The Semantic Contributions of Wh-words and Type Shifts: Evidence from Free Relatives Crosslinguistically

Free relatives (henceforth, FRs) are embedded non-interrogative wh-clauses like what Adam cooked in lie tasted what Adam cooked. They are attested crosslinguistically. So far, I have found them in twenty-eight languages besides English. The main goal of this paper is to show that a crosslinguistic investigation of the semantic behavior of FRs sheds light on the semantic contribution of wh-words and gives further empirical support to the existence of type-shifting rules in the grammar whose purpose is to deal with type-mismatches. The paper is structured as follows. First, I give a definition of FRs and show their crosslinguistic distribution (§ 2). Then, I move on to investigate their semantic behavior (§ 3). The main conclusion is that FRs follow three different semantic patterns. There are FRs that always exhibit maximality, like definite descriptions (§ 3.2), there are FRs that semantically behave like narrow scope indefinites and never exhibit maximality (§ 3.3), and, finally, there are free relatives that may or may not exhibit maximality (§ 3.4). In the last part of the paper (§ 4), I sketch a semantic analysis according to which all FRs denote a set and phrasal wh-words like who, what, where, when, how (and their crosslinguistic equivalents) behave like set restrictors . The different semantic behaviors among the different kinds of FRs result from the presence or the absence of a type-mismatch between the denotation of a FR (i .e. a set) and the semantic requirements of the matrix clause. I argue that, if a type-mismatch occurs, it is repaired by the type shifters iota (t) or existential closure (3), which Partee ( 1987), Chierchia ( 1 998), and Dayal (2004) have argued for in order to account for a completely different set of data (i .e. the semantic behavior of DPs like bare plurals and bare singulars) .

[1]  R. J. C. Smits Eurogrammar: The Relative and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic and Romance Languages , 1989 .

[2]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions , 2004 .

[3]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Reference to Kinds across Language , 1998 .

[4]  Taisuke Nishigauchi,et al.  Quantification in the theory of grammar , 1990 .

[5]  L. Karttunen Syntax and Semantics of Questions , 1977 .

[6]  Veneeta Dayal Number Marking and (in)Definiteness in Kind Terms , 2004 .

[7]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  A Unified Theory of `Standard' and `Transparent' Free Relatives , 2003 .

[8]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[9]  Barbara Citko,et al.  Parallel merge and the syntax of free relatives : a dissertation presented , 2001 .

[10]  Pauline Jacobson On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives , 1995 .

[11]  Anastasia Giannakidou,et al.  Specificational pseudoclefts as lists , 1999 .

[12]  C. L. Hamblin QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[13]  de Mark Vries,et al.  The Syntax of Relativization , 2002 .

[14]  Ivano Caponigro,et al.  Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-words Cross-linguistically , 2003 .

[15]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Indefinites in complex predicates , 1986 .

[16]  A. Grosu,et al.  Strange Relatives of the Third Kind , 1998 .

[17]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  The semantics of questions and the questions of semantics: Case studies in the interrelations of logic, semantics and syntax , 1976 .

[18]  Roumyana Izvorski,et al.  Non-Indicative Wh-Complements of Possessive and Existential Predicates , 2001 .

[19]  Roumyana Izvorski Free Adjunct Free Relatives , 2000 .

[20]  Veneeta Dayal Free Relatives and "Ever": Identity and Free Choice Readings , 1997 .

[21]  Stephen Berman On the Semantics of Wh-Clauses , 1994 .