The complementation pattern of certain question‐embedding predicates, such as know and agree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to... Show moreThe complementation pattern of certain question‐embedding predicates, such as know and agree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to be able to combine with two distinct types of semantic objects: propositions and questions. The traditional approach to the semantics of these predicates, where embedded questions are reduced to propositions, faces two problems. First, it cannot account for the observation that know‐wh sentences require the subject not to believe any false answer to the embedded question. Second, it makes a problematic prediction concerning the interpretation of Predicates of Relevance, such as care and matter. We review three alternative approaches to the semantics of question‐embedding predicates, i.e., the proposition‐to‐question reduction, the uniform approach and the ambiguity approach, and argue that only the Proposition‐to‐Question reduction and the uniform approach can deal with the interpretation of the Predicates of Relevance. The paper concludes with a remark on how lexical denotations of question‐embedding predicates are constrained in general. Show less
The projection patterns of the existential/uniqueness presupposition of a wh-complement varies depending on the predicate that embeds it. This variation poses problems for existing accounts that... Show moreThe projection patterns of the existential/uniqueness presupposition of a wh-complement varies depending on the predicate that embeds it. This variation poses problems for existing accounts that treat the presupposition as a semantic contribution of an operator merging with the wh-complement (Dayal 1996) or by the embedding predicate (Uegaki 2015). Rather, the patterns suggest an analysis that treats the presupposition as contributed by the propositions corresponding to the answers of the embedded question. Show less
The Japanese modal particle darou can take either a declarative or an interrogative prejacent (Hara 2006; Hara & Davis 2013). We point out, however, that its interrogative-embedding use cannot... Show moreThe Japanese modal particle darou can take either a declarative or an interrogative prejacent (Hara 2006; Hara & Davis 2013). We point out, however, that its interrogative-embedding use cannot be reduced to its declarative-embedding use. This is problematic under the standard assumption that modal operators always apply to propositions, but not under more recent proposals which take modal op- erators to apply to sets of propositions. We develop a detailed account of darou, capturing its non-reductive nature as well as its puzzling interaction with intonation (Hara 2015). Show less
