_Wh_-questions with the modal verb _can_ admit both mention-some (MS) and mention-all (MA) answers. This paper argues that we should treat MS as a grammatical phenomenon, primarily determined by the grammar of the _wh_-interrogative. I assume that MS and MA answers can be modeled using the same definition of answerhood (Fox in Mention-some interpretations, MIT seminar, 2013 ) and attribute the MS/MA ambiguity to structural variations within the question nucleus. The variations are: (i) the scope ambiguity of the higher-order _wh_-trace (...) and (ii) the absence/presence of an anti-exhaustification operator. However, treating MS answers as complete answers in this way contradicts the widely adopted analysis of uniqueness effects in questions of Dayal (Locality in _wh_ quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi, 1996 ), according to which the uniqueness effects of singular _which_-phrases arise from an exhaustivity presupposition, namely that a question must have a unique exhaustive true answer. To solve this dilemma, I propose that question interpretations presuppose Relativized Exhaustivity: roughly, the exhaustivity in questions is evaluated relative to the accessible worlds as opposed to the anchor/utterance world. Relativized Exhaustivity preserves the merits of Dayal’s exhaustivity presupposition while permitting MS; moreover, it explains the local-uniqueness effects in modalized singular _wh_-questions. (shrink)

In most cases, a wh-question calls for an answer that names an entity in the set denoted by the extension of the wh-complement. However, evidence from questions with necessity modals and questions with collective predicates argues that sometimes a wh-question must be interpreted with a higher-order reading, in which this question calls for an answer that names a generalized quantifier. This paper investigates the distribution and compositional derivation of higher-order readings of wh-questions. First, I argue that the generalized quantifiers that (...) can serve as semantic answers to wh-questions must be homogeneously positive. Next, on the distribution of higher-order readings, I observe that questions in which the wh-complement is singular-marked or numeral-modified can be answered by elided disjunctions but not by conjunctions. I further present two ways to account for this disjunction–conjunction asymmetry. In the uniform account, these questions admit disjunctions because disjunctions may satisfy the atomicity requirement of singular-marking and the cardinality requirement of numeral modification. In the reconstruction account, the wh-complement is syntactically reconstructed, which gives rise to local uniqueness and yields a contradiction for conjunctive answers. (shrink)

This paper revisits two fundamental issues in question semantics—what does a question mean, and how is this meaning compositionally derived? Drawing on observations with the distribution of wh-words in questions and free relatives as well as quantificational variability effects in question-embeddings, I argue that the nominal meanings of short answers must be derivable from question denotations, which therefore calls for a categorial approach to defining questions, including embedded questions. I provide a novel hybrid categorial approach to compose questions. This approach (...) overcomes the problems with traditional categorial approaches in defining bare wh-indefinites, composing multi-wh questions, and accounting for coordinations of questions. (shrink)

Questions with a quantificational subject have readings that seemingly involve quantification into questions (called ‘QiQ’ for short). In particular, in single-wh questions with a universal quantifier, QiQ-readings call for pair-list answers, similar to pair-list readings of multiple-wh questions. This paper unifies the derivation of QiQ-readings and distinguishes QiQ-readings from pair-list readings of multiple-wh questions. I propose that pair-list multiple-wh questions and QiQ-questions both involve a wh-dependency, namely, that the wh-/quantificational subject stands in a functional dependency with the trace of the (...) wh-object. In particular, in a pair-list multiple-wh question, the wh-subject binds into the trace of the wh-object across an identity operator; in a QiQ-question, the quantificational subject binds into the trace of the wh-object across a predication operator. These operations give rise to distinct definedness requirements, which vary with the quantificational force of the wh-/quantificational subject. The proposed analysis explains a contrast in domain exhaustivity between the pair-list readings of multiple-wh questions and questions with a universal quantifier, while also doing justice to the intuitive similarities between these two types of questions. I further propose that the observed QiQ-effect in a QiQ-question is derived by extracting one of the minimal proposition sets that satisfy the aforementioned quantificational predication condition. The values of these sets determine whether the QiQ-reading is available and whether a QiQ-question admits pair-list answers and/or has a choice flavor. (shrink)