Quantified concealed questions

Abstract

This paper presents a novel treatment of quantified concealed questions (CQs), examining different types of NP predicates and deriving the truth conditions for pair-list and set readings. A generalization is proposed regarding the distribution of the two readings, namely that pair-list readings arise from CQs with relational head nouns, whereas set readings arise from CQs whose head nouns are not (or no longer) relational. It is shown that set readings cannot be derived under the 'individual concept' approach, one of the most influential analyses of CQs on the market. The paper offers a solution to this problem. It shows that once we adopt an independently motivated view of traces-according to which traces are copies with descriptive content (Fox, Linguist Inq 30:157-196, 1999; Fox, Linguist Inq 33:63-96, 2002)-nothing else needs to be postulated to derive set readings within an individual-concept-based analysis. Thus, what seemed to be a challenge for this type of analysis turns out to be an argument in its favor.