Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T10:11:28.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Syntax and Semantics of Unselected Embedded Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

David Adger  and
Josep Quer
David Adger*
Affiliation:
University of York
Josep Quer*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
Adger, Dept. of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, York, Y01 5DD England [da4@york.ac.uk]
Quer, Romaanse Taalkunde/Spaans, Spuistraat 134, NL-1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlands [j.quer@hum.uva.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The selection of clausal complement type by embedding predicates constitutes a privileged domain for the assessment of interface issues between different modules of the grammar. This article addresses the selectional problem posed by embedded if-questions (of semantic type 〈t, t〉) appearing as arguments of noninterrogative predicates like ‘admit’ or ‘say’ (which are assumed to select a that-clause of type t). We show that such UNSELECTED EMBEDDED QUESTIONS (UEQs) are semantically sensitive to the same set of elements as POLARITY SENSITIVE ITEMS, and this sensitivity constrains their distribution and interpretation. The proposal is that UEQs are headed by a semantically sensitive determiner Δ, which is covert in English (a counterpart of either) but overt in Basque. After raising, the UEQ leaves a variable of type t, thus solving the selectional problem. The interplay between s-selection, c-selection and lexical semantic specifications is argued to account for a number of other puzzles in clausal complementation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 107 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, David, and Quer, Josep. 1997. Subjunctives, unselected embedded questions, and clausal polarity items. North Eastern Linguistic Society 27. 1–15.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 1998. Clausal polar determiners in Catalan embedded questions. Studies on the syntax of central Romance languages, ed. by Fullana, Olga and Roca, Francesc, 65–81. Girona: Universitat de Girona.Google Scholar
Berman, Steve. 1991. On the semantics and logical form of Wh-clauses. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Yoon, James. 1992. On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 10. 41–52.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1970. On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6. 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. The theory of complementation in English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1981. Distribution of free-choice any. Chicago Linguistics Society 17. 8–23.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Steven and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1980. Any as universal or existential? The semantics of determiners, ed. by van, Johan Auwera, der, 11–40. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, MS.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1998. Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 433–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75. 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1982. Intensionality and Romance subjunctive relatives. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, ed. by Hirschbueler, Paul and Koerner, Konrad, 69–104. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Giles. 1975. Polarity and the scale principle. Chicago Linguistic Society 11. 188–99.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. 1985. Affectivity, modality and complement selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MS.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1997. The landscape of polarity items. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995. Resolving questions I/II. Linguistics and Philosophy 18. 459–527/567-609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Pianesi, Fabio. 1998. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 279–326.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stockhof, Martin. 1982. Semantic analysis of wH-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 175–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C.L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1988. Concessive clauses in English and Romance. Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. by Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra, 71–99. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1991. Either/or. North Eastern Linguistic Society 21. 143–55.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: From GB to minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, and Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16. 353–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold, and Postal, Paul. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. Generative studies in Romance languages, ed. by Casagrande, Jean and Saciuk, Bohdan, 70–126. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. Fact. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, Danny D. and Jakobovits, Leon A., 345–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry and Katz, Jerrold, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don't exist. Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. by Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1990. Polarity phenomena and alternative semantics. Proceedings of the Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Stokhof, Martin and Torenvliet, Leen, 277–302. Amsterdam: ITLI.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. Some remarks on polarity items. Semantic universals and universal semantics, ed. by Zaefferer, Dietmar, 150–89. Berlin/New York: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Frances, Carlson, Gregory N., Meulen, Alice ter, Link, Godehard; and Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. The generic book, ed. by Carlson, Greg and Pelletier, Francis, 1–124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1996. Negation and polarity items. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 321–41. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 1991. Embedded interrogatives and predicates that embed them. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18. 149–72.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1994. On the syntax of negation. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1996. A brief grammar of Euskara, the Basque language. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country, MS. http://www.ehu.es/grammar/.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 217–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 325–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luelsdorff, Philip A., and Norrick, Neal R. 1979. On if and whether complementation. Linguistische Berichte 62. 25–47.Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita. 1992. Locality: A theory and some of its empirical consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martínez Marín, Juan. 1985. Semántica y sintaxis en las ‘oraciones interrogativas indirectas’ en español. Philologica hispaniensia in honorem Manuel Alvar, vol. 2, Lingüística, 469-81. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1992. Adjunction, selection and embedded verb second. Santa Cruz: University of California at Santa Cruz, MS.Google Scholar
Nakajima, Heizo. 1996. Complementizer selection. Linguistic Review 13. 143–64.Google Scholar
Odijk, Jan. 1997. C-selection and s-selection. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 365–71.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1989. Parameters in the grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero syntax, part 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MS.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1993. Topic . . . comment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 557–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2000. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, in press.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carme. 1985. Opaque domains. New York: CUNY dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1992. Questions in French and the theory of UG. GLOW Newsletter 28. 38–39.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. The (mis)behavior of anaphora and negative polarity. Linguistic Review 10. 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 1996. Changing moods: Complement licensing and mood alternations in questions. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute Linguistics OTS, MS.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the interface. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 1997. Questions, polarity and alternative semantics. North Eastern Linguistic Society 27. 383–96.Google Scholar
Rivero, Marîa-Luisa. 1977. Specificity and existence: A reply. Language 53. 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 1992. Case and NP licensing. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 119–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 1995. Pleonastics and the interpretation of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 499–529.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1994. The semantics and pragmatics of the subjunctive in Modern Greek: A relevance-theoretic approach. London: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 1994. The syntax of complementisers. London: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 1994. Interface licensing conditions on PSIs: A theory of polarity and tense interactions. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek sentential complementation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Veloudis, Giannis. 1983/84. I ipotaktikí stis anaforikés protásis. Glossologia 2-3.111–35.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 265–99.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María-Luisa. 1982. Theoretical implications of subject extraction in Portuguese. Linguistic Review 2. 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar