Vendler [19] described derived nominals (DNs) like the collapse/ing of the Germans as ambiguous b... more Vendler [19] described derived nominals (DNs) like the collapse/ing of the Germans as ambiguous between event denoting expressions and proposition denoting expressions. DNs can combine with event-selecting predicates (1a), like gradual, which bona fide propositional that-clauses or fact-denoting expressions cannot (1c), and have event-readings. ((1a) can be paraphrased as ‘the event of the Germans collapsing was gradual’.) DNs can also combine with proposition-selecting predicates like aware of (2a) which always also allow finite complements (2b) and, in such cases, have propositional readings—(2a) and (2b) are synonymous. We call DNs in the latter cases Concealed Propositions (ConPs), and we defend the idea that they are analogous in important respects to concealed questions (CQs). Here we argue against Vendler’s Ambiguity Hypothesis (3) and defend an analysis of DNs in which they uniformly denote (or quantify over) events. In doing so, we overcome a challenge, discovered by Zucchi [20], to the unambiguous event approach, and provide an analysis to both definite and quantified DNs. We show that a copy-theoretic account overcomes the problem and aligns ConPs with concealed questions (CQs) in the analysis of Frana [4, 5].
Evidential markers encode the source of information that an individual (the evidential Origo) has... more Evidential markers encode the source of information that an individual (the evidential Origo) has for a proposition. In root declaratives, the Origo is always the speaker (see Korotkova 2016 and references therein). Instead, questions often display interrogative flip: the Origo shifts to the hearer (Garrett 2001; Speas & Tenny 2003, a.o.). While interrogative flip is widely attested across languages, some evidentials have been reported not to flip in questions (see, e.g., San Roque, Floyd & Norcliffe 2017; Bhadra 2017). What determines whether evidentials flip or not? Recent work (Korotkova 2016; Bhadra 2017) has proposed that there is a correlation between lack of flip and bias in questions. This paper contributes to our understanding of the interaction of evidentials and bias by investigating the behaviour of questions with the Italian non-predictive future. We characterize the non-predictive future as an inferential evidential marker (see also Mari 2009; Eckardt & Beltrama forthc...
This paper explores ways in which discourse participants convey an attitude about another discour... more This paper explores ways in which discourse participants convey an attitude about another discourse participant's conversational move. We examine the semantics/pragmatics of Italian positive and negative polar questions (building on the literature on biased questions) and propose the first fully compositional analysis of the Italian particle 'mica', appearing in negative polar questions and negative assertions. The core is that 'mica' is member of a family of presuppositional, epistemic 'common ground management' operators, leading to a new account of epistemic inferences in biased polar questions that relies on the presuppositional nature of these operators. We argue that 'mica' is a high-left-periphery particle that indicates a presupposed bias against a proposition being added to the common ground, anchored uniformly to the speaker and therefore not showing 'interrogative flip'. The paper develops connections between common-ground management operators and evidentials, arguing that interrogative flip (and lack thereof) is a phenomenon that should be studied for a wide variety of discourse particles.
Modality in the nominal domain: The case of adnominal conditionals
Oxford Scholarship Online
In 1996, Peter Lasersohn discovered a construction in which an if-clause appears as an NP-modifie... more In 1996, Peter Lasersohn discovered a construction in which an if-clause appears as an NP-modifier, rather than a sentential adjunct (e.g. The price if you pay now is predictable). He dubbed these types of if-clauses “adnominal conditionals” (ACs). Building on Lasersohn’s proposal that ACs are NP modifiers, this chapter provides a compositional analysis of ACs within a restrictor-based analysis of conditionals (Lewis 1975; Kratzer 1986; Heim 1982). According to my proposal, ACs always restrict the domain of an operator within the NP they modify (a modal adjective), and when there is no overt operator within the NP, ACs restrict the domain of a covert necessity modal adjective (cf. Kratzer 1986’s analysis of matrix indicative conditionals).
The underlined DPs in (1a) and (2a) are known in the literature as 'concealed questions' (CQ) bec... more The underlined DPs in (1a) and (2a) are known in the literature as 'concealed questions' (CQ) because they can be paraphrased as the corresponding embedded questions in b. (Examples from Heim (1979)): 1a. Kim knows the governor of California. b. Kim knows who the governor of California is. 2a. She revealed the winner of the contest. b. She revealed who the winner of the contest was. In this paper, I argue that the DPs in 1(a) and 2(a) are not concealed questions in the literal sense. Instead, I propose that they are definite descriptions denoting properties, and that the so-called CQ-reading derives from independently motivated semantic selection properties of the embedding predicates. An important fact about DPs with CQ-readings is their restricted distribution. As noted by Grimshaw (1979), not every attitude verb can take a DP with a CQ-reading as its complement. This is shown by (3)-(4) below: 3. *Meg believed/thought the capital of Italy. 4. *I wonder the answer he gave.
This paper presents a novel treatment of quantified concealed questions (CQs), examining differen... more This paper presents a novel treatment of quantified concealed questions (CQs), examining different types of NP predicates and deriving the truth conditions for pair-list and set readings. A generalization is proposed regarding the distribution of the two readings, namely that pair-list readings arise from CQs with relational head nouns, whereas set readings arise from CQs whose head nouns are not (or no longer) relational. It is shown that set readings cannot be derived under the 'individual concept' approach, one of the most influential analyses of CQs on the market. The paper offers a solution to this problem. It shows that once we adopt an independently motivated view of traces-according to which traces are copies with descriptive content (Fox, Linguist Inq 30:157-196, 1999; Fox, Linguist Inq 33:63-96, 2002)-nothing else needs to be postulated to derive set readings within an individual-concept-based analysis. Thus, what seemed to be a challenge for this type of analysis turns out to be an argument in its favor.
Uploads
Papers by Ilaria Frana