Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects*

This paper is concerned with Noun Phrases (NPs, henceforth) occurring in two constructions: concealed question NPs and NP subjects of specificational sentences. The first type of NP is illustrated in (1). The underlined NPs in (1) have been called ‘concealed questions’ because sentences that embed them typically have the same truth-conditional meaning as the corresponding versions with a full-fledged embedded interrogative clause, as illustrated in (2) (Heim 1979):

[1]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Semantics From Different Points of View , 1979 .

[2]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions , 1980 .

[3]  O. Percus.  Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax , 2000 .

[5]  Ivano Caponigro,et al.  The Semantic Contributions of Wh-words and Type Shifts: Evidence from Free Relatives Crosslinguistically , 2004 .

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

[7]  Robin Cooper,et al.  The syntax and semantics of when-questions , 1982 .

[8]  Daniel Büring.  Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall , 1998 .

[9]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Connectivity in Specificational Sentences , 1999 .

[10]  Caroline Heycock,et al.  Topic, Focus, and Syntactic Representa- tions , 2002 .

[11]  E. Williams.  Semantic vs. syntactic categories , 1983 .

[12]  Tense and Identity in Copular Constructions , 2003 .

[13]  Andrea Moro,et al.  The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure , 1997 .

[14]  Gilbert Harman,et al.  Semantics of natural language , 1970, Synthese.

[15]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Facts: Particulars or Information Units? , 2002 .

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

[17]  Santa Cruz,et al.  SPECIFYING WHO: ON THE STRUCTURE, MEANING, AND USE OF SPECIFICATIONAL COPULAR CLAUSES , 2004 .

[18]  Hotze Rullmann,et al.  Maximality in the semantics of wh -constructions , 1995 .

[19]  Maribel Romero,et al.  Connectivity in a Unified Analysis of Specificational Subjects and Concealed Questions , 2007 .

[20]  Daphna Heller,et al.  On The Relation of Connectivity and Specificational Pseudoclefts , 2002 .

[21]  T. Zimmermann.  On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs , 1992 .

[22]  Maribel Romero.  Tense and Intensionality in Specificational Copular Sentences , 2004 .

[23]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Emedded Questions and ‘De Dicto’ Readings , 2002 .

[24]  Pauline Jacobson,et al.  Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences , 1994 .

[25]  Keith S. Donnellan.  Reference and Definite Descriptions , 1966 .

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

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

[28]  K. Demuth,et al.  Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society , 1995 .

[29]  André Meinunger,et al.  Pseudoclefts and ellipsis , 2000 .

[30]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers , 1984 .

[31]  R. Rooij,et al.  The context-dependence of questions and answers , 1997 .

[32]  Katarzyna Dziwirek,et al.  Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian , 2005 .

[33]  P. Schlenker.  Clausal Equations (A Note on the Connectivity Problem) , 2002 .

[34]  A. Kroch,et al.  Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[35]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  The proper analysis od "Missing-P" free relative constructions , 1996 .

[36]  Noam Chomsky.  Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use , 1988 .

[37]  Friederike Moltmann.  Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers , 1997 .

[38]  H. Rullmann,et al.  A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions , 1999 .