Higher-order plurality as a solution to Xiang's (2021) puzzle

doi:None

Title	Authors

Home

Xiang (2021) notes the following puzzle: plural wh-questions involving certain collective predicates are predicted to carry a uniqueness presupposition (Dayal 1996), yet intuitively they don't (cf. Gentile and Schwarz 2020). She proposes that such questions have 'higher-order readings' (Spector 2007, 2008), and crucially that they have answers naming boolean conjunctions. We show that recourse to higher-order question readings is mistaken: Xiang's puzzle should be solved with higher-order plurality, and we provide empirical justification for this approach, mirroring for questions the recent findings for declaratives by Buccola, Kuhn, and Nicolas (2021).

OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.

Create an Account Learn More Hide this message

Main content

Home

Menu

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Main content

Links to this project

Home

Menu

Add new wiki page

Page permissions have changed

Wiki page deleted

Connected to the collaborative wiki

Connecting to the collaborative wiki

Collaborative wiki is unavailable

Browser unsupported

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.