Interpreting Questions with Non-Exhaustive Answers The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Xiang, Yimei. 2016. Interpreting Questions with Non-Exhaustive Answers. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33493278 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Interpreting Questions with Non-exhaustive Answers A dissertation presented by Yimei Xiang to The Department of Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2016 c 2016 – Yimei Xiang All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Prof. Gennaro Chierchia Yimei Xiang Interpreting Questions with Non-exhaustive Answers Abstract This dissertation investigates a variety of issues on question semantics, especially the interpretations of mention-some questions, multiple-wh questions, and questions with quantifiers. Chapter 1 discusses some basic issues on question semantics. I define question roots as topical properties, which can supply propositional answers and nominal short answers. But distinct from traditional categorial approaches, I treat wh-items as existential quan- tifiers, which can be shifted into domain restrictors. Moreover, I argue that the quantifi- cational domain of a plural or number-neutral wh-item is polymorphic: it consists of not only individuals but also generalized conjunctions and disjunctions. Chapter 2 and 3 are centered on the interpretations of mention-some questions. Show- ing that the availability of mention-some should be grammatically restricted, I attribute the mention-some/mention-all ambiguity to structural variations within the question nu- cleus. The variations include (i) the scope ambiguity of the higher-order wh-trace and (ii) the absence/presence of a null dou. Further, I solve the dilemma between uniqueness and mention-some by allowing the short answers to be interpreted with wide scope. Chapter 4 investigates the role of false answers in interpreting indirect questions. I focus on the following two facts: first, FA-sensitivity is involved in interpreting mention- some questions; second, FA-sensitivity is concerned with all types of false answers, not just those that can be complete. These facts challenge the current dominant view that iii FA-sensitivity is derived by exhaustifications. In Chapter 5 and 6, I turn to multiple-wh questions and questions with quantifiers. Chapter 5 presents a function-based analysis for the pair-list readings of multi-wh ques- tions. Crucially, contra the dominant view, I argue that these readings are NOT subject to domain exhaustivity. Chapter 6 explores two approaches to quantifying-into question effects, namely a higher-order question approach and a function-based approach. Both approaches manage to treat quantifying-into question as regular quantification. Chapter 7 presents a uniform treatment for the seemingly diverse functions of the Mandarin particle dou. I argue that dou is a pre-exhaustification exhaustifier that oper- ates on sub-alternatives. This chapter provides a baseline theory for the derivation of disjunctive mention-all. iv Contents 1 Introducing a hybrid approach 1 1.1 Introduction . 2 1.2 The starting point: deriving nominal short answers . 3 1.3 Comparing the canonical approaches of question semantics . 6 1.3.1 Categorical Semantics . 6 1.3.2 Hamblin-Karttunen Semantics . 8 1.3.3 Partition Semantics . 13 1.3.4 Comparing lambda abstracts, Hamblin sets, and partitions . 17 1.3.5 Summing up . 20 1.4 A hybrid approach . 20 1.4.1 Topical property . 21 1.4.2 Answerhood . 26 1.4.3 Coordinating questions . 31 1.5 Live-on sets of wh-items . 32 1.5.1 The traditional view . 32 1.5.2 Disjunctions . 34 1.5.3 Conjunctions . 35 1.5.4 Analysis . 38 1.6 Summary . 42 2 Mention-some questions 44 2.1 Introduction . 45 2.2 What is a mention-some reading? . 46 2.3 What is not a mention-some reading? . 53 2.3.1 EX-questions with partial readings . 53 2.3.2 -questions with choice readings . 54 9 2.4 Earlier approaches of mention-some . 57 2.4.1 The pragmatic line . 58 2.4.2 The post-structural line . 62 v 2.5 A structural approach: Fox (2013) . 65 2.5.1 Completeness and Answerhood . 65 2.5.2 Deriving the ambiguity . 67 2.5.3 Advantages and remaining issues . 70 2.6 Proposal . 72 2.6.1 Deriving mention-some . 73 2.6.2 Conjunctive mention-all . 79 2.6.3 Disjunctive mention-all . 80 2.7 Comparing the exhaustifiers in free choice . 90 2.8 Summary . 98 3 The dilemma 100 3.1 Introduction . 101 3.2 Dayal’s presupposition . 102 3.2.1 Uniqueness effects . 102 3.2.2 Questions with collective predicates . 107 3.3 The dilemma . 111 3.4 Fox (2013) on uniqueness . 114 3.5 Proposal . 118 3.5.1 Scope ambiguity and type-lifting . 119 3.5.2 Preserving mention-some . 121 3.5.3 Preserving the merits of Dayal’s presupposition . 125 3.5.4 Weak island effects . 128 3.6 Anti-presuppositions of plural questions . 130 3.7 Summary . 132 4 Variation of exhaustivity and FA-sensitivity 134 4.1 Introduction . 135 4.2 Background . 136 4.2.1 Interrogative-embedding predicates . 136 4.2.2 Forms of exhaustivity . 139 4.3 Two facts on FA-sensitivity . 142 4.3.1 FA-sensitivity under mention-some . 142 4.3.2 FA-sensitivity to partial answers . 144 4.4 Experiments . 146 4.4.1 Design . 146 4.4.2 Results and discussions . 149 4.5 Proposal . 151 4.5.1 Characterizing Completeness . 152 vi 4.5.2 Characterizing FA-sensitivity . 155 4.5.3 Know versus surprise: FA-sensitivity and factivity . 157 4.5.4 Agree: MS collapses under FA-sensitivity and opinionatedness . 160 4.5.5 Asymmetries of FA-sensitivity . 165 4.6 Comparison with the exhaustification-based account . 169 4.6.1 The exhaustification-based account . 169 4.6.2 Extending the exhaustification-based account to mention-some . 172 4.6.3 Problems with the exhaustification-based account . 175 4.7 Lines of approaches to the WE/SE distinction . 179 4.7.1 The ANS-based approaches . 179 4.7.2 The strengthener-based approaches . 181 4.7.3 The neg-raising based approach . 185 4.8 Summary . 186 5 Pair-list readings of multi-wh questions 188 5.1 Introduction . 189 5.2 The phenomenon . 190 5.2.1 A prominent view . 190 5.2.2 Domain exhaustivity? . 191 5.3 Previous studies . 193 5.3.1 Function-based approaches . 193 5.3.2 Higher-order question approaches . 197 5.4 My proposal: a function-based approach . 200 5.4.1 Live-on sets including functions . 200 5.4.2 Deriving pair-list . 203 5.4.3 Quantificational variability effects . 206 5.4.4 Mention-some with functional answers . 207 5.5 Adapting the higher-order question approach . 210 6 Quantifying into questions 214 6.1 Introduction . 215 6.2 Previous accounts . 219 6.2.1 Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984) . 219 6.2.2 Chierchia (1993) . 224 6.2.3 Dayal (1996, in progress) . 227 6.2.4 Fox (2012) . 230 6.3 Proposal I: a higher-order question approach . 234 6.3.1 Overview . 235 6.3.2 -questions . 237 8 vii 6.3.3 -questions . 240 9 6.3.4 Other cases . 244 6.3.5 Summary . ..