as uniqueness, satisfy not do that contexts in } i ebaked he pie htpie that 2008). Condoravdi 2005, (Heller (40) in htvrpeh sbaking is he pie whatever 14 goac readings ignorance eest skon ti not is it known, is to refers { vr,#whatever, every, nwihan which in , Abenina-Adar the rather early access (44a-b) whatever pie Bill is . , on which the EFRC } indifference reading 15 the pie he is baking, it { could plausibly be uttered by a speaker who is fully whatever pie Bill is baking (this time) (44a) b. Zack simply voted for whoever was at the top of the ballot B: I know, but Bill hassugar a in sweet-tooth whatever and pie Mary he doesn’t, is so baking there’s a lot of a. *there’s a b. lot of sugar in whatever piethere’s a heContext: lot is Mary of baking and sugar Bill in are baking,and but B they enter momentarily and left see the two room. pies, A one on the left and one on the right. A: Both of these are cherry pies in a context where it is known that its referent has the salient property of The empirical generalization adopted in this work is that an EFRC on an ig- A contextually-determined, property-based view of ignorance can also explain Similarly, (45) is felicitous despite itthe being hammer. known that the tool in the toolbox was signals that an agent was indifferent as to the identity ofaware the of EFRC’s what referent, tool was handy and is intending(44) to convey their indifference. a. I grabbed whatever tool was handy be claimed that these properties —might whatever be their — contextually-determined must content meet certainstitute logical a requirements non-trivial partition (in of particular,belongs they a to). must domain con- of individuals that the EFRC’s referent 3.1.2 Indifference readings it being common knowledge thatproperties its are referent unknown. is a cherry pie, because other salient norance reading is acceptableproperties only is if known no to member hold of of its a referent. set In of the contextually presentation of salient the analysis, it will baking being a cherry pie. On the other hand, the same EFRC is felicitous in (43), despite the judgments in (42)-(43). (42) Bill is baking a cherry pie, and. . . know whether, -ever current one, B could say (43) The second reading of EFRCs is called the The problem seems to be that the speaker has used the EFRC (von Fintel 2000: 32). An EFRC, unlike an ordinary definite, is judged an infelicitous continuation to (42). with wheat flour and sometimes made with corn flour and they’re not sure about the early access https://www.bishops.org.za/magazine/Mar2014/Prep.pdf 6 5 sscmaiiiywt napstv sadansi o h viaiiyo a of availability the for diagnostic a as appositive an with compatibility uses 1997, hnteiett fteER’ eeeti nw,teecntutoshv a have constructions these known, is referent EFRC’s the of identity the When h hr edn rsswe itiuieqatfir(e.g., quantifier distributive a when arises reading third The skonadtesbeti nw o ob nifrn,a n(6,teER is EFRC the (46), in as indifferent, be to not tool known the is of identity subject the the when and Thus, known referent. the EFRC’s is to of indifference identity attribute the to regarding seem agent examples such ignorance, conveying of Instead (45) Cheese_Steak-Los_Angeles_California.html across varies referent EFRC’s https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g32655-d2236163-r302670682-Figueroa_Philly_ the of identity the that namely, requirement, different a. (49) ordered, coworkers her examples. what occurring of naturally aware fully is who speaker (49a) A 8). 2009: (Lauer EFRC happened) it as hammer, readings Individual-variation (*this toolbox the in was 3.1.3 tool whatever liked Sue (48) an with (47) incompatible is and reading ignorance an only as-it-happened available makes it that in like predicate non-agentive a 2015 reading; Rawlins non-ignorance also Dayal (see following what’ Condoravdi, or readings). indifference who of to as nature choice teleological implying a the predicate has on action-denoting principle an in of restricted agent argument more the . an . that is . ‘ [EFRC] is the reading when indifference arises and the that observes 217) (2015: Condoravdi (46) infelicitous. ro htrlsteby eeakdt perform, to asked were boys the roles what of or , Eeybycnrbtdi htvrrl ewsakdt perform to asked was he role whatever in contributed boy Every b. happened) it as hammer, (this toolbox the in was tool whatever grabbed Sue a for grabbed called Sue step next the the and . . carefully on so. hammer, bed was screwdriver the the assembling and was toolbox, Sue the shelf. in was hammer The Context: toolbox the . in . so. was rush, tool a whatever the in grabbed on bed Sue was screwdriver the the assembling and was toolbox, Sue the shelf. in was hammer The Context: ikdu adihsfrafwo ycwres n everybody and coworkers, my of ordered few they a whatever for loved sandwiches up picked I poiieseiyn h FCsrfrn,(47)-(48). referent, EFRC’s the specifying appositive { waee ol h olthat tool the tool, #whatever 16 5 } a ntetoolbox the in was liked (49b) otat with contrasts every ol te these utter could , id nothe into binds ) Abenina-Adar grabbed 6 early access free every , unlike situational- . most enjoy is from Dayal 1997 : 110, sentence; such examples conference she first attended } (54a) . . is from Condoravdi 2008: 3. For , this work uses the term every know whether (54c) 17 #whatever, the generalizing individual-variation reading { know whether , and -interrogative of a quantificational . , does not allow appositives specifying the referent’s identity, (53). , whether like Sue most enjoyed whatever pie Bill baked (*this cherry pie, as it happened) b. c. There is a lot of violenceWhatever exit in you whatever take Parker writes will get you onto MLK Blvd their first conference. Someone asks whatEvery professor conference most they enjoyed most enjoyed. Context: Mary, Sue, and Elsie arefirst the conference, professors. Conference Conference B A was was Sue’s, Mary’s and Conference C wasEvery Elsie’s. professor most enjoyed whatever conference sheContext: first Mary, attended Sue, and Elsie are the professors, and Conference A was Someone asks what conference every professor most enjoyed. universal , is from von Fintel :2000 36, and and like (54) a. Whatever Mary cooks uses onions choice (54b) consistency with the discussion of variation reading binding into the only if the answer varies across the domain of 3.1.4 Situational-variation readings Such examples cannot be analyzedgrab as conveying indifference; (53) arise. Note that (52), whichconference Elsie lacks first binding, attended. can only imply ignorance(52) about what Every professor most enjoyed whatever conference Elsie first attended (51) Such sentences will be said to have an (50) know whether, -ever the domain of the quantifier.both This (50)-(51), is the shown EFRC’s identity by is the known contrast in between the (50)-(51). relevant way, In but only in (50), The fourth reading recognized in the literature has many names, including The individual-variation reading is analogous to what was observed with were shown to be felicitous in contexts where the interrogative’s answer is known, A quantificational expression and binding are both necessary for this reading to where the identity of the EFRC’s referent varies, is the use of the EFRC acceptable. early access h ru httedfiieve a emitie yconsidering by maintained be can view definite the that argue who 2005, Tredinnick iutos n 5c novsqatfiainoe uuesituations. future over quantification involves (54c) in and predications situations, main the unifying property a (54a-c) and definiteness between and interaction 1997 the Dayal follows work This universal. or definite either force, varying have universal or f(7 sutrdi otx nwihi’ nw htyutk h aeei nevery in exit same the (58) take you (58). that unacceptable, known is it’s Blvd EFRC which MLK the in onto context situation, you a future get in uttered will take is (57) you exit If Whatever (57) exits. different take you situations, future possible possible every across in that that mean can 2008 situation Condoravdi future for (57) 2009 ). (Copley situations the with situations. situation, across each varies extension in EFRC’s extension the EFRC’s situation that every implication the in of truth irrespective the require over, they for ‘generalizing’: responsible quantified are also examples likely these is that this intuition but situations, across varies referent EFRC’s (56) opponent, same the faced always (56). has unacceptable, is he EFRC that across known the opponents it’s different when faced Bill Thus, that matches. implication quantified boxing an reading, situations to the situational-variation amount across this varies its (55), referent For EFRC’s over. on the of implications identity different the that namely, has sentence the But to. refers EFRC (55) the who about uncertainty no being there despite tous hr sa nuto htteER ol eprprsdwt free-choice with paraphrased be could EFRC the that intuition an is There hsraigi loaalbewith available also is reading This the of identity the that implication the highlights ‘situational-variation’ term The felici- is (55) ignorance. convey not need quantifiers situational with Sentences unicto vrsituations. over quantification : o iltk xtto n... . and. two, exit take will You on ay n u . . . Sue and Mary, John, ilhsawy ott htvropnn efaced he opponent whatever to lost always has Bill otx:O orwyt yhue o ilsesgsfreisoeadtwo. and one exits for signs { see will you house, my to way your On Context: same the to lost with always always has but Bill fights . many . . had John He’s opponent, boxer. a is Bill Context: opponents: different three with fights had He’s boxer. a is Bill Context: h,#whatever The, every s h xtyutk in take you exit the , ae ihsc xmls oehv sue htEFRCs that assumed have some examples, such with Faced . } xtyutk ilgtyuot L Blvd MLK onto you get will take you exit { waee,the #whatever, s esyuot L ld ihteimplication the with Blvd, MLK onto you gets (54a-b) will 18 hc unie vrpsil future possible over quantifies which , } nov unicto vrgeneric over quantification involve poeth faced he opponent Abenina-Adar any early access . , makes is included contain to the person he faces on Monday s diverse-subpart reading , Bill loses in s 19 , (59) tends to receive the situational-variation reading, under , the face-off tends to be understood as independent of the losing on Monday The thieves grabbed whatever small objectsholes they they could opened — reach figurines, through vases, the and lamps B: Yes, and this toolbox contains whatever tools I own B: ?Yes, and this toolbox contains whatever tools I own on Monday , with the implication that it was different people across situations. In contrast, s up the plural EFRC’s referent arediverse-subpart reading. not The saliently plural distinct. EFRC For carriesmaking this an up reason, implication its it’s called that referent a the differ with subparts respect to some(63) salient properties. A: The only tools you own are two hammers, right? nonetheless felicitous as an argument ofthe a same non-agentive point. predicate, (62) A: The only tools you own are a hammer and a screwdriver, right? (61) does not exclude anreferent indifference reading, of but the the EFRC discourse has in been (62), identified where with the definite expressions but the EFRC is Finally, unembedded EFRCs with a(61) plural is sortal an have example a from illustrated Condoravdi by2015: compatibility 218, with a whosethe conjunctive non-ignorance EFRC’s appositive reading referent. exhaustively is specifying (61) has only an ignorance readingsignals when that the the tense exit-taking morphology is of independent the of EFRC’s the restrictor getting(60) onto MLK, (60). Whatever exit you took will3.1.5 get you onto MLK Diverse-subpart Blvd readings in situations and the sentence doesonly not have ignorance a about situational-variation who reading. It Bill conveys faced on Monday. Likewise, the sentence in (57) the EFRC (Šimík 2018). Forin instance, (59), depending different on readings whether are made salient. (59) Bill has always lost to whatever opponent he faced (on Monday) know whether, -ever Finally, note that situational-variation readings, likerequire individual-variation a readings, quantifier over situations to bind the situation argument in the restrictor of There is a slight contrast between (62) and (63), in which the individual tools making which it says that in every relevant situation with Without early access ie,dfeetreadings). different (i.e., hsmaigi opstoal eie sn rpslfrnnetitv,presup- nonrestrictive, for proposal a using derived compositionally is meaning This Frany For (65) LFs and Denotations 3.2.1 alternative- the of result a as descriptions, specific modifier more generating from other derived descriptions with are definite they compete are that that EFRCs proposed Specifically, is representation. grammatical it but uniform EFRC, a grammatical the the of on environment depends and availability make-up whose identified, been have readings Five Proposal 3.2 icse h pns lento in alternation Spanish the discusses possible the to constrains happen alternation that words suggesting syntactic the readings, a all however, not Romance, or In whether unsuitable. by be distinguished describe, can it whether scenarios clear not is It deleted was word unsuitable Every (66) as it, restrict Maruši than a.o.). & rather Larson quantification from of (66) domain quantifier’s in a that on modifiers adjectival comment discusses to Morzycki seem 2008. Morzycki by modifiers positional the and (65), (64) in given definiteness, by imposed of constraints applicability the of are definedness on the They depends “comment”; variables). presuppositional (64) situation a (ignoring with (64) definites in Linkian Fregean, as meanings assigned are EFRCs MP satisfying of ways different to affect leading in project, its occur presuppositions of EFRCs their identity that that the way constructions about various the presupposition The relevant. stronger MP a making carries referent, but EFRC, the as entity hndefined, When defined, When σ Rsrcieraig vr odta a nutbewsdeleted was unsuitable was that word Every reading: Restrictive b. a. J J -ever baking is Bill pie whatever x [ Q orsrcieraig vr odwsdltd hywr unsuitable were they deleted; was word Every reading: Nonrestrictive ( K x c -ever )] ( h σ e sdfie nyi hr samrooial aia niyin entity maximal mereologically a is there if only defined is , x t [ -ever i icse below. discussed , J -function i ili baking is Bill pie J σ (66a-b) htvrpeBl sbaking is Bill pie whatever (66a-b) x aho hs lentv ecitosdntstesame the denotes descriptions alternative these of Each . [ Q ( x 2010, Cinque 1967, Bolinger also (see 275 2004: c ˇ )] Q r w ednso h etneo w ye of types two or sentence the of readings two are 103 2008: Morzycki encoded. grammatically be can , stemrooial aia niyin entity maximal mereologically the is (67a-b) K c sdfie nyif only defined is K 20 c ( x n iia facts similar and 1999, Mackenzie from , ] = )]) . 1 K c = σ x [ J i ili baking is Bill pie Abenina-Adar Q . K c ( x Q )] . early access has (67b) X -ever (67a), *(67b) (67a), X X in (67b). is the index for all the , applies at the top. The 0 s Def sofisticados ). He offers two analyses for the The WH-word is interpreted as a 7 can be used in contexts where some or (67b) , contributes the presupposition that the nr 21 (67a) Op in holds of the maximal entity in the denotation of the CP. sofisticados ’ will be used. -ever 0 s . To represent EFRC-LFs like (68), where c Nonrestrictive: Maria’s friends, all of whom are sophisticated Restrictive: Those of Maria’s friends who are sophisticated -type index (omitted throughout) and receives its value from the assignment b. los sofisticados amigos de María i in EFRCs is assumed to occupy a position within the EFRC’s extended DP et , s The LF of an EFRC is given in (68). It is largely inspired by Caponigro’s (2003) h supplied by c here appears to be more widely accepted, the current proposal is compatible with either structure. intensional properties in the EFRC,pie object Bill language is abbreviations like baking ‘[ ]- whatever See Groos & Van Riemsdijk alternative1981 thatfor treats the the Grimshaw original CP),1978 arguments and as see in partvan favor Riemsdijk of of 2017 for a this more complex derivation recent discussion. over nominal While an with the structure a adopted silent head (e.g., Bresnan & nonrestrictive modification operator, property denoted by an g implementation of the idea thatapplying definite to free-relatives consist directly of to a a definiteset property-denoting determiner restrictor, CP. contributing that the elementsproperty of associated the with set the are sortal. (in)animate A and silent have determiner, the restrictor (i.e., the sum ofreadings Maria’s of friend such in modifiers: oneof that nonrestrictive enriches modification, the and semantic an componentoperator alternative with that for a enriches nonrestrictive rule the modification. syntax The with syntactic an approach is adopted here. ascription of the modifier’s meaning to the maximal entity in the denotation of the (67b), it requires them all to be sophisticated (i.e.,(67) can only be nonrestrictive). a. los amigos sofisticados de María know whether, -ever in Italian; postnominally, all of Maria’s friends are sophisticated (i.e., can be restrictive) whereas prenominally, The context-sensitivity of EFRC’s readings is captured by assuming that where it is interpreted nonrestrictively, like preverbal According to Morzycki 2008, the nonrestrictive reading involves a not-at-issue -Ever 7 early access h. (68) aewl edn ee hswr sue httemorpheme of the con- partition a denotations that stitute whose assumes alternatives work triggers that This property here. contextually-determined the done and evoke, be impli- EFRCs will ignorance that same EFRCs’ alternatives derive contextually-determined to the regarding unknown from proposes salient cations 2015 a 2008 , is there Condoravdi that referent. conveys its EFRC an reading, ignorance an On g. a. .. Alternatives 3.2.2 b. f. c. e. d. Def D ever- J s s J J J J J J J J DP 0 0 Def nrP CP’ WhP nrP CP nrP’ Op (68) ∧ ∧ s K 0 nr ili baking is Bill x K K K K c K c c K c c K K sapein pie a is c = c c = c Op sdfie nyif only defined is = = = sdfie nyif only defined is = nrP = λ J λ λ λ CP x nr λ λ -ever x P e P e P Q . et et K ili baking is Bill . et x . et c htpie- what σ . : siaiaein inanimate is . sdntto,a n(9-7) hsie sprl nprdby inspired partly is idea This (69)-(70). in as denotation, ’s λ s x nrP’ λ P 0 [ WhP x P ∧ ( P x e σ ( et . in ili baking is Bill x x x )] : [ siaiaein inanimate is s J s 0 P CP 0 ]) ( J σ CP J hndefined, When . K ever- ever- λ c x x ( [ 2 x Q in s )]) 22 0 ( s s s x ∧ ili baking is Bill 0 0 0 . )]) CP’ K K x x J c c ( CP in ( . sapein pie a is σ Q σ s x s K 0 x [ 0 c [ ∧ x TP ] J CP siaiaein inanimate is x J sapein pie a is (68) K c s ( t 2 0 x - ∧ ] = )]) K s c 0 = ili baking is Bill σ s 1 x 0 [ ∧ x hndefined, When . s -ever siaiaein inanimate is P 0 ∧ ( x Abenina-Adar x = ) sapein pie a is eoe a denotes x 1 in s 0 early access 8 P : s } c ] K Non-trivial denotes an s , will have } as the value ] s -ever Jointly exhaust J -ever (71a) s Pairwise incompatible s iff for any situation i et , is a rhubarb pie in s , any alternative to an EFRC- h is on the right in x P is a partition of . . Note that the correspondence x x . } -ever ) x λ . λ s . -ever is a rhubarb pie in s λ *John has ever been to Canada [ is on the right in x λ , , ever [ ] ] in x , s φ ∨ ] while the alternatives determined on the ( (assuming no pie is both a cherry pie and a ∅ s 23 s c ∨ s ever LT ) replaces ) = is a partition of s s ( i (74a) (71a) ( t 0 , P :A at which John was in Canada but no time in any subdomain i ] carry the presuppositions in (74b-c). Q c et 0 D = , -ever K s ∩ Q } φ hh ) J s C C 6= { ( -ever , ∈ ’s alternatives partition Q Q is a cherry pie in is on the left in c [ [ Q implies that the alternatives to an EFRC-LF will be definite- x x is a cherry pie in is on the left in C C . . : x x ∈ ∈ -ever x x ) . . 0 0 s is a partition of λ λ x x ( . . Q Q -ever s s λ λ , , Q . . λ λ { s s Q Q [ [ ∀ ∃ S λ { λ { (71b) c. a. b. b. b. and (71b) for the set of its alternatives. at which he was in Canada (a contradiction). This contradiction is obviated by negation. D This view on -ever of 0 D (73) There’s a lot of sugar in whatever pie Bill is baking For example, Chierchia 2013 obligatorilyproposes exhaustified that existential quantifier overso-called times, ‘subdomain whose alternatives’ domain (a notion ofthat closely quantification resembling there evokes a is partition). some Exhaustification past yields time in domain of (73) carries the presuppositionbasis in of the alternatives to (70) A set of properties readings observed in the preceding section, as the following sections will show. 3.2.3 Ignorance reading Suppose (73) is uttered in a context where the assignment provides (74) a. The pie Bill is baking is a cherry pie or a rhubarb pie LFs in which an alternativebetween to these hypothesized alternative LFs andGiven the actual claim utterances may that be indirect. LF, where some alternative, property-denoting expressiona replaces stronger presupposition than themeaning EFRC-LF. Together of with the MP, this EFRC view and on the the meanings of its alternatives predicts the various For example, rhubarb pie), and (72b) is a partition of (72a). (71) a. (69) For any context (72) a. know whether, -ever the literature on weak NPIsto (e.g., be Krifka a1995). consequence Their of polarity their sensitivity evoking is alternatives claimed roughly of the kind assumed here. 8 early access htflvrtepei.Tkn h esetv fahae h ae h pae obe to speaker the takes who hearer a of perspective the Taking is. pie the flavor what is sentence the of use The acceptable. is EFRC the of utterance speaker’s the whether h osekr osrc osbeatraiest for sets alternative possible construct speakers do why teirlvneraig.I sntstse fteitrouospbil ge on agree publicly interlocutors the if satisfied not is It reading). irrelevance (the h FCdntstesm niya t lentvs aey h i htBl is Bill that pie the namely, alternatives, its as entity same the denotes EFRC The h otx sntsfcetyrc oflyseiywa property what specify fully to rich sufficiently not is context The nyacpal ftepeupstoso t qiaet rspoiinlystronger presuppositionally equivalent, its of presuppositions determining the in if relevant acceptable is only MP presuppose. they what in only differ They baking. rprisa n(6 o n te e fpriinn rpris o htmte) This matter)? that for properties, partitioning of set other any (or (76) in theory, as the properties of terms in Framed [ signal flavor. to its EFRC than the other take pie not the do about speakers unknown why some wonder might one (75), Regarding (76) to alternatives the Presumably, pie. cherry is a [ EFRC denote denote the to (76), known it’s like salient, if MP-violation. even is an fine, partition in non-flavor-based resulting some evaluated, where is when contexts EFRC knowledge In the common containing is conjunct property second this the has referent [ EFRC’s to is the denotes assigned (75) that alternatives information are of the values unacceptability of whatever The one that identified. alternatives, being assumption are the individuals on how explained to as clue a how * EFRC the using (75) it to refers but pie cherry a is baking generates utterance the EFRC, an that of antipresupposition utterance an an observes who and MP-compliant cases in satisfied is This flavor. disagreement particular and a reading), of teasing is (the baking addressee-ignorance is speaker-ignorance, Bill of pie the that requirement that a entail to not amounts This knowledge. common not are alternatives λ s . ealteiflct f(5,i hc pae rvdsta h i ilis Bill pie the that provides speaker a which in (75), of infelicity the Recall λ -ever x . λ x :Bt fteeaecer pies cherry are these of Both A: TepeBl sbkn saruabpie rhubarb a is baking is pie Bill cherry pie a The is baking is Bill pie The c. b. :Iko,btBl a we-ot n aydent oteesaltof lot a there’s baking so is doesn’t, he Mary pie and whatever sweet-tooth in a right. sugar has the Bill on but one know, and I left B: the on one A pies, room. two the see left and momentarily enter they B but and baking, are Bill and Mary Context: a there’s and pie, cherry a baking is Bill s sdntto spriind oee,the However, partitioned. is denotation ’s sacer i in pie cherry a is . λ x . x so h etin left the on is CK s ,rte hnacmoaigasto position-based of set a accommodating than rather ], c et h eurmnso nEFRC. an of requirements the meets s n [ and ] λ 24 s . λ x . λ o fsgri htvrpeh sbaking is he pie whatever in sugar of lot x s so h ih in right the on is . λ x hrypie cherry . htvrpeBl sbaking is Bill pie whatever -ever x sacer i in pie cherry a is htncsaiyinclude necessarily that acito provides -ascription -ever s nti context. this in ] -ever Abenina-Adar eoe and denotes CK s n its and .The ]. c -ever does . early access - , it namely -ever -appositive namely -appositive and the strengthened (cf. Onea & Volodina 2011 on namely 25 to prevent a contradiction, speakers tend to , the use of such constructions can be MP- -ever -set to which it’s added does not determine c CK -appositives could be explained by a contradiction everyone know whether namely There’s a lot of sugar incf. There’s whatever a pie lot Bill of is sugar baking in (*namely, a the cherry pie pie) Bill is baking (namely, a cherry pie) While incompatibility with appositives was not treated as a core fact to be Individual-variation, situational-variation, and indifference readings areas all special analyzed cases of areasons quantifier binding discussed into with the restrictorcompliant of when an the EFRC. identity For of theshort, the same the EFRC’s presupposition referent of is a known in quantificational the statement relevant in way. which In the quantifer binds inference generated by MP, that the speaker’s epistemic state does not determine 3.2.4 Variation with quantifiers appositive itself. One possible explanationMP-based of reasoning the sometimes incompatibility license is inferences to aboutrather the consider speaker’s than how epistemic common state knowledge (e.g., Chemla , 2008 Rouillard &between Schwarz 2017 ). the speaker’s utterance of the Suppose that the property ascribedobligatorily to counts the as EFRC’s referent an by alternative a to appositives answering implicit specificational questions). Evenshould granting be this, MP-compliant (78) ifthat the the pie Bill is baking is a cherry pie, and this information is added by the explained about EFRCs, itignorance was readings. A used question as thatare a awaits unacceptable. future diagnostic work for is why the examples availability like of (78) (78) non- judge the sequence contradictory withoutthe the cherry overt exceptive. pie Likewise, property although couldtends be to be excluded included, from leading thespeakers to set are infelicity. It of inclined seems alternatives towards that what’s to salient, in not evaluating such what’s consistent. discourses, domains in the following sense.the Although domain Bill in quantified principle over by could be excluded from know whether, -ever (77) Bill doesn’t love pie but everyone ??(except Bill) does The unacceptability of The determination of alternative sets resembles the determination of quantificational which partition cell the EFRC’s referent falls in. work does not offer anwith answer quantification to in this (77). question but points out a parallel judgment early access -ever CK h bevsa teac fa FC h teac eeae nantipresupposition an generates utterance the EFRC, an of utterance an observes who requirement. this meet not does it hence A, of all if only MP with complies EFRC-sentence the uttering speaker A h constituent The a. (81) (79) as conference LF. relevant same the the is attended (79b) professor every first. that their provides that (79) domain. like quantifier’s context the known across is way) it relevant when the alternatives (in its varies among identity one EFRC’s felicitous the strongest that the is EFRC the into rfso tedd rta h rfsosatne ifrn conferences. every different conference attended which professors unknown the it’s that that or either the attended, implies Hence professor that EFRC. reading an a of requirements has contextual EFRC the meets knowledge common that Conference attended professor every that supplies above context The conferences. a ii) and of types Two knowledge. common not are a. (80) presupposes whole a as (79) so function, this of domain the (80a) to in assigned be property to the that professor has such every individuals attended those they only conference contains first domain the whose function partial a denotes c ealthat Recall aigteprpcieo errwotkstesekrt eM-opin and MP-compliant be to speaker the takes who hearer a of perspective the Taking sti hc ti nete hc ofrnea es n rfso attended professor one least at conference which unsettled is it which in -set n alternatives. and hl h lentvspresuppose alternatives the while b. prof every For prof every For d. prof every For c. b. L:eeyprof- attended every first LF: she conference whatever enjoyed most b. professor #Every enjoyed. most they was a. conference A what Conference asks and Someone professors, conference. the first are their Elsie and Sue, Mary, Context: CK c sti hc ti ete hta es w rfsosatne different attended professors two least at that settled is it which in -set λ { C Conference or B, Conference prof every For [ s λ (79a) [ [ . λ λ s λ . s 7 x λ . [ λ nwhich in , . x t x x 7 . sCneec in A Conference is x . enjoyed- x sCneec in A Conference is sCneec in B Conference is x x x s x h rtconference first the , conference first the , conference first the , 0 h rtconference first the , [ λ every s [ 7 0 x waee ofrneshe conference [whatever waee ofrneshe conference [whatever t sCneec in B Conference is 7 id noteER,i ncetbei a in unacceptable is EFRC, the into binds enjoyed- (80b-d) 26 s CK ∨ s ] s , assuming , ] , c s st etti eurmn:i a i) requirement: this meet -sets [ 0 λ x x x s x teddwsCneec C Conference was attended B Conference was attended A Conference was attended . teddwsCneec A, Conference was attended λ x s . ∨ x (81a-b) sCneec in C Conference is x 7 -ever sCneec in C Conference is 7 rtattended]- first rtattended]- first . stevle of values the as Every Abenina-Adar requires (80b-d) s s 0 s 0 ]] ] ]] } s early access , ]] 7 and s (83a) . (85) is -ever , assuming } ] will s always you to MLK]] 7 s presupposes } ] s gets- and its alternatives. 7 (82a) s as the values of s , is exit two in -ever x 7 s . s is Mary in x always (84a-b) x [whatever opponent he faced]- λ . . x s λ is exit two in λ [ . x , ] s 27 s ∨ is Mary in λ [ , assuming s x , ] s , (82) with an EFRC is unacceptable. ∨ s 7 [ Bill has lost-to- λ (83b-c) [ 7 [[whatever exit you take]- always 0 λ s [ - is Bill in is exit one in 0 C x x s is exit one in is Bill in - . . x x C x x . . λ λ x x . . λ λ s s . . λ λ s s [ [ { { λ λ b. b. Context: On your way to my house, you will see signsa. for exits one#Whatever and exit two. b. you take will get youLF: onto will MLK Blvd Context: Bill is a boxer.opponent, He’s John had . . many . fights buta. always with the#Bill has same b. always lost to whatever opponentLF: he always faced b. c. In every situation, the opponent BillIn faced every was situation, John the opponent Bill faced was Mary You will take exit two, and. . . A speaker uttering the EFRC sentence complies with MP only if common The same explanation is given for situational-variation readings. Indeed, although (86) a. that in addition to whatever temporalof or situations epistemic it conditions quantifies it over, itunacceptable imposes has when on universal in the presuppositions every set like possible future,its you use take violates the MP same assuming exit; the in values this in context, (86a-b) for knowledge entails neither (83b) norin (83c) at (satisfied least if one it situation, is ortwo unknown if situations). who it Bill In is faced the known that precedingsituation, Bill example, the faced context opponent different supplies Bill opponents in that faced at was in least John, every hence relevant the use of the EFRC violates MP. (85) Given universal presupposition projection under and its alternatives presuppose of alternatives. (83) a. In every situation, the opponent Bill faced was John or Mary (84) a. and situational-variation readings have the same statusRecall on that when the the current referentsituations of analysis. quantified the over EFRC by is known, and it is(82) the same entity across know whether, -ever they have been presented as distinct readings in the literature, individual-variation The same proposal can extend to situational-variation readings with Their similarity stems from the fact that they both project universal presuppositions. early access hsi eas ihu idn,tepeupsto fteER rjcsglobally, projects EFRC the of presupposition the binding, without because is This hsaonst nipiaino gn-nifrne ealteeapei (90), in example the Recall agent-indifference. of implication an to amounts This into binding modal agentive an of result a as analyzed is reading indifference The Eeypoesrms noe htvrcneec rtattended first I conference whatever enjoyed most professor Every a. (87a-c). in as reading, ignorance an (87) only has do EFRC but the EFRC restrictor, the its over into scope bind situational-quantifiers not and individual- when that Recall rspoiin.Eetagmns(type argument arguments situation Event EFRC’s (91). presuppositions. the is binds (90) 2015), for Kratzer LF on relevant the that Suppose toolbox. have the (90) not in to tool known the is of subject identity agentive the the about when indifferent unacceptable been is EFRC way. the relevant which the agent- in in the varies across referent that EFRC’s known the is of it identity when the satisfied be modal, to teleological MP for allowing EFRC, the (89) while uptake. non-actual, (88) actual is implies offer subject, the non-agentive of inanimate agentive uptake an animate, the the has which (88), which In under (89), 25. reading 1976: a Oehrle is for from (88) allows view possession). subject this of for transfer evidence and of causatives piece defeasible Schäfer a on & al. Martin et 2001, 2015, Davis the Kratzer & into 2012, (Koenig base sentence modal the agent-teleological of an representation agentivity, introduce grammatical on to literature taken be the are predicates from to certain idea it an for Adopting is readings. satisfied situational-variation be referent. to EFRC’s the MP of for holds way property partitioning only which the unsettled and quantifier, by unaffected h nifrneraigi xlie agl ntesm a sidvda-and individual- as way same the in largely explained is reading indifference The Hrecletrsl fee e h rtpsto.Btsedd’ aeit.’ take didn’t she But position. first the her offered result excellent ‘Her position, first the her offered race the of organizer ‘The Waee xtyuto ilgtyuot L Blvd MLK onto you get Monday will on took faced you he exit opponent Whatever whatever to lost always has Bill c. b. hl.Sewsasmln h e aeul n h etse aldfra for grabbed called Sue step next the the and . . carefully on so. hammer, bed was screwdriver the the assembling and was toolbox, Sue the shelf. in was hammer The Context: place. première la offert a lui résultat excellent Son place. première la offert a lui course la de L’organisateur { waee ol h olthat tool the tool, #whatever ε 28 r ersne explicitly. represented are ) A GENT } a ntetoolbox the in was sdfie n(2 (based (92) in defined as , s Mi len ’ a prise. pas l’a ne elle #Mais 7 n rjcsuniversal projects and u h eue hsdeal.’ this refused she but asel euéc marché. ce refusé a elle Mais Abenina-Adar } )] early access 0 v . , 7 } v s , 0 in as s are 0 ( s v } ] s is defined AUSE (94a-b) ) C 0 during s ∧ ( s requires all of 1 P in : 0 x s DP ) = s 0 GENT v , , assuming 0 A ⊆ { s . ) ( 0 s v P , [ is a screwdriver in x 0 ε , v x s (93b-c) . ∃ ( x : V’ 0 λ s . whatever tool was in the toolbox- OALS s ⊆ { -property in is a screwdriver in λ 2 ) [ v x :G , v , ] , 7 s x ∨ x s -ever , 29 s λ s . VP’ ( V i t ε , s h has the OALS P grabbed- 0 λ s G VP . ∧ 2 ε s v λ is a hammer in λ in x . is a hammer in v 7 is the set of situations where the goals of . and its alternatives presuppose s x λ ) x v’ . λ v λ , x = 1 x . c λ v and alternatives. , (93a) K s , s . ( 0 λ s s [ - { In every situation where Sue’s goalsized, during the her tool agentive in act the are toolbox real- isλ a screwdriver In every situation where Sue’s goalsized, during the her tool agentive in act the areIn toolbox real- every is situation a where hammer Sue’s or goalsized, a during the screwdriver her tool agentive in act the are toolbox real- is a hammer v -ever GENT vP OALS is the agent of A G b. realized b. c. x J GENT A DP Sue (94) a. describe an actual agentivethe event agentive on event the leads to part Sue’s of intended Sue result, and her in action causes all a situations grabbing where of the goal-realizing situations of the(91) agent presupposes to be in thethe domain value of of this function. Thus, (93) a. (92) (91) know whether, -ever The alternatives are as informative as the sentence containing the EFRC; all of them The function denoted by the VP is partial, defined only for those situations which the tool in the toolbox in early access hr ytcial o oasgv ieto rise give modals low syntactically where frteproe fhrgabn h ol http fto a ntetoolbox. the in was tool care of didn’t type Sue what that tool) known the is grabbing it her that of or tool), purposes the the grabbing (for her of purposes the (for 7)osre htodnr entsmygv iet nifrneimplica- indifference to rise give may definites ordinary that observes 275) (2015: ti nete,fra es n fSesga elzn iutos htto a in was tool what situations, realizing situations goal a Sue’s ii) of and one toolbox least the at for unsettled, is use it The to of relevant. presupposed types neither is Two if is MP only knowledge. property hence MP-compliant what situations, is EFRC-sentence goal-realizing of the Sue’s terms of in in tool differ the They of toolbox. hold the in tool the bu h iiino otn sntuiu oEFRCs. to unique not question is the that content that reading of suggests a division This has the indifferently. apparently about acting (96) Alfonso at-issue; on be condition to a appear expresses may Rawlins fault. times a at is which this tions, that clear not is use It the alternative. by ignorance weak generated the presuppositionally a antipresuppositions between of status are in Both difference implications. no indifference is and there analysis, current the Under a. truth is implication 2015). (95) Condoravdi indifference 2015, the Rawlins also that (see proposed presuppositional been than rather has conditional it of 36), readings perceived 2000: the Fintel Given readings. indifference in clarified. for be explanation to of remains line this of If extensionality properties. evaluation the intensional the embedded, in their extension the of about situation entailments unexpected ): 2009 to Hacquard way 2006, any in related be to determined have is not EFRC do the doesn’t s which of This situations, actual. extension was goal-realizing the tool Sue’s where the in above, that proposal also but the actual, from was follow tool the of grabbing the that of meaning place the first in the modality her for evidence as given was uptake toolbox the in be to needed Sue tool can of hearer type the what MP-compliant, unknown be is to it speaker that the roughly, takes infer, who hearer a of perspective 0 spitdotb eiwr hsfc spr famr eea phenomenon general more a of part is fact this reviewer, a by out pointed As . h eodqeto stedvd ewe setv n rspoiinlcontent presuppositional and assertive between divide the is question second The of Non-actuality indifference. about answered be to remain questions Several b. s and nesSejs rbe htvrto a ntetobx h oka took bed she the toolbox, assemble the to in time was long tool whatever grabbed grabbed purpose) just she . on Sue . there (. Unless in toolbox was the that in hammer was the tool whatever grab just didn’t Sue s but , 0 htteto sahme in hammer a is tool the that , grab CK u rbe htvrto a ntetoolbox the in was tool whatever grabbed Sue c sti hc ti ete,fra es w olrealizing goal two least at for settled, is it which in -set CK sprud h ifrnebetween difference the pursued, is c st etti eurmn:i a i) requirement: this meet -sets 30 cult entailments actuality s n cedie in screwdriver a and (93b) (95a-b) h rsne offered presenter The nor grab CK (93c) Hacquard (e.g., mle o just not implies n,e.g., and, von on (based c sti which in -set s Abenina-Adar scommon is 0 rmthe From . offer early access , - c CK } ] (97a-b) s -set supports c ). s CK s , then B’s utterance is is a screwdriver in x (98a-b) . is hammer 2 in could be MP compliant under x x λ . ∨ s s (97b) λ is a screwdriver in -set in which it’s settled that different [ x c , ] s ∨ 31 , where the subparts making up the EFRC’s CK s -set in which it is unsettled which alternative c is in principle possible (e.g., based on properties (97a-b) CK is hammer 1 in x -ever . ; B’s utterance in -property. To comply with MP, the maximal non-atomic x is a hammer in λ . x is a hammer in s (97a) -ever . x x λ . λ x . λ s . λ s [ λ { B: Yes, and this toolbox contains whatever tools I own B: ?Yes, and this toolbox contains whatever tools I own Unless Alfonso acts indifferently. . . b. b. A: The only tools you own are two hammers, right? ≈ and alternatives receive the salient values in Plural EFRCs presuppose that the maximal non-atomic entity in the denotation -ever (98) a. others, relating to the lack of ignorance when a quantifier binds into an EFRC’s approaches to the readingsaccount avoids of some challenges EFRCs. posed Section toa previous3.3.1 notion accounts of ofdiscusses identity ignorance how by thatpartition. adopting is the relativized Section current to3.3.2 ahighlights contextually-determined, an property-based advantage of the present account over most antipresupposition that the EFRC’s pluralparts, referent which is simply is made guaranteed upif by of plurality. different Regarding theMP-compliant contrast only between in different values (e.g., alternative properties hold of the entity’s subparts.the The non-modal latter reading type of identified by Condoravdi 2015. Following Condoravdi,of a being identical tothe atomic use subparts of a of plural the EFRC EFRC’s can referent). always This be construed implies as that MP-compliant, carrying the of the restrictor has the entity can’t be known tosets have one meet of this the requirement: alternative i) properties.property a Two holds types of of the referent and ii) a referent have salient, distinct properties in (97a) but not(97) (97b). a. A: The only tools you own are a hammer and a screwdriver, right? EFRCs with a plural sortalthere need is not a carry slight any contrast modal between implications of ignorance, but 3.3 Discussion know whether, -ever (96) Unless Alfonso just grabs the tool that’s handy, we’ll be waiting for hours 3.2.5 Diverse subpart reading very fine-grained partition of The following subsections compare the present analysis with some of the previous early access 0 nlssN,ERscryapresupposition a carry EFRCs analysis-N), 30, 2000: Fintel von in recast (as 1997 iha niiuldntn xrsinlk h demonstrative the like expression individual-denoting an with hsaayi mle hto ninrneraig nER sflctu nyif only felicitous is EFRC an reading, ignorance an on that implies analysis This h eodcalnei h nxetdiflct fERsi otxsweean where contexts in EFRCs of infelicity unexpected the is challenge second The aito niett htteER eurs h rtcalnei h unexpected the is challenge first The requires. EFRC the that identity in variation .. te iw nignorance on views Other 3.3.1 account. is present the which favor literature, availability readings the The indifference presupposition. of in counterfactual found contextually-determined, one a predominant on analysis based the the present to and the readings compares inferences indifference 3.3.3 modal of Section Finally, of variation. absence of the encode inferences explaining attested semantically trouble to EFRC’s have take they modality, accounts previous many because restrictor; * satisfiable. (101) requirement individual non-rigidity the EFRC’s identify the to making unable denotes, contexts being EFRC speaker Such the the (101). that with in compatible as principle referent, EFRC’s in the are to ascribed saliently is NP-property pie. that baking is Bill (pointing): the A 1989 ), Kaplan in as (100). world, in (100) satisfied actual be the to in not do expected is they (99) as they of entity world, presupposition any same in the (i.e., out ‘rigidly’ entities pick denote demonstratives referent that EFRC’s assumption the the identify can speaker the where contexts of in type EFRCs the of to felicity primarily relating (99), in identify the analysis 2011 individual the Wolter which for & Heller challenges of and empirical certain 2008 , two not Condoravdi 2005, is Heller source) denotes. epistemic EFRC relevant (or speaker the world any For (99) base when modal arises determined ignorance contextually and a across designation non-rigid primarily of Dayal it to and According EFRCs, readings. of situational-variation and analysis ignorance semantic explain formal to first aims the offers 1997 Dayal hndefined, When J whatever ili aigacer i,adteesalto ua nwaee i eis he pie whatever in sugar of lot a there’s and pie, baking cherry a baking is Bill baking is he pie whatever in sugar of lot a there’s taste, his Given see. I B: K c ( w )( w J whatever F n n property any and )( F P sepistemic. is ) sdfie nyif only defined is K c ( w )( F 32 )( P P h s ) , et = i : ι ∃ x w [ P 0 [ , ( ι w w x 00 [ )( P ∈ x ( w )] F 0 )( htpie that x )] 6= ι F x Abenina-Adar n(0) on (100); in [ si (99), in as , P ( w 00 )( x )]] early access . )])] . If x )]]] S x is the )( 0 Identity )( ) w 00 0 happens ( Separation w w Application S P ( ( [ i P x [ ι x ( ι Q [ as F S ∈ 0 ] 0 w i : ∀ i = et , : iff i . In other words, if a single s h S 1 w are defined, then Q ) , as its extension in one world and i 00 ) = et x , then w , Q s ( is not the same )] h i 0 )( P )] has w ] P x ( 1 0 S )( i and )( 0 F ) 33 0 w are the same . ( )( ) = )) = w y F 0 P ( w from worlds into sets of individual concepts is defined only if [ w i w ( ∈ ( x c ( ) i S ι i if K )]] ( [ [ and w Q 0 00 [ F x 00 w )( w ( ∃ w P ∈ i such that for any world , . Sorts are intensions of sets of individual concepts that 0 00 if )( ) TATUE w and any properties w F ii S )[ , ∀ whatever t at every 0 w )( , J sorts w )[ )[ w i ( )] w e w ∃ S w ( x [ , ( ( c s K S ii )( ∈ S is the function t , 0 hh w i i c ∈ ∈ , ( e , K , s i i i s P h [ ∀ ∀ same statue as ∀ hh , x s ι h . S statue whatever w a. c. J b. J ∀ (type When defined, λ suggests under what conditions we judge two entities to be the same The denotation is meant to solve the two problems faced by ’sDayal account as its extension another, then EFRC. The EFRC’s ignorance requirement represented in (103) is satisfiable. based on non-rigidity. The first problem,demonstration, posed is by solved felicitous by EFRCs assuming indemonstratives, a contexts unlike particular of view common on nouns, demonstration. doprovide In not a short, method denote of sorts; identifying asand their such, there referent is they in no the do problem way not with that referring a to common an noun entity does, using a demonstrative and then an to pick out those twoetc. individuals (103) at requires any that two no worlds,entity sort they as provide are an the individual same concept statue, that pie, picks out the same some individual concept in they extension of discussed below. (103) For any world the principle of separation (whichexample distinguishes common between noun individual concepts). denotation An undernotational their differences assumptions for is readability). given in (102) (slight (102) ignorance presupposition that is relativizedassumptions to (based noun especially meanings. on OnGupta theirassumed1980), ontological here, noun but meanings rather are notuphold properties, three as principles: the principleconcepts of pick application out (which entities says with that the the noun-related individual property), the principle of identity (102b) know whether, -ever Heller &(2011) Wolter aim to resolve bothpresuppositional of condition these on problems the by use proposing of a different an EFRC. They propose that EFRCs carry an (which tracks the entities picked out by the individual concepts across worlds), and way of picking out an individual among the statues, the pies, or any other According to Heller & Wolter 2011, EFRCs have the presupposition in (103), to be early access ssc,tesr eoe by denoted sort baking the is such, Bill As pie the pie, cherry a be to known is referent EFRC’s the Although when context the in information any there is however, case, neither In excluded. is it when h eunei 15 smre when marked is (105) in sequence The o ob n uhietfignmnlsr. h rpsli optbewt the with compatible is proposal The sort.’ there nominal requires identifying which such S, any Condition be violates [ this This to same in base. not the modal information be the no not in is will worlds there entity possible and the entity, that this guarantees which for context identity of principle [ a sort provides the that ‘Knowing follows: like property a ascribed nysret aetepeupsto airt aif.A uh ihu further without such, As satisfy. will to it easier since presupposition help, the not render will make to presupposition to ascription EFRC’s serve property the restricting only in that contextually over particular, use In quantified to analysis. sorts how their the obvious on failure not presupposition is a it (105) but salient EFRC, the between the conflict of a is there pie that is cherry here presented analysis to the inclined underlying are speakers why is puzzle by the denoted 2011, terms sorts Wolter in the & Framed assume Heller base. in modal theory the the across of referent EFRC’s the (i.e., identifying sorts of relevant method the that guarantees that (105) the of requirement the satisfiable. making proposal base, their modal on epistemic EFRC the across referent EFRC’s the and worlds belief relevant the concept of the some of extension the with coincides EFRCs. of meaning the in of sorts one to by (104) switch inspired the is motivate which to (104), used in is repeated that discourse own the their in EFRC the of felicity h eodpolm oe yiflctu FC hc aebe saliently been have which EFRCs infelicitous by posed problem, second The ruby oee,tepooa ae rbesepann h otati (105). in contrast the explaining problems faces proposal the however, Arguably, cherry :Bt fteeaecer pies cherry are these of Both A: ili aiga(cer)pe n hr’ o fsgri htvrpehe pie whatever in sugar of lot a there’s and baking pie, is (#cherry) a baking is Bill of lot a there’s baking so is doesn’t, he Mary pie and whatever sweet-tooth in a right. sugar has the Bill on but one know, and I left B: the on one A pies, room. two the see left and momentarily enter they B but and baking, are Bill and Mary Context: rpryacito n h otx-eedn goac requirement ignorance context-dependent the and ascription property sasn u otakisiett when identity its track do but absent is hrypie cherry pie hrypie cherry and hrypie cherry 8 as 184 2011: Wolter & Heller by explained is hrypie cherry [ λ cherry w 34 osntpoieamto fidentifying of method a provide not does h hrypeo h ih in right the on pie cherry the . [ ple otedntto fteFR the of denotation the to applies ] pie λ sicue n opeeyunmarked completely and included is w onttakterfrn’ identity referent’s the track not do h hrypeo h etin left the on pie cherry the . and cherry hrypie cherry speet h intuition The present. is hrypie cherry ontpoiea provide not do ) Abenina-Adar w costhe across ] ] nothers. in w ] in early access c K )]] x φ J )( { 00 s ( When de- P [ . x σ )]) x ) 6= )( c s K )])]] )] ( F x x P [ )( )( ∈ 0 0 x -ever )] )] s s 00 σ ( ( J x x s , P P )( 0 )( )( [ [ s s s s x x ( ( ( ∃ c σ σ -property and that for every P P K [ ) [ [ )( c x x 0 K s σ σ ( c -ever -ever = = )] K J x ) ) φ -ever J J P P )( [ s is a partition of )( )( ( F } F F P 35 ) of a salient modal base function and [ ∈ of a salient modal base function) x )( )( 0 s s s s s σ is defined only if ( ( )]) c c x ) = -ever K K P )( , ) → ∃ s is defined only if φ )( P ) ( ( ) F P c )( [ P s is defined only if is a partition of x )( ( LT )( s ) c } σ . The modal base across which the EFRC varies can be ( , ever K whatever whatever ) F P c J J F φ )( K :A ( )( )( s c ( s s c c ( ( K c c -ever K LT Dayal K K is the extension in is the extension in φ , J A φ [ F { F whatever ( φ J c -ever ∀ J LT whatever whatever whatever J J :A J fined, a. b. (where (where (where When defined, When defined, accessible situations (indifference), or the set of generically accessible situations Both types of accounts areindifference able readings. to According account to semantic for accounts, ignorance, EFRCsthat situational-variation, carry requires and a variation presupposition with respect todetermined the modal EFRC’s base, extension across athe contextually- set of epistemically accessible situations (ignorance), the set of counterfactually presupposes that the referentalternative property, has it’s possible the that the general referent has it. (108) pragmatic account of modal variation.of To illustrate the that notion of this identity question an is analysis independent adopts, non-rigidity in (107) could be substituted For comparison, the analysis in here,Dayal modal1997, variationvon is Fintel clearly2000 partis of repeated the in semantics. (107) (107); pliance with pragmatic principles producesdenotation’s the value requirement varies that across some a intensional modal base. (106) On the current proposal formodifications the for meaning consistency), of modal variation EFRCs, is repeated not in part (106) of (notational the semantics. Com- know whether, -ever clarification, their proposed presupposition does not explain EFRCs’ incompatibility 3.3.2 Non-modal variation The question this subsection explores is whether the facts favor a semantic or a with property-based variation, as in (108); this rendition of a semantic account with salient property ascriptions. early access a ito costesto pseial cesbestain,testo counter- of set the situations, accessible epistemically of set the across Variation stainlvrain.O av mlmnain h oa aeaantwihthe which against base modal the implementation, naive a On (situational-variation). h aua nltclitiini odrv niiulvrainraig yrequiring by readings individual-variation derive to is intuition analytical natural The ausfor values enjoy- Generally, (110). of oddity the by evidenced as implausible, reading variation news oln stecneec aisars rfsos n ht(0)cannot (109) that and professors, across confer- varies first conference her the what as professor long every is so for was, settled (109) it’s ence that which in Recall contexts readings. in felicitous diverse-subpart and readings individual-variation conversational 1981). (cf. 1977, conversation the Kratzer in in salient backgrounds made is whichever is evaluated is EFRC otiigpoe uprso h ol own. I tools the of subparts proper in containing situations of set the assume example, of that set situation entities a topic the situation is the of topic of salient part the makes are context of that what situations parts perhaps of example, consisting individual-variation value, the “realistic” a assigned be new quantifier. the with of judgments domain these the with across analysis vary presupposition to modal referent the EFRC’s Reconciling the of identity own the I tools whatever contains toolbox This a. (111) for values possible proposed reading. the this of deriving none in and helpful plurality, from come must — ties of implication The reading. (111a) situational-variation that or by suggesting indifference own, an posed available I is make tool what problem know similar don’t A I implies example. the will of situations readings, reading diverse-subpart accessible attested generically the of provide set not the or situations, accessible attended factually she conference first the enjoyed most always #Sue on (110) happens that something not state, a describes occasions. most multiple the conference situational- particular a a make ing EFRC the for attended referent first and she predicate conference whatever of enjoyed choice most the professor Furthermore, Every predicate. (109) main its given reading, indifference an as analyzed be h rbe ae yasmni con snnmdlvrain namely, variation, non-modal is account semantic a by faced problem The ic h oli odrv h o-oa aito ednsmodally, readings variation non-modal the derive to is goal the Since htteprsmkn ptesmo ol w aedsic proper- distinct have own I tools of sum the up making parts the that — Ti olo otiswaee olIown I tool whatever contains toolbox This b. F rvsdfcl,a hw below. shown as difficult, proves vr professor every (111a) ihasnua sortal, singular a with ; unie over, quantifies (112b) 36 s 0 hc r at ftetpcsituation topic the of parts are which , aho hc otiseatyone exactly contains which of each , (112a) contain (111b) o h ies subpart diverse the For . nisonde not does own its on h etneonly sentence the , Abenina-Adar F s 0 might F For . are early access ] 0 ’s s 0 s 0 s either, } 0 } s (112a) 0 attended in -property, and s x -property in is in -ever 0 s such that the first con- s -ever , a subpart of the tools I -ever (112a) has the the tools I own in ∈ 0 s @ s ∃ 0 The first conference -property in , s and therefore throughout any of φ 6= φ (112a) and the assumption that the situations This toolbox contains whatever tools and binding is taken into consideration, 0 , as (114) requires. s s 0 ∈ s , she attended exactly one first conference . For every professor, only one alternative 0 0 0 s 37 s s , -ever . But this is impossible, given the assumption -ever s has the ∃ attended in , s does not help much in producing an implication x 0 0 s s (112a) attended in in in x that is an alternative to x x every professor the tools I own in exactly one of the professors in (112a) φ ∧ ∧ 0 0 attended in s s is proposed, it is an open question how to capture individual- x v v 0 0 F s s : : 0 0 s s { For every alternative to ference { -property. But φ The first conference b. a. The first conference b. [ are parts of the topic situation works well when paired with (108). says that for every professor, the first conference she attended has different is predicted to presuppose that the tools I own have the . Therefore, it cannot be the case that for every professor, there are two distinct The problem also applies to other analyses that semantically encode modal varia- 0 s (112a) tion in different ways, to beaccount, discussed elaborated briefly. onHirsch in 2015 Šimík offersposition a2018. different of To explain semantic EFRCs similarities and in interrogative the clauses, containing syntactic Hirsch an com- 2015 EFRCproposes in that factSpecifically, a underlyingly the sentence contains property-denoting an restrictor of interrogative clause the EFRC as is well. both part of a definite non-modal readings of variation; until amotivated) more value appropriate for (and ideally, independently based variation under a semantic rather than pragmatic account of modal variation. (113b) to be the case thatin for every professor in unique first conferences in the subparts of (114) For every professor that the alternative properties partition in property can hold of herparts. first conference The in original presuppositionproducing in the presupposition(107) indoes (114). In not order sit for well the sentence with to be defined, it has properties across the situations in that the professors’ first conferences have different properties; indeed, paired with presupposition resulting from the relevant example is predicted to have the presupposition(113) in (113). For every professor (112b) for every property-denoting own has the know whether, -ever (112) a. I own (108), the resulting presupposition appears to be unsatisfiable. Once the universal An analysis that semantically encodes modal variation must be amended to capture early access 9 bcueof (because psei oa.Ti iwfcspolm xliigtesm aapita the an as unless point reading; data individual-variation same the the namely explaining account, problems an modal-presupposition faces than view rather This situations over modal. readings quantifier epistemic situational-variation sentence-internal to a extended semantics. restricting be the pointwise can of by analysis part the variation how modal shows making 2018 presupposition base, Šimík a modal in the results across pointwise restriction variation that pointwise of clause The adjunct modal. interrogative epistemic an an of restricts part and assumed, commonly as DP, L:O [ Op LF: a. of partiality possible. the epistemically of is result (ib) (i) a in as answer 2015; possible Hirsch every in that details presupposes compositional (ia) the in of LF individuating sketch no brief a as is long (i) so referent, is EFRC’s MP the EFRCs: about plural ignorance with without readings satisfiable non-modal explains encoded naturally grammatically account current is alternatives of evocation proposal, current the Under attended problematic first the she for conference proposal whatever his current enjoyed Thus, the most quantifier. professor as the result of same that domain the requirement with the derives a across proposal sentences to individuals In amounts different this denote context. EFRC, EFRC output the the EFRC’s into the bind that in quantifiers referent individual EFRC’s the framework, with semantic to variation dynamic require respect a which in postsuppositions couched grammatically-encoded is over have which scope EFRCs proposal, expressions variation his quantificational of Under what type EFRC. by the the determined that is notes convey He can accounts. EFRC modal an inherently for poses it problem (114) in variation well. non-modal sentence’s as the EFRC problematic modalized, an is are of rules part both second base Since the modal content. and counterfactual assertive set, a context across the variation first across makes The variation rule rules. of modalized presupposition two a of produces one rule with discharged However, non-rigidity. are properties to alternative relating the problems the avoiding thus properties, alternative unexplained. remains reading interrogative individual-variation the the the of for restrict, part statement to be quantified adjunct to universally clause argued the convincingly of be up can make and grammatical found is base modal appropriate spooa,vraini ato h rmaia enn fEFRCs. of meaning grammatical the of part is variation proposal, Lauer’s Under the and reading individual-variation the out point to first the is 2009 Lauer contextually-determined of notion the introduces account (2015) Condoravdi’s d. b. c. e. J J J J -ever  Qwaee aycooked] Mary whatever [Q Op onae[ ate John K c K c = = ,btvraini o.I sarsl fM-ae esnn.The reasoning. MP-based of result a is It not. is variation but ), λ λ  p P st Def Qwaee aycoe][onae[ ate [John cooked] Mary whatever [Q st , : t . F htvrMr cooked] Mary whatever λ c w ( w . ) ∀ ∩ p p ∈ 6= P : ∅ K c p . = ( λ w λ q = ) st 38 p st . . 1 λ ∃ K w x c p= [p = . ∀ λ w w λ 0 onate John . ∈ w aycoe only cooked Mary . F Def c ( w htvrMr cooked]]] Mary whatever ) ∩ σ p x : Mr cooked [Mary . q ( w 0 = ) x 1 Abenina-Adar in w x ] in (id) Every w in ] the , 9 w early access : i et )]) , x s h )( Q , w i ( and EFRCs presupposes et P , [ s h x ι P is a partial function, has to be non-empty. )( IN } w ) ( )] M is epistemic; non-rigidity } x Q F )] )( x w ( )( know whether P [ w x ( ι = 1 iff P ) [ 6= x Q )] ι x )( )( 6= P , and any properties 00 st w )] )( ( x F F P [ )( x )( 00 ι 39 w w : ( ( 00 c is defined only if , P w g [ ) K x Q ι ∩ { An EFRC-sentence carries the presupposition that F : )( . 00 10 P . w )])] )( F x F -interrogatives a postsupposition; the MP-based account , any modal base whatever ∩ { )( J 0 w )( Sue grabbed whatever tool was in the toolbox F w w ( ( ( w c P K [ IN x whether ι M )( 0 ∈ w 0 ( w whatever Q Context: The tool Sue bought ata the screwdriver store and today would is have thisshe bought hammer. She got one wanted home, if she she’d put had#This the more toolbox money. hammer When contains where she whatever tool puts Sue all bought of at her the tools. store today J ∀ [ When defined, , which is what Analysis-N required, is derived by assuming that F As pointed out before, indifference readings are only available with certain applying only to non-empty sets, thus Under this version of theacross meaning of the EFRC, ignorance arises when predicates. Without further elaboration, thisexample, does consider not (116), follow which from makes Analysis-I. athe For counterfactual EFRC modal is base an salient argument but to where a non-agentive predicate.(116) The EFRC is unacceptable. Indifference readings arise when context suppliesmodal the base extension as of the a valuea counterfactual for change to thesentence. identity For of example, the EFRC’s referentthat if would the not tool affect in the the toolbox truth had of been the something else, Sue would’ve grabbed that. have the denotation inEFRC (115), involves inspired quantification over by theDayal worldsresemble1997. in the the The world modal of presupposition base evaluation of that butdifferent most in entity; an closely which in the all restrictor of of these the worlds, EFRC the denotes main(115) a predication of the sentence is true. For any world presuppositional expressions, whereas ’sLauer does not predict such a correlation. 3.3.3 Problems with counterfactuality Since von Fintel 2000, counterfactualityindifference has readings. been According assumed to tovon play Fintel a2000: role 33 in (final deriving Analysis-I), EFRCs 27 hypothesizes that they arepredicting exempt any from implication the about requirements diverse of subparts.provide singular a Additionally, EFRCs, this unified not work explanation is for able the to parallels between predicts that similar effects arise when alternative-evoking expressions are part of know whether, -ever property holds of thereading). entire In contrast, maximal to plural avoid ignorance referent requirements (hence with plurals, theLauer diverse-subpart 2009: 26- without assigning 10 early access onefculmdlbs nwihteER eoe oehn lei ain;in salient; is else something denotes EFRC the which in base modal counterfactual A hswr trbtsteaalblt fsc neecst h rsneo generic a of presence the to inferences such of availability the attributes work This analysis current the hand, other the On unexpected. is (116) of unacceptability The aid sin as varied, Antarctica from mail the handles Sally etne hl eemnn hc eb nrdc hstp fmdlt sbeyond is modality of type the this of introduce representation verbs box. grammatical which the the determining in in While go bases sentence. tools modal her agentive of to all indifference that relates information the by satisfied is screwdriver the it) contain bought would had toolbox Sue Further- the screwdriver. if (that the presupposition buys predicted she money, the more more, has Sue where worlds counterfactual ute,nt htaseicto ftepoete ihrsett hc h numbers the which to (118a) respect with properties the of specification a that note Further, won picked he number lottery Whatever (118b). (118) of in acceptability not the but properties by (118a) their supported in in is context differed data the numbers the in lottery on (118) the licensed view that inferences This is only situations. (117) the generic in that across EFRC predicts an would analysis of morning current use this The the number win. by lottery a has of to and choice led ignorance different have only a still licenses that (117) implies in that EFRC reading the day, no if per EFRC, picked the be than can support rather number In genericity Sally. of by result handled a days be is those would mail counterfactuality it actually that were, view isn’t there the there if of which which, in in situation but Antarctica a from i.e., 1995) (Carlson function’ like office examples in as counterfactuality, license to known are generics certain EFRCs, by suggested as operator, days, those In actually (117) he ones the from won. numbers have different would picked still had they John did, if days, that those claiming Tredinnick in (117), agent. that in an contrast of the absence discusses the 28 in 2005: inferences counterfactual license that amples license EFRCs certain that unexpected an not of is availability it the Hence, verb. that of is choice analysis that the the by of conditioned prediction is reading the indifference work, this of scope the ,woclaims who (2005), Tredinnick’s from differs here data the on perspective The contain a eflctul efloe ihasaeetta fh a ikddifferent picked had he if that statement a with followed be felicitously be can b. a. srpae with replaced is osntspota nifrneraigwhile reading indifference an support not does (118a) otx:I hs as onawy ikd3 picked 4 always John or days, 3 those either picked In Context: always John days, those In Context: ae onefculifrne uhls out 18 in (118) robust. less much inferences counterfactual makes , { ntoedays those in vr,whatever every, xenlindifference external hsmorning this hc a eue odsrb n‘unfulfilled an describe to used be can which , ahrta h FCisl.Idpnetyof Independently itself. EFRC the than rather , 40 } n ti nesodta nyoelottery one only that understood is it and otr ubrJh ikdwon picked John number lottery edns h ae lue oex- to alludes label the readings; whatever grab iessa inference an licenses does. Abenina-Adar in early access , Lingua . Amherst, MA: sentences. Under The generic book sentences; for example, know whether -interrogatives are only compared to know whether 41 whether ), . Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los -ever Disjunction in alternative semantics Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and 9(3). 331–391. (though this work offers no principled reason why). sentences and EFRCs. Both carry implications (depending on the , which do not seem to be present with EFRCs. Additionally, more wh-words cross-linguistically 224–237. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation. In general, this work extended MP to new empirical domains. It argued that a views. In Gregory Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Linguistic Inquiry Angeles dissertation. 18. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(67)90018-6. know whether Carlson, Gregory. 1995. Truth conditions of generic sentences: Two contrasting Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Bresnan, Joan & Jane Grimshaw. 1978. TheCaponigro, syntax Ivano. of 2003. free relatives in English. EFRCs’ meaning. References Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. agentive modal bases tend not toknow, saw, be discover part of the meaning of attitude predicates like pragmatic analysis of EFRCs providesthey better exhibit empirical than coverage an for analysis the that readings encodes variation as a grammatical component of salient. This assumption provides a possibleknow explanation for whether variable judgments about readings were identified for EFRCsthere than was for no corresponding indifferencethe reading of current proposal, this can be explained with the additional assumption that grammatical environment they appear in)equally that informative are alternatives a with consequence stronger of presuppositions.out their It evoking a is worth few pointing ofcomparison with the such differences alternatives in is part the of treatments the of grammaticaldeclaratives meaning the denoting of their two EFRCs possible constructions. answers While if such alternatives are contextually of know whether, -ever numbers, they would not have won,in further (118) supporting does the not obligatorily conclusion produce that counterfactual the inferences. EFRC 4 Conclusion This work generally provided a uniform analysis for the contextual requirements (as a result of their containing early access heci,Gnao 2013. Gennaro. Chierchia, experimental sentences: quantified of Presuppositions 2009. Emmanuel. Chemla, anti-presuppositions. for step epistemic An 2008. Emmanuel. Chemla, o itl a rn em 01 nesoa eatc.Unpub- semantics. Intensional 2011. Heim. Irene & Kai Fintel, von Whatever. 2000. Kai. Fintel, dependency. von context and entailment, Strawson licensing, NPI 1999. Kai. Fintel, von In questions. yes/no embedded of pragmatics and syntax The 2007. Regine. Eckardt, and relatives Free 1997. Veneeta. Dayal, 1996. Veneeta. Dayal, Jelinek, Eloise Bach, Emmon In correlatives. in Quantification 1995. Veneeta. Dayal, 2009. Bridget. Copley, with individuation and indifference, Ignorance, 2015. Cleo. Condoravdi, at presentation from Handout uncertainty. and choice Free 2008. Cleo. Condoravdi, 2010. Guglielmo. Cinque, https://doi.org/10.1007/978- Publishers. Academic Kluwer Dordrecht: 179–205. ora fSemantics of Journal neiaKazr&BraaPre (eds.), Partee Barbara & Kratzer Angelika . //doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4808-5 v7i0.2787. (SALT) Theory Linguistic and Semantics Semantics vention . s11050-009-9043-9 data. ihdlcuents pig21,MsahstsIsiueo Technol- of Institute Massachusetts 2011, . https://github.com/fintelkai/fintel-heim-intensional-notes/blob/master/ fintel-heim-2011-intensional.pdf Spring notes, ogy. lecture lished https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.3101. 27–39. org/10.1075/la.100.24eck. form and (eds.), Winkler Susanne & Schwabe Kerstin . 94-017-2817-1_8 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.001.0001. Press. domain verbal the beyond modality (eds.), ploring Alonso-Ovalle Luis & Menéndez-Benito Paula https://web.stanford.edu/~cleoc/kyoto-han- final.pdf. Kyoto. Manifestations, of Linguistic University their 2008, and February Mechanisms Inferential on Workshop the https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001. Press. MIT MA: oso/9780199697977.001.0001. aua agaeSemantics Language Natural https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: Press. University Oxford Oxford: . https://doi.org/doi. Publishing. Benjamins John Amsterdam: 447–467. , https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm017. 141–173. 25(2). h eatc ftefuture the of semantics The oaiyi wh-quantification in Locality https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/16.2.97. 97–148. 16(2). h ytxo detvs oprtv study comparative A adjectives: of syntax The oi ngamr oaiy recoc,adinter- and choice, free Polarity, grammar: in Logic eatc n igitcTer (SALT) Theory Linguistic and Semantics 42 https://doi.org/10.1007/ 299–340. 17(4). ever https://doi.org/10.3765/salt. 99–116. 7. 1–4.Ofr:Ofr University Oxford Oxford: 213–243. , unicto nntrllanguages natural in Quantification dniyadfe hiereadings. choice free and Identity : nifrainsrcue meaning structure, information On e ok Y Routledge. NY: York, New . https: Springer. Dordrecht: . psei nents Ex- indefinites: Epistemic Cambridge, . Abenina-Adar wh-ever ora of Journal In . 10. , early access . , know whether . Malden, Linguistic Models for West Coast . Cambridge, but not The art and craft of , 171–216. Pisa: Scuola 1. 128–144. Linguistics and Philosophy 2. 114–125. . Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts , vol. 1, 199–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Whether or not anything 43 free relatives. Semantics in generative grammar ˇ c & Uli Sauerland (eds.), -ever Synthese Library, 87–111. Dordrecht: D. Reidel 32(3). 279–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988- Aspects of modality . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. The linguistic description of opaque contexts Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of . In Luka Crni The logic of common nouns: An investigation in quantified modal Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research , vol. 3 Syntax and semantics, 41–58. New York ; London: Academic 35(2). 179–217. . https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904323019048 Theory of markedness in generative grammar . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1711-4. natural language: The case of 34(2). 169–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9095-4. modalities: Selected essays MA: Wiley-Blackwell. specificational sentences derlich (eds.), 009-9061-6. logic Institute of Technology dissertation. Normale Superiore. anything or not semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim Press. parameter of core grammar. In Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi & Luigi Rizzi MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL) Inquiry Jaakko Hintikka, Gabriël Nuchelmans & Wesley Salmon (eds.), Speech acts Linguistics and Philosophy Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (eds.), 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter. Working Papers in Linguistics. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Donald Davidson, Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Heller, Daphna. 2005. Heller, Daphna & Lynsey Wolter. 2011. On identification and transworld identity in Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wun- Heim, Irene. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for Han, Chung-hye & Maribel Romero. 2004. Disjunction, focus, and scope. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Gupta, Anil. 1980. Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Guerzoni, Elena & Yael Sharvit. 2014. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Groos, Anneke & Henk Van Riemsdijk. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A know whether, -ever Fodor, Janet Dean. 1970. early access aosn aln.19.O h unictoa oc fEgihfe relatives. free English of force quantificational the On 1995. Pauline. Jacobson, 1972. Laurence. Horn, for semantics compositional A 2015. Aron. Hirsch, asn ihr rn Maruši Franc & K Richard Larson, scope. disjunction of syntax the On 1985. K. Richard Larson, 2002. Utpal. Lahiri, topics. from Inferring 1996. Jan. Kuppevelt, van items. polarity of pragmatics and semantics The 1995. Manfred. Krifka, possession of transfer Constructing family: a Creating Hans-Jürgen 2015. Angelika. In Kratzer, modality. of category notional The 1981. mean. Angelika. can Kratzer, and must ’can’ and ’must’ What 1977. Angelika. Kratzer, structure the and modality Sublexical 2001. Davis. R. Anthony & Jean-Pierre Koenig, alternatives. Structurally-defined 2007. Roni. Katzir, questions. of semantics and Syntax 1977. Lauri. Karttunen, metaphysics, logic, semantics, the on essay An Demonstratives: 1989. David. Kaplan, 1162/002438904323019075. Analysis unicto nntrllanguages natural in Quantification eetn (SuB) Bedeutung igitcTheory Linguistic eb.Sie rmpeetto tMdlt cosCtgre Workshop, Categories Across Modality at presentation from Slides verbs. onPry&Hwr etti (eds.), Wettstein Howard & Perry John nEmnBc,Eos eie,Aglk rte abr ate(eds.), Partee Barbara & Kratzer Angelika Jelinek, Eloise Bach, Emmon In dissertation. Angeles Los California, of University CA: Angeles, Los p:Rpyt kishimoto. to Reply aps: Press. University https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630897. 393–443. kratzer/27/. https://works.bepress.com/angelika_ Fabra. Pompeu Universitat 2015, November semantics word in (eds.), Rieser Hannes & Eikmeyer Philosophy and https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005616002948. representations. semantic lexical of . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9029-y 669–690. 30(6). ophy Almog, Press. Joseph University Oxford In indexicals. other and demonstratives of epistemology and . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_15 Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935. 3–44. 1(1). 534.209–257. 25(3-4). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453. 337–355. 1(3). usin n nwr nebde contexts embedded in answers and Questions 0 341–358. 20. 87.Bri:Wle eGruyter. de Walter Berlin: 38–74. , https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133841. 217–264. 3(2). ntesmni rpriso oia prtr nEnglish in operators logical of properties semantic the On igitcInquiry Linguistic .20.O nent rnu tutrswith structures pronoun indefinite On 2004. c. ˇ od,wrd,adcnet:Nwapproaches New contexts: and worlds, Words, igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics 44 5–8.Drrct lwrAcademic Kluwer Dordrecht: 451–486. , hmsfo Kaplan from Themes https://doi.org/10. 268–287. 35(2). igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics wh-ever igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics rerelatives. free igitc n Philos- and Linguistics aua agae& Language Natural 8–6.Oxford: 481–563. , xod Oxford Oxford: . 41.71–124. 24(1). Abenina-Adar Linguistics Linguistic inund Sinn 19(4). . early access 30. , 1–46. 36. 306– 3(1). 3–32. Theoretical and ignorance Linguistics and Natural Language , 302–323. Berlin: and other defeasible 4(4). 279–326. https: whether offer Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, Epistemic indefinites: Exploring Report of the Grant-in-Aid for : Meaning and use. Manuscript, August 45 , 267–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -ever Journal of Semantics The grammatical status of the English dative International Review of Pragmatics , 101–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) Meaning use and interpretation of language West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18(1). 21–60. . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984960 The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition . Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. 8(3). 173–229. . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011298526791 dijk (eds.), Menéndez-Benito & Luis Alonso-Ovalle (eds.), modality beyond the verbal domain . https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.001.0001 and empirical studies of reference andgenerative anaphora: grammar Toward the as establishment an of Scientific empirical Research science (B), Project No.the 15320052, Promotion 52–73. of Tokyo: Japan Science. Society for . https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561036 inferences. 315. semantics, and discourse alternation a german discourse particle. causative verbs. 248–258. Christopher Kennedy & Louise McNally (eds.), . ac.uk/i.e.mackenzie/index.html . relatives.pdf theoretical approach. InStechow Rainer (eds.), Bäuerle, Christoph SchwarzeDe & Gruyter. . Arnimhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 von 2009, Stanford University. http://www.sven-lauer.net/output/Lauer-ever-free- Semantics . //doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 Philosophy Rawlins, Kyle. 2015. Indifference and scalar inferences in free relatives. In Paula van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2017. Free relatives. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riems- Percus, Orin. 2006. Antipresuppositions. In Ayumi Uyema (ed.), Paillé, Mathieu & Bernhard Schwarz. 2019. Knowing Percus, Orin. 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Oehrle, Richard Thomas. 1976. Onea, Edgar & Anna Volodina. 2011. Between specification and explanation: About Matsumoto, Yo. 1995. The conversational condition on Horn scales. Morzycki, Marcin. 2008. Nonrestrictive modifiers in nonparenthetical positions. In Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Mackenzie, Ian. 1999. The linguistics of Spanish. Webpage. http://www.staff.ncl. Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. 2012. The modality of Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice- know whether, -ever Lauer, Sven. 2009. Free relatives with early access oilr,Vnet&Brhr cwr.21.Eitmcnroigfrmaximize for narrowing Epistemic 2017. Schwarz. Bernhard & Vincent Rouillard, theory formal integrated an Towards Structure: Information 2012. Craige. Roberts, [email protected] 90025 CA Angeles, Los UCLA Hall, Campbell 3125 Abenina-Adar Maayan Matthewson, Lisa Gutzmann, Daniel In relatives. Free Forthcoming. Radek. Šimík, crosslinguistically. relatives free Ever 2018. Radek. Šimík, 2005. Ann. Victoria Tredinnick, Assertion. 1978. Robert. Stalnaker, Peter & Munitz Milton In presuppositions. Pragmatic 1974. Robert. Stalnaker, descriptions. definite of theory general more A 1980. Richard. Sharvy, (ed.), Steube Anita In presuppositions. Implicated 2008. Uli. Sauerland, (SuB) wbsyncom116. Companion presupposition. sp.5.6. pragmatics. of https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733. Inc. Sons, & Wiley John NJ: Hoboken, éieMir oz ulan&Toa d imran(eds.), Zimmermann Ede Thomas & Rullmann Hotze Meier, Cécile dissertation. Pennsylvania of University PA: Philadelphia, Press. University (eds.), Unger Review sophical cognition Gruyter. and context, Language, context: and 2 375–392. 22. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003729. Wiley-Blackwell. , eatc n philosophy and Semantics eatc n Pragmatics and Semantics ot atLnusisScey(NELS) Society Linguistics East North https://doi.org/10.2307/2184738. 607–624. 89(4). ntesmniso rerltvswith relatives free of semantics the On ytxadSemantics and Syntax 46 9–1.NwYr,N:NwYork New NY: York, New 197–214. , https://doi.org/10.3765/ 6:1–69. 5(0). 8–0.Bri:Muo de Mouton Berlin: 581–600. , .315–332. 9. 7 49–62. 47. inudBedeutung und Sinn Abenina-Adar h Philo- The Semantics Sentence -ever.