Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Questions with NPIs

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates how the distribution of negative polarity items (NPIs) can inform our understanding of the underlying semantic representation of constituent questions. It argues that the distribution of NPIs in questions is governed by the same logical properties that govern their distribution in declarative constructions. Building on an observation due to Guerzoni and Sharvit (2007) that strength of exhaustivity in questions correlates with the acceptability of NPIs, I propose a revision of the semantics of questions that can explain this link in terms already familiar from the literature of negative polarity, namely the availability of a local downward entailing environment. I argue for a new theory of questions that takes strength of exhaustivity to be encoded internal to the question nucleus rather than in different answer-hood operators (Heim 1994). This switch, while conceptually a simple move, has far-reaching consequences in the domain of questions. I also show how this new analysis can account for a host of issues related to NPIs, such as the subject–object asymmetry noted by Han and Siegel (1997), the interaction between NPIs and high versus low wh-adjuncts, the varying acceptability of NPIs in the restrictor of which-phrases, and the contrast between weak and strong NPIs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abels, Klaus. 2003. Who gives a damn about minimizers in questions? In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed. R.B. Young and Y. Zhou, 1–18. Cornell: CLC Publications.

  • Abrusán, Marta. 2007. Contradiction and grammar: The case of weak islands. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Barss, Andrew, and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, David, and Emil Krahmer. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182.

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Hotze Rullmann. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7: 249–298.

  • Berman, Stephen. 1991. On the semantics and logical form of wh-clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, Daniel, and Manuel Krĭc. 2013. It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–29.

  • Caponigro, Ivano. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives crosslinguistically. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. Robert B. Young, 38–55. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Caponigro, Ivano, and Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. E. Puig-Waldmüller, 121–133. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Structures and beyond, vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. Scalar implicatures as a grammatical phenomenon. In Handbook of linguistics and communication science, vol. 3, ed. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2297–2332. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. K. Hale and J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Comorovski, Ileana (1996) Interrogative phrases and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Cremers, Alexandre, and Emmanuel Chemla. 2014. A psycholinguistic study of the exhaustive readings of embedded questions. Journal of Semantics. doi:10.1093/jos/ffu014.

  • Crnič, Luka. 2011. Getting even. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, Y. Kim, S. Mchombo, and S. Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. 1996, Locality in wh quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Dayal, Veneeta. In progress. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 353–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1979. Implication reversal in a natural language. In Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, ed. F. Guenther and S. Schmidt, 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, variable binding and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.

  • Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2010. Negative islands and maximization failure. MIT colloquium.

  • Fox, Danny. 2012. The semantics of questions. Class notes, MIT seminar.

  • Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl. 2007. The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586.

  • Gajewski, Jon. 2011. Licensing strong NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 19: 109–148.

  • George, Ben. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.

  • Geurts, Bart, and Rob van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44.

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. Negative and positive polarity items. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, and P. Portner. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1982. Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2): 175–233.

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even and Minimizer NPIs in wh-questions. In The Proceedings of the 31st western conference on linguistics, Fresno, CA, vol. 14, ed. Paivi Koskinen Brian Agbayani and Vida Samiian, 99–111. Fresno, CA.

  • Guerzoni, Elena. 2007. Weak exhaustivity and whether: A pragmatic approach. In Proceedings of SALT 17. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Guerzoni, Elena, and Yael Sharvit. 2007. A question of strength: On NPIs in interrogative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 361–391.

  • Guerzoni, Elena, and Yael Sharvit. 2014. NPIs in questions, disjunction and ellipsis. Talk presented at GLOW 37.

  • Hamblin, C.L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Chung-hye. 2002. Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112: 201–229.

  • Han, Chung-hye, and Laura Siegel. 1997. Syntactic and semantic conditions on NPI licensing in questions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 15, ed. B. Agbayani and S. Tang. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of WCCFL 2: 114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitge nössischen Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.

  • Heim, Irene. 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In Proceedings of IATL 1, ed. Rhonna Buchalla and Anita Mittwoch, 128–144. Jerusalem: Akademon.

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Higginbotham, James. 1993. Interrogatives. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 195–227. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Homer, Vincent. 2008. Presuppositions can be disruptors too: A case against Strawson-entailment. In Proceedings of WCCFL 27, ed. Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 220–228. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

  • Homer, Vincent. 2009. Disruption of NPI licensing: The case of presuppositions. In Proceedings of SALT 18: 429–446. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Homer, Vincent. 2011. Polarity and modality. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1969. A presuppositional approach to Only and Even. Proceedings of CLS 5: 98–107. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1996. Exclusive company: ‘Only’ and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 1–40.

  • Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Horvath, Julia. 1998. Multiple wh-phrases and the wh-scope-marker strategy in Hungarian interrogatives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 31–60.

  • Ippolito, Michaela. 2008. On the meaning of only. Journal of Semantics 25: 45–91.

  • Israel, Michael. 1996. Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity. Pragmatics sensitivity and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Klinedinst, Nathan, and Daniel Rothschild. 2011. Exhaustivity in questions with non-factives. Semantics and Pragmatics 4: 1–23.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

  • Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.

  • Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.

  • Linebarger, Marcia C. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. On universal Free Choice items. Natural Language Semantics 18: 33–64.

  • Nicolae, Andreea C. 2013. Any questions? Polarity as a window into the structure of questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Nicolae, Andreea C. 2014. Alternative questions as strongly exhaustive wh-questions. In Proceedings of NELS 44, vol. 2, ed. Jyoti Iyer and Leland Kusmer, 65–78. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

  • Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Negative polarity: Entailment and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen, Floris. 2013. Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese 190: 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen, Floris, Nadine Theiler, and Maria Aloni. 2014. Embedded interrogatives: The role of false answers. Presentation at Questions in Discourse workshop.

  • Romoli, Jacopo. 2011. Presupposition wipe-out can’t be all or nothing: A note on conflicting presuppositions. Snippets 24: 11–12.

  • Romoli, Jacopo. 2012. A solution to Soames’ problem: Presuppositions, conditionals and exhaustification. International Review of Pragmatics 4: 153–184.

  • Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Safir, Ken. 1998. Reconstruction and bound anaphora: Copy theory without deletion at LF. Manuscript, Rutgers University.

  • Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction a-bar chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 587–620.

  • Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2000. Two structures for English restrictive relative clauses. In Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW, ed. Mamoru Saito et al., 351–366. Nagoya: Nanzan University.

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. Presupposed entailments: The triggering problem revisited. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Barcelona.

  • Schwarzchild, Roger. 2002. Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19: 289–314.

  • Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Functional relative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 447–478.

  • Sharvy, Ben. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 89: 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Raj. 2011. Mazimize presupposition! and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics 19: 149–168.

  • Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Modalized questions and exhaustivity. In Proceedings of SALT 17, 282–299. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Spector, Benjamin, and Marta Abrusán. 2011. A semantics for degree questions based on intervals: Negative islands and their obviation. Journal of Semantics 28: 107–147.

  • Spector, Benjamin, and Egré Paul. 2007. Embedded questions revisited: an answer, not necessarily the answer. Ling-Lunch Seminar, MIT.

  • Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. Wh-dependencies in Hindi and the theory of grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.

  • Von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.

  • van Rooy, Robert. 2003. Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273.

  • von Stechow, Armin. 1996. Some remarks on choice functions and LF-movement. In Proceedings of the Konstanz Workshop “Reference and Anaphorical Relations”, ed. Klaus von Heusinger and Urs Egli. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Uegaki, Wataru. 2014. Predicting the variation in exhaustivity of embedded interrogatives. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 19.

  • Wagner, Michael. 2006. Association by movement: evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14: 297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yablo, Stephen. 2005. Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. Manuscript, MIT.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of General Linguistics/Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Schützenstr. 18, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Andreea C. Nicolae

Authors
  1. Andreea C. Nicolae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreea C. Nicolae.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nicolae, A.C. Questions with NPIs. Nat Lang Semantics 23, 21–76 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9110-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9110-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation