Taking a unified perspective Resolutions and highlighting in the semantics of attitudes and particles Nadine Theiler Taking a unified perspective Resolutions and highlighting in the semantics of attitudes and particles ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2019-05 For further information about ILLC-publications, please contact Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Science Park 107 1098 XG Amsterdam phone: +31-20-525 6051 e-mail: [email protected] homepage: http://www.illc.uva.nl/ This research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Copyright © 2019 by Nadine Theiler Cover design by Nadine Theiler. Printed and bound by Print Service Ede B.V. ISBN: 978-94-92679-86-4 Taking a unified perspective Resolutions and highlighting in the semantics of attitudes and particles Academisch Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. ir. K.I.J. Maex ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op vrijdag 28 juni 2019, te 10.00 uur door Nadine Theiler geboren te Celle Promotiecommisie Promotor: Dr. F. Roelofsen Universiteit van Amsterdam Co-promotor: Dr. M.D. Aloni Universiteit van Amsterdam Overige leden: Prof. dr. V. Dayal Yale University Prof. dr. D.F. Farkas UC Santa Cruz Prof. dr. J.A.G. Groenendijk Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. dr. M.I. Romero Sangüesa Universität Konstanz Prof. dr. ing. R.A.M. van Rooij Universiteit van Amsterdam Dr. K. Schulz Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. dr. F.J.M.M. Veltman Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica Contents Acknowledgments xiii Introduction1 Part One. Attitudes 13 1 A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements 15 1.1 Introduction.............................. 15 1.2 Semantic framework......................... 21 1.3 False answer sensitivity across levels of exhaustive strength... 25 1.4 Do intermediate exhaustive readings for ‘know’ exist?...... 43 1.5 Capturing diversity among responsive verbs........... 49 1.6 Constraints on responsive verb meanings............. 64 1.7 Conclusion............................... 73 Appendices to Chapter 1 75 1.A Comparison with Uegaki (2015)................... 75 1.B Formal proofs............................. 85 2 Picky predicates: Why ‘believe’ doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles 89 2.1 Introduction.............................. 89 2.2 A uniform treatment of clausal complements........... 91 2.3 Anti-rogative predicates....................... 95 2.4 Rogative predicates.......................... 108 2.5 Empirical and methodological challenges............. 113 2.6 Conclusion............................... 116 Appendices to Chapter 2 119 2.A Related work.............................. 119 2.B Support-conditional lexical entries................. 127 2.C Extending the account to presuppositional questions....... 129 v Part Two. Particles 135 3 On ‘denn’ and other highlighting-sensitive particles 137 3.1 Introduction.............................. 137 3.2 Properties of ‘denn’.......................... 141 3.3 A precondition account of ‘denn’.................. 146 3.4 Predictions............................... 158 3.5 Lessons for other discourse particles................ 167 3.6 Causal conjunction ‘denn’...................... 173 3.7 Conclusion............................... 178 4 When additive particles can associate with wh-phrases 179 4.1 Introduction.............................. 179 4.2 ‘Also’ in showmaster and summoning questions......... 180 4.3 Background on additive presuppositions............. 184 4.4 Generalizing the additive presupposition............. 188 4.5 Ways of rescuing non-identity .................... 195 4.6 Conclusion............................... 206 Bibliography 210 Abstract 227 vi Contents (detailed) Acknowledgments xiii Introduction1 Part One. Attitudes 13 1 A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements 15 1.1 Introduction.............................. 15 1.2 Semantic framework......................... 21 1.2.1 Sentence meanings in inquisitive semantics........ 22 1.2.2 Informative and inquisitive sentences........... 24 1.2.3 Composing meanings.................... 24 1.3 False answer sensitivity across levels of exhaustive strength... 25 1.3.1 Desiderata........................... 26 1.3.2 General assumptions about declarative and interrogative complements......................... 29 1.3.3 Interrogative complements.................. 30 1.3.3.1 Interrogative nuclei................ 30 1.3.3.2 The E operator: from resolutions to truthful resolutions..................... 32 1.3.4 A basic treatment of ‘know’................. 37 1.3.5 False answer sensitivity across levels of exhaustivity... 38 1.3.6 Declarative complements.................. 41 1.3.6.1 All truthful resolutions are complete...... 41 1.3.6.2 The set of truthful resolutions is downward closed 42 1.4 Do intermediate exhaustive readings for ‘know’ exist?...... 43 1.4.1 Knowledge ascription and introspection.......... 43 1.4.2 Internal and external interpretation of ‘know’....... 45 1.4.3 Availability of IE readings for ‘know’............ 47 1.5 Capturing diversity among responsive verbs........... 49 1.5.1 Veridicality and factivity................... 50 vii 1.5.1.1 Veridicality w.r.t. declarative complements... 50 1.5.1.2 Veridicality w.r.t. interrogative complements.. 52 1.5.2 Other verbs.......................... 53 1.5.2.1 ‘be certain’...................... 54 1.5.2.2 ‘be right’ and ‘be wrong’............. 57 1.5.2.3 ‘be surprised’.................... 58 1.5.2.4 ‘care’......................... 59 1.5.3 Some predicted connections between embedding verbs. 62 1.6 Constraints on responsive verb meanings............. 64 1.6.1 Spector and Egré’s interrogative veridicality generalization 64 1.6.2 Accounting for the interrogative veridicality generalization 65 1.6.3 Spector and Egré’s declarative veridicality generalization 69 1.6.4 Accounting for the declarative veridicality generalization 71 1.7 Conclusion............................... 73 Appendices to Chapter 1 75 1.A Comparison with Uegaki (2015)................... 75 1.A.1 Variability in exhaustive strength.............. 76 1.A.2 Veridicality, factivity, and extensionality.......... 82 1.B Formal proofs............................. 85 1.B.1 Internal/external interpretation of ‘know’......... 85 1.B.2 Veridicality and c-distributivity............... 86 1.B.3 Veridicality and choice property.............. 87 2 Picky predicates: Why ‘believe’ doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles 89 2.1 Introduction.............................. 89 2.2 A uniform treatment of clausal complements........... 91 2.2.1 Downward closure, alternatives, and truth........ 92 2.2.2 Informative and inquisitive sentences........... 92 2.2.3 Declarative and interrogative complements........ 93 2.2.4 Responsive predicates: a brief illustration......... 94 2.3 Anti-rogative predicates....................... 95 2.3.1 Neg-raising predicates.................... 96 2.3.1.1 Zuber’s observation: all neg-raising predicates are anti-rogative.................. 96 2.3.1.2 Deriving neg-raising from an excluded-middle presupposition................... 97 2.3.1.3 A generalized EM presupposition........ 98 2.3.1.4 L-analyticity..................... 102 viii 2.3.1.5 Capturing the anti-rogativity of neg-raising pred- icates in terms of L-analyticity.......... 104 2.3.2 Truth-evaluating predicates: ‘be true’ and ‘be false’... 107 2.4 Rogative predicates.......................... 108 2.4.1 Inquisitive predicates..................... 108 2.4.2 Verbs of dependency..................... 110 2.5 Empirical and methodological challenges............. 113 2.5.1 Empirical challenge: mixed complements......... 113 2.5.2 Projection operators...................... 114 2.5.3 Reformulating the EM presupposition........... 114 2.5.4 A methodological note.................... 115 2.6 Conclusion............................... 116 Appendices to Chapter 2 119 2.A Related work.............................. 119 2.A.1 On the connection between anti-rogativity and neg-raising 119 2.A.1.1 Mayr 2017...................... 120 2.A.1.2 Cohen 2017a, 2017b................ 121 2.A.2 Uegaki 2015.......................... 122 2.A.2.1 Rogative predicates................ 123 2.A.2.2 Anti-rogative predicates.............. 125 2.B Support-conditional lexical entries................. 127 2.C Extending the account to presuppositional questions....... 129 2.C.1 Presuppositional questions................. 129 2.C.2 Presupposition projection.................. 130 2.C.3 Relativizing non-informativity............... 131 2.C.4 L-analyticity.......................... 132 Part Two. Particles 135 3 On ‘denn’ and other highlighting-sensitive particles 137 3.1 Introduction.............................. 137 3.2 Properties of ‘denn’.......................... 141 3.2.1 Discourse anaphoricity.................... 141 3.2.2 Sensitivity to highlighted content.............. 143 3.3 A precondition account of ‘denn’.................. 146 3.3.1 Highlighted content..................... 146 3.3.2 A felicity condition for ‘denn’ in questions......... 148 3.3.3 Discourse acts......................... 150 ix 3.3.4 Proceeding........................... 151 3.3.4.1 Proceeding from a discourse act......... 152 3.3.4.2 Integrating information.............. 155 3.4 Predictions............................... 158