Quexistentials and Focus
Kees Hengeveld
Sabine Iatridou
Floris Roelofsen
Many languages have words that can be interpreted either as question
words or as existentials. We call such words quexistentials. It has been
claimed in the literature (per esempio., Haida 2007) Quello, across languages,
quexistentials are (UN) always focused on their interrogative interpreta-
tion and (B) never focused on their existential interpretation. We refer
to this as the quexistential-focus biconditional. The article makes two
contributions. The first is that we offer a possible explanation for one
direction of the biconditional: the fact that quexistentials are gener-
ally contrastively focused on their interrogative use. We argue that
this should be seen as a particular instance of an even more general
fact—namely, that interrogative words (quexistential or not) are al-
ways contrastively focused—and propose an account for this fact. IL
second contribution of the article concerns the other direction of the
biconditional. We present evidence that, at least at face value, suggests
that focus on a quexistential does not necessarily preclude an exis-
tential interpretation. Specifically, we show that it is possible for Dutch
wat to be interpreted existentially even when it is focused. We attempt
to explain this phenomenon.
Keywords: quexistentials, focus, interrogatives, indefinites
1 introduzione
Many languages have words that can be used either as question words or as existential indefinites
(per esempio., Ultan 1978, Haspelmath 1997, Bhat 2000, Haida 2007). We call such words quexistentials
(question (cid:2) existential). An example is the Dutch word wat, which can mean either ‘what’ or
‘something.’1
(1) Wat heeft Miranda gegeten?
QUEX has Miranda eaten
‘What has Miranda eaten?’
For their generous help with ideas and/or judgments, we thank Byron Ahn, Paul Boersma, Tanya Bondarenko, Ben
Bruening, Seth Cable, O¨ mer Demirok, Donka Farkas, Edward Flemming, Hana Kalpak, Jo-Wang Lin, Flavia Naehrlich,
Hella Olbertz, Roger Paul, Gertjan Postma, Omer Preminger, Norvin Richards, Sergei Tatevosov, Igor Yanovich, Hedde
Zeijlstra, and audiences at an NYI seminar in St. Petersburg, an InqBnB workshop at the University of Amsterdam, E
colloquia at the University of British Columbia, Princeton University, and Seoul National University. We are also grateful
to the development and support team of Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2020), which proved a very useful tool for this
project. Finalmente, we gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
(NWO), the European Research Council (ERC, grant 680220), the Royal Dutch Academy of Science (KNAW, grant
UPS/RB/3991), and the MIT MISTI fund (grant 1491731). The authors are listed in alphabetical order.
1 In (2), we translate wat as ‘something’. We should note, Tuttavia, that wat, unlike something, is underspecified
for number. In particular, unlike something, it can be the argument of collective predicates.
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 54, Numero 3, Estate 2023
571–624
(cid:3) 2021 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under
a Creative Commons Attributions 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0) licenza.
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00441
571
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
572
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(2) Miranda heeft wat gegeten.
Miranda has QUEX eaten
‘Miranda has eaten something.’
It has been claimed (Vedere, per esempio., Haida 2007:47, 51, 169, 182, and many references cited there) Quello
the presence or absence of focus typically determines whether a quexistential is interpreted as a
question word or as an existential indefinite. In particular, it has been claimed that in many
languages, possibly universally, quexistentials are interpreted as question words if and only if
they are focused. We will refer to this generalization as the quexistential-focus biconditional (QF
biconditional for short). For instance, the Dutch quexistential wat can only be interpreted as a
question word in (3), where it is focused, and can only be interpreted as an existential indefinite
In (4), where it is not focused.
(3) Wie heeft hem WAT gegeven?
who has
him QUEX given
‘Who gave him what?’
‘Who gave him something?’
(4) Wie heeft hem wat geGEven?
him QUEX given
who has
‘Who gave him what?’
‘Who gave him something?’
The fact that quexistentials are always focused on their interrogative use should be seen as
a particular instance of a more general fact: namely, that interrogative words (quexistential or
non) are always focused. We propose to account for this fact by generalizing the common view
on contrastive focus in a way that incorporates both an external and an internal notion of contrast.
D'altra parte, we will show that the issue of the (non)focusability of quexistentials on their
existential use hides many complications.
The article is organized as follows. Sezione 2 provides some general background on quexisten-
tials; section 3 lays out the basic empirical facts on how quexistentials interact with stress and
focus; section 4 explores in more depth how focus relates to the interrogative use of quexistentials,
and to question words more generally; and section 5 explores in more depth how focus relates
to the existential use of quexistentials, and to existential indefinites more generally. It also argues
in favor of reinterpreting the Dutch facts so that they do not form a counterexample to the QF
biconditional. Finalmente, section 6 concludes.
2 Background on Quexistentials
In English and many other languages, interrogative words look different from existential indefi-
nites.
(5) UN. What did he eat?
B. He ate something.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
573
In other languages, existential indefinites are morphologically composed from interrogative words,
as in Greek.2
(6) UN. Ti
efages?
what ate.2SG
‘What did you eat?’
B. Efages kati.
ate.2SG something
‘You ate something.’
The paradigm is completely productive in Greek, as illustrated in (3).
(7) UN. pios ‘who’ ⇒ kapios ‘someone’
B. pote ‘when’ ⇒ kapote ‘sometime’
C. pou ‘where’ ⇒ kapou ‘somewhere’
What we call quexistentials are words that can be used either as question words or as existential
indefinites, without any additional overt morphology. We have already shown one example of a
quexistential: the Dutch word wat. Another is the Russian word kto, which can function as interro-
gative ‘who’ or as existential ‘someone’.
(8) Kto pri’el?
QUEX came
‘Who came?’
(9) MoÅet, kto
prixodil.
maybe QUEX came
‘Maybe someone came.’
One might wonder why we use the term quexistential given that a few related terms are already
in use. For instance, Kuroda (1965) coined the term indeterminate pronouns for certain lexical
items in Japanese that, like quexistentials, participate in both interrogative and existential construc-
zioni. This term has been used in much subsequent work for similar items in other languages.
We do not use it, Tuttavia, because there are morphosyntactic differences between the interrogative
and existential uses of indeterminate pronouns. Japanese indeterminate pronouns are accompanied
by the particle ka both on their existential and on their interrogative use. Tuttavia, on the existential
use the particle must appear locally on the indefinite noun phrase, while on the interrogative use
it must appear in clause-final position. Inoltre, on the interrogative use, in matrix questions
the particle is optional and can only appear in the presence of a politeness marker (Miyagawa
1987, 2017, Uegaki 2018). D'altra parte, on the existential use the particle’s presence is
obligatory and not dependent on the presence of a politeness marker.
2 This is even true for English, though only in a few specific cases: where-somewhere, how-somehow.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
574
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(10) Dare-ka-ga
hashitta.
INDET-KA-NOM ran
‘Someone ran.’
(11) Dare-ga
ki-*(mas)-tu
ka?
INDET-NOM come-POLITE-PRS KA
‘Who will come?’
Such differences between the two uses set indeterminate pronouns in Japanese apart from the
kind of lexical items that we call quexistentials. In the case of quexistentials, there is no difference
in spell-out between the existential and the interrogative use.
We do not adopt the term wh-indefinite (per esempio., Bruening 2007) either, because it is used to
refer only to the existential use of items that also have an interrogative use (in this case, the item
is a quexistential) or to indefinites that are morphologically based on interrogative words with
additional morphology (as in the Greek examples above).
Nor do we take over the term ignorative, coined by Karcevski (1941:70), which is meant
to indicate that the speaker lacks knowledge of the referent when using a quexistential. Since
there are languages in which quexistentials can also be used for referents known to the speaker,
this term is not fully appropriate either.
Così, we use the term quexistentials to refer to lexical items that permit existential and
interrogative uses without any differences in spell-out. We refer to the interrogative reading of
a quexistential as the qu of quex and to the existential reading as the ex of quex. The latter two
terms are names for interpretations, while the term quexistential is used for the lexical item itself.
In glosses, we use QUEX, regardless of the meaning the sentence ends up having.
As far as we have seen, all languages that have quexistentials also have dedicated question
words and dedicated existential indefinites. Dutch, Per esempio, has only one quexistential, wat
(interrogative ‘what’/existential ‘something’). It does not have a quexistential that can mean both
‘who’ and ‘someone’. Piuttosto, it has a nonquexistential interrogative wie meaning ‘who’ and a
nonquexistential indefinite iemand meaning ‘someone’. German has many more quexistentials
than Dutch but still has purely interrogative words and purely existential indefinites as well.3
3 Quexistentials on the ex of quex reading should not be confused with what have been called modal existential
constructions (MECs) and modal possessive constructions (MPCs).
(io) Ik heb wat
te eten.
I have what to eat
Roughly: ‘There is something that I can eat if I want/have to eat.’
(ii) Er
te eten.
is wat
there is what to eat
Roughly: ‘There is something to eat if one wants/has to eat.’
While these can be observed in Dutch and Russian, which also have quexistentials, they are clearly different constructions
altogether. For one, the typological lines don’t cut correctly: Greek and Bulgarian (Roumyana Pancheva, pers. comm.)
have MECs and MPCs but not quexistentials; Mandarin (Jo-Wang Lin, pers. comm.) does have quexistentials, but lacks
MECs and MPCs. Inoltre, MECs and MPCs are possible with a very small class of verbs, including ‘have’ (existential/
possessive) and ‘find’. MECs are analyzed by Izvorski (1998) and 0imı´k (2011), among others, and MPCs, with an
emphasis on Russian, by Livitz (2012). What these accounts have in common is that the interrogative word contributes
a variable to the representation. The existential force comes from the environment, specifically the embedding verb. Quello
È, these authors take these constructions to involve embedded questions of sorts (the accounts differ on the source of
the modality, but that is not relevant here).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
575
The main mystery about quexistentials is how one and the same word can yield an interroga-
tive or an existential interpretation. Several answers to this question have been proposed. Some
of them treat quexistentials as variables (per esempio., Cheng 1994, Postma 1994, Bruening 2007), others
as expressions generating Hamblin alternatives (per esempio., Yanovich 2005), and yet others as existential
quantifiers with obligatory domain alternatives (Liao 2011, Chierchia and Liao 2015). On the
first two approaches, the ex of quex arises when the variable or the alternative set generated by
the quexistential is bound by an existential closure operator, and the qu of quex arises when it
is bound by a question operator. On the third approach, the ex of quex arises when the domain
alternatives generated by the quantifier are evaluated by an exhaustification operator, and the qu
of quex arises when they are evaluated by a question operator. The pros and cons of these proposals
are discussed in some detail in Hengeveld, Iatridou, and Roelofsen 2019. For present purposes,
Tuttavia, it does not matter by which mechanisms the two readings of a quexistential arise. Tutto
that matters are the final products of these mechanisms, the two readings. It is the interaction of
these two readings with focus that we are concerned with here.
In Hengeveld, Iatridou, and Roelofsen 2019, the languages that have quexistentials are di-
vided into three groups depending on the licensing conditions of the ex of quex:4
• Polarity-sensitive languages. In these languages, the ex of quex is possible only in envi-
ronments that can be roughly characterized as ones licensing negative polarity items (NPIs).
This group has been argued to include Mandarin (per esempio., Huang 1982, Cheng 1994, Lin 1998,
2004, Chierchia and Liao 2015, Liu and Cui 2019), Russian (Yanovich 2005), and Vietnamese
(Tran and Bruening 2013).
• Undique languages (from the Latin word meaning ‘everywhere’). In these languages, the ex
of quex is licensed everywhere except in the fronted position where interrogative words move
to if the language has overt wh-movement. This group includes Passamaquoddy (Bruening
2007, Bruening and Tsai 2009) and Korean (Yun 2019).
• Topological languages. We will distinguish a third category here, assuming for the moment
that Postma (1994) is correct that there are languages in which the ex of quex is licensed
only inside the VP (but see footnote 39). This group would include Dutch and German, ac-
cording to Postma (1994).
Below we illustrate the distribution of the ex of quex in one language from each of these groups
(Russian, Passamaquoddy, and Dutch).
2.1 The Polarity Group: Russian
Russian is in the polarity group, which means that in this language the ex of quex is not possible
in affirmative episodic sentences.
(12) Vasja s’jel ?A.
Vasja ate QUEX
‘Vasja ate something.’
4 Cable (2010UN) discusses quexistentials in his work on questions in Tlingit, though it is unclear where the Tlingit
profile of the ex of quex falls typologically (also Seth Cable, pers. comm.).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
576
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
The ex of quex is possible in Russian in yes/no questions, provided that the quexistential is not
fronted, because then it is interpreted as an interrogative word.
(13) UN. Pri’el kto?
came QUEX
‘Did somebody come?’
‘Who came?’
B. Kto pri’el?
QUEX came
‘Who came?’
‘Did somebody come?’
(14) UN. Vasja s’el ?A?
Vasja ate QUEX
‘Did Vasja eat something?’
‘What did Vasja eat?’
B. Cˇ to Vasja s’el?
QUEX Vasja ate
‘What did Vasja eat?’
‘Did Vasja eat something?’
The ex of quex is also possible in the antecedent of a conditional.
(15) UN. Esli (kto)
if
‘If somebody comes, let me know.’
pridet (kto), daj mne znat’.
(QUEX) comes (QUEX) give me know
B. Esli (kogo) uvidi’ (kogo), daj mne znat’.
(QUEX) give me know
if
‘If you see somebody, let me know.’
(QUEX) Vedere
But it is not possible in the consequent (one would have to use a nonquexistential indefinite).
(16) *Esli on ne pridet, ja ub’ju
kogo.
he NEG comes I will.kill QUEX
if
Intended: ‘If he does not come, I will kill somebody.’
Finalmente, in Russian, wh-questions do not license the ex of quex.
In Russian, Poi, the ex of quex is polarity-sensitive, just as it is in Mandarin according to
Huang (1982), Cheng (1994), and Lin (1998), among others, and in Vietnamese according to
Tran and Bruening (2013).5
5 Note that in Russian the modal moÅet, as illustrated in (9), licenses NPIs. This can be shown with the following
examples, containing the NPI kto-nibud’ ‘somebody’ (Mitya Privoznov, pers. comm.):
(io) MoÅet kto-nibud’ prixodil.
maybe somebody came
‘Maybe somebody came.’
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
577
2.2 The Undique Group: Passamaquoddy
Compared with Russian, Passamaquoddy has a much more unconstrained distribution of the ex
of quex. Bruening (2007) cites the following sentences:
(17) UN. Kesq yaq pemacqim-a-htit otuhk-ol, SU
keq (’)-nutom-oni-ya.
while QUOT drag-DIR-3PCONJ deer-OBV then QUEX 3-hear-N-3P
‘While they were dragging the deer, they heard something.’
(W. Newell 1974:5)
B. On yaka
wesuwiy-apasi-htit,
wot
yaq wen pemi
then then.FUT going.back-walk.away-3PCONJ this.AN QUOT QUEX IC.along
sakhiya-t.
come.into.view-3CONJ
‘Then, on their way back, something [animate] came into sight.’
(IO. Newell 1979:25)
C. Keq (’)-nomihtu-ni-ya etoli-macetutomuwi-k kci ponapsku-k tama al
IC.there-move-IICONJ big rock-LOC
QUEX 3-see-N-3P
tekkapimok.
as.far.as.one.can.see
‘They see something moving on a big rock [somewhere] near the horizon.’
(Mitchell 1976:22)
QUEX UNCERT
As is obvious, none of the constructions in (17) would be possible in Russian, since the ex of
quex does not appear in a polarity environment here, and the Russian ex of quex is polarity-
sensitive.
Our own fieldwork on Passamaquoddy adds the following cases, which would not be possible
in Russian either:6
(18) UN. Piyel ’kisotomon keq.
Piyel ate
‘Piyel ate something.’
B. Piyel nomiyal Roger-ol
QUEX
tama.
Roger-OBV QUEX
Piyel see
‘Piyel sees Roger somewhere.’
(ii) *Kto-nibud’ prixodil.
somebody came
‘Somebody came.’
Note that this is not specific to Russian; it can be found in, for instance, Greek as well. As argued in Zwarts 1995 E
Giannakidou 2002, among other works, licensing of NPIs is partly determined by the degree of veridicality of the licenser,
and in some languages modals expressing possibility are sufficiently nonveridical to license NPIs.
6 Many thanks to Roger Paul for the data and discussion of the data. Many thanks to Norvin Richards for all his
help and support in the Passamaquoddy part of this project.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
578
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
C. ’Kisomal wen opanol.
ate
‘Somebody ate the bread.’7
QUEX bread
D. Wen nemihtaq keq?
QUEX saw
‘Who saw something?’
QUEX
e. Keq nemihtaq wen?
QUEX saw
‘What did someone see?’
QUEX
These cases confirm the observations reported by Bruening (2007) with respect to the broad
availability of the ex of quex.
Unsurprisingly, even though the Passamaquoddy quexistentials do not need negation (or any
other downward-entailing environment) to appear in the ex of quex reading, they are fine in such
environments.
(19) Piyel mate ’kisotomuwon keq.
Piyel not
ate
‘Piyel did not eat anything.’
QUEX
According to our consultant, (19) can only have the translation shown and cannot be taken to
mean ‘There is something that Piyel did not eat’. This is consistent with Bruening’s (2007)
argument that the existential interpretation of the Passamaquoddy quexistential always takes nar-
row scope.
Così, Passamaquoddy belongs to the undique group.
2.3 The Topological Group: Dutch
As mentioned in section 1, Dutch has one quexistential, wat, which can mean either ‘what’ or
‘something’.
(20) UN. Wat heb je
gegeten?
QUEX have you eaten
‘What have you eaten?’
B. Ik heb wat gegeten.
I have QUEX eaten
‘I have eaten something.’
The ex of quex is clearly not polarity-sensitive in Dutch, as it can appear in positive past episodic
sentences such as (20B).8
7 Indefinite subjects prefer to appear postverbally in Passamaquoddy (Norvin Richards, pers. comm.).
8 Wat cannot appear adjacent to negation. The same holds for the nonquexistential indefinite iets. Presumably this
is because of blocking by the negative indefinite niets ‘nothing’.
(io) *Ik heb niet wat gegeten.
I have not QUEX eaten
‘I haven’t eaten anything.’
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
579
The go-to article for quexistentials in Dutch (as well as German) is Postma 1994. Postma
argues that Dutch and German quexistentials are variables at birth. When the syntactic conditions
for question formation are met (per esempio., movement to the left periphery), the variable is bound by
an interrogative operator. When the quexistential stays inside the VP, the variable is bound by
an existential closure operator, as proposed in Heim 1982 and Diesing 1992 for indefinites in
general (not specifically for quexistentials).9 Specifically, Postma follows the proposal in Diesing
1992, whereby the syntactic domain of the existential closure operator is the VP. Di conseguenza, Esso
is predicted that the ex of quex is possible only inside the VP. When an indefinite outside of the
VP is needed, Postma predicts that only nonquexistential iets ‘something’ is possible.
Some of Postma’s data are the following.10 As (21B) shows, the ex of quex is not possible
in subject position (not even of an unaccusative), and instead the nonquexistential iets must be
used.
(21) UN. Iets
is gevallen.
something is fallen
‘Something has fallen.’
is gevallen?
B. Wat
QUEX is fallen
‘What has fallen?’
‘Something has fallen.’
Inoltre, taking the adverb snel ‘quickly’ to be situated at the VP border, Postma notes that
the quexistential wat cannot appear to its left, while the nonquexistential indefinite iets can.
(22) UN.
B.
C.
iets
Jan heeft snel
opgeschreven.
Jan has
quickly something written.down
‘Jan has quickly written something down.’
Jan heeft snel
Jan has
‘Jan has quickly written something down.’
Jan heeft iets
opgeschreven.
Jan has
something quickly written.down
‘There is something that Jan has quickly written down.’
wat opgeschreven.
quickly QUEX written.down
snel
D. *Jan heeft wat
snel
opgeschreven.
Jan has QUEX quickly written.down
‘Jan has quickly written something down.’
Generalmente, Postma argues that the ex of quex is not possible when the quexistential has moved
out of the VP by scrambling or extraposition.11
9 This is similar to Cheng’s (1994) proposal for Mandarin.
10 We have slightly adapted the English translations, to indicate when the existential receives a wide scope interpreta-
tion and when it receives a narrow scope interpretation.
11 In (23B), the existential has only a wide scope interpretation.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
580
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(23) It is difficult to get Teun’s attention.
iets/wat
UN. Hij zit steeds
Sopra
na
te denken.
he sits constantly about something/ QUEX after to think
‘He is constantly thinking about something.’
B. Hij zit over
iets/*wat
steeds
na
te denken.
he sits about something/*QUEX constantly after to think
‘There is something that he is constantly thinking about.’
C. Hij zit steeds
na
te denken over
he sits constantly after to think
‘He is constantly thinking about something.’
iets/*wat.
about something/*QUEX
(VP-internal)
(scrambled)
(extraposed)
For Postma, Poi, the lexical status of quexistentials in Dutch and German is that of a variable,
and by appealing to the VP location of Diesing’s (1992) existential closure, he predicts a topology
for the ex of quex in these languages: it is only possible inside the VP. For this reason, for now
we will refer to these two languages as the topological group. We return to Dutch in some detail
in section 5.
2.4 The Aim of the Current Article
So far, we have discussed two factors that affect the distribution of the existential reading of
quexistentials in some languages but not in others: polarity sensitivity, and sensitivity to syntactic
structure, in particular the VP boundary. Tuttavia, there is also a factor that has been argued to
affect the interpretation of quexistentials in a very similar way across all languages: namely, COME
mentioned in section 1, it has been argued that quexistentials are interpreted as question words
if and only if they are focused.12 We refer to this generalization as the quexistential-focus bicondi-
tional (QF biconditional for short).
The central point of investigation in this article is the QF biconditional. In other words, we
will not investigate the lexical semantics of quexistentials, nor the syntactic/semantic source of
their interrogative/existential duality. We remain neutral here with respect to the various proposals
that have been made in this regard (per esempio., Cheng 1994, Postma 1994, Lin 1998, Yanovich 2005,
Bruening 2007, Tran and Bruening 2013, Chierchia and Liao 2015) and pursue an understanding
of the QF biconditional that does not hinge on assumptions made in any of these competing
proposals.
Inoltre, since the QF biconditional appears to cut across the polarity divide, we will remain
neutral here as to what makes quexistentials polarity-sensitive in some languages but not in others,
and we will attempt to understand the QF biconditional independently of that opposition.
12 The term focus has been used in the literature to cover both “new information focus” and “contrastive focus.”
We will follow Kratzer and Selkirk (2018) and others in assuming that at least in the Germanic and Slavic languages,
new information focus does not have distinctive phonological effects. Only contrastive focus does (and givenness). Items
that are discourse-new and not contrastively focused are subject to the default prosody of the language. From now on,
Poi, focus will stand for “contrastive focus.” Note that by “new information focus” Kratzer and Selkirk mean broad
focus in the sense of Hanssen, Peters, and Gussenhoven (2008), who show that narrow focus (cioè., the kind of focus
typical of an answer to a wh-question) behaves the same way as contrastive focus. This ties in nicely with the view of
question words as intrinsically carrying contrastive focus that we will defend below.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
581
3 The QF Biconditional: Basic Observations
The QF biconditional, as explicitly stated by, for instance, Haida (2007:47, 51, 169, 182) E
adapted to our terminology, is as follows:
(24) The QF biconditional
Quexistentials are interpreted as question words if and only if they are focused. In
short: qu of quex ⇔ focus on quex.
Haida (2007) provides the following examples from German, a language from the topological
group:
(25) Wer sieht WEN?
QUEX sees QUEX
‘Who sees who?’
‘Who sees someone?’
(Haida 2007:180)
(26) Wer SIEHT wen?
QUEX sees
QUEX
‘Who sees who?’
‘Who sees someone?’
(Haida 2007:182)
Russian, a representative of the polarity group, exhibits the same pattern.
(27) Vasja Cˇ TO s’el?
Vasja QUEX ate
‘What did Vasja eat?’
‘Did Vasja eat something?’
(28) Vasja ?A
S’EL?
Vasja QUEX ate
‘What did Vasja eat?’
‘Did Vasja eat something?’
And finally, in Passamaquoddy, a language in the undique group, the pattern obtains as well
(though note that the Passamaquoddy stress system is quite different overall; see LeSourd 1993).
(29) Wen peciptaq KEQ?
QUEX C.brought QUEX
‘Who brought what?’
‘Who brought something?’
(30) Wen peCIPtaq keq?
QUEX C.brought QUEX
‘Who brought what?’
‘Who brought something?’
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
582
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
The QF biconditional consists of two conditionals.
(31) qu of quex ⇒ focus on quex
(32) focus on quex ⇒ qu of quex
Haida (2007:169) provides a long list of languages that support (31), with references to previous
work providing more detail on each of these languages. We indeed accept it as a universal property
of quexistentials. Obviously, it is of high importance to understand why quexistentials across
languages, and across the three different groups we have described, have this particular property
in common.
We will show, Tuttavia, that the universal status of (32) appears to be counterexemplified
in Dutch, even if it seems to be supported by the above examples in German, Russian, E
Passamaquoddy. The ex of quex can in fact be contrastively focused in Dutch, as shown in (33)
(VF(cid:4)verum focus; we will use ↓ and ↑ to indicate falling and rising pitch accents, rispettivamente).13
Korean facts also point in this direction.14
(33) UN: Heeft Miranda haar huiswerk ingeleverd?
has Miranda her homework submitted
‘Has Miranda submitted her homework?’
B: Nou, ze heeft WEL↑ WAT↓ ingeleverd maar NIET↑ VEEL↓.
non
well she has VF
‘Well, she did submit something but not much.’
QUEX submitted but
much
Inoltre, the QF biconditional leads us to expect that a quexistential on its existential
reading should be able to receive stress by virtue of default prosody, as long as it does not receive
focal stress. This is not the case, Tuttavia, at least not in Dutch, German, or Russian. In Dutch
default prosody, a sentence like (34) has stress on the object.15
13 Like new focus, contrastive focus in Dutch is expressed by higher scaling of the pitch contour and lengthening
of the onset of the stressed syllable. The falling movement after the stressed syllable is steeper with new and contrastive
focus than it is with broad focus (Hanssen, Peters, and Gussenhoven 2008).
14 Yun (2019) presents experimental data arguing that in Korean, quexistentials can also receive prosodic prominence
while still being interpreted existentially. The data presented by Park (2019) seem to confirm this view, as she shows
that indeed the ex of quex in Korean can be contrastively focused. The main phonetic manifestations of focus in Korean,
as noted by Jun (1993), are (UN) a phrase boundary preceding the focused constituent and (B) dephrasing of postfocal
Materiale. Obviously, Korean needs to be studied in more detail before we can know for sure whether, and how, it is a
potential counterexample to the generalization regarding contrastive focus and the qu of quex. È interessante notare, Yun claims
that her data show that prosodic prominence on the ex of quex increases the quexistential’s ability to take exceptional
wide scope (specifically, to scope out of an ‘if’-clause, which is a scope island for nonexistential quantifiers). This is not
the case for Dutch. D'altra parte, we are not entirely certain about the conclusion regarding wide scope in Korean:
Yun (2019) discusses only one such environment, and the experiment was conducted by asking the participants “to choose
whether it was about a specific entity (cioè., a wide scope indefinite) or an arbitrary entity (cioè., a narrow scope indefinite)"
(P. 639). We suspect this test may not suffice and hope to conduct a larger experiment in the future.
15 We assume that default prosody is the prosody that obtains in out-of-the-blue contexts (see Bu¨ring 2016:sec. 1.2
for useful background discussion on the notion of default prosody). In (34), we use the word kwark ‘cottage cheese’ as
direct object because of its prosodic similarity to the quexistential wat. Note that (35) is marked with a # rather than a
*. This is because the sentence is not ungrammatical, but its prosody is not the one we find in out-of-the-blue contexts.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
583
(34) Miranda heeft KWARK
gegeten.
Miranda has
cottage.cheese eaten
‘Miranda has eaten cottage cheese.’
(35) #Miranda heeft kwark
Miranda has
Intended: ‘Miranda has eaten cottage cheese.’
cottage.cheese eaten
geGEten.
But when the object is a quexistential on its existential use, stress falls on the verb rather than
on the object.
(36) Miranda heeft wat geGEten.
Miranda has QUEX eaten
‘Miranda has eaten something.’
(37) *Miranda heeft WAT gegeten.
Miranda has QUEX eaten
Intended: ‘Miranda has eaten something.’
Ruling out focus-induced stress on the quexistential will not suffice to rule out stress by virtue
of default prosody. Whatever we might say about focus, Poi, we would need to say something
in addition about the fact that the ex of quex cannot receive stress by virtue of default prosody
in cases like (36). We will therefore discuss the relation between quexistentials and default stress
separately from the relationship between quexistentials and focal stress.
Now that we have given some background on quexistentials and made some basic observa-
tions concerning their interaction with stress and focus, we will proceed as follows. Primo, in sec-
zione 4 we will further examine how the interrogative use of quexistentials relates to stress and
focus. We will propose that quexistentials on their interrogative interpretation—and question
words in general—are typically marked as contrastive foci because questions characteristically put
forward a set of contrasting propositions (resolutions/answers). The existence of such contrasting
propositions results in the use of focal stress. Making this idea more explicit and precise requires
a generalization of the common view on contrastive focus, but one that we think is very natural.
Secondo, in section 5 we will further examine how quexistentials on their existential use
interact with stress and focus. In particular, we will consider some possible explanations for the
fact that the ex of quex cannot receive stress by virtue of default prosody, and we will show in
some detail that the ex of quex can receive focal stress in certain cases in Dutch, though not
in other languages that we have considered. We also offer an account of this crosslinguistic
difference.
4 Stress and Focus on the Qu of Quex
4.1 In-Situ Interrogative Words Must Be Stressed
In this section, we will show that the qu of quex behaves just like other interrogative items. Quello
È, once the quexistential has been set to its interrogative guise, it behaves just like nonquexistential
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
584
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
interrogative words (as we said in section 2, we do not think that the mechanisms by which the
qu of quex or the ex of quex are derived affect the current discussion). This holds for the postmove-
ment position in the left periphery, Ma, much more interestingly, for in-situ positions as well.
Primo, a quick word about suitable testing environments: the interrogative use of a quexisten-
tial in a wh-movement language like Dutch is best explored by inspecting the second (or third)
interrogative word in a multiple wh-question, and not the one that has moved to the left periphery.
This is because in the in-situ position the interrogative use of a quexistential can be compared
with the existential use. Once wat has moved to the left periphery, it enters a territory where it
is very hard for the ex of quex to survive, as we noted in section 2.3. So our simplest initial testing
ground is the quexistential in object position of a multiple wh-question, where the quexistential can
in principle be interpreted as an interrogative or an existential, and where we have already shown
that absence of stress blocks the qu of quex.
(38) Wie heeft haar wat geGEven?
her QUEX given
who has
‘Who gave her what?’
‘Who gave her something?’
Inoltre, even though Dutch permits focal stress on the ex of quex when the alternatives are
overtly mentioned, as in example (33B), in their absence stress on the quexistential blocks the ex
of quex.
(39) Wie heeft haar WAT gegeven?
who has
her QUEX given
‘Who gave her what?’
‘Who gave her something?’
The first question that needs to be asked is whether the interrogative quexistential behaves
similarly to nonquexistential interrogative words in this respect. The answer to this, at least for
Dutch, is yes. Dutch nonquexistential interrogative words like wie ‘who’ also necessarily receive
stress in this environment.
(40) UN. Wie heeft haar aan WIE voorgesteld?
who has
‘Who introduced her to whom?’
to who introduced
her
B. *Wie heeft haar aan wie VOORgesteld?
who has
Intended: ‘Who introduced her to whom?’
to who introduced
her
The same is also true, Tuttavia, for referring (noninterrogative) object DPs.
(41) UN. Wie heeft haar aan JAN voorgesteld?
who has
‘Who introduced her to Jan?’
to Jan introduced
her
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
585
B. #Wie heeft haar aan Jan VOORgesteld?
who has
Intended: ‘Who introduced her to Jan?’
to Jan introduced
her
The next question, Perciò, is whether the qu of quex (and the nonquexistential interrogative)
receives stress in (39) simply because it is in a position that receives stress in default prosody,
as Jan does in (41), or whether there is something special about its being an interrogative word.
To determine this, we must look at slightly more complex examples.16
Consider the following question:
(42) Wie heeft het museum [een schilderij van REMbrandt] gegeven?
who has
‘Who has given the museum a painting by Rembrandt?’
painting by Rembrandt] given
the museum [UN
Here, nuclear stress falls on the object (as predicted by theories of nuclear stress) and on the
rightmost constituent inside the object (also as predicted). But the contour in the multiple wh-
question version of (42) is different: the in-situ wh-phrase welk schilderij ‘which painting’ in (43)
must receive stress, unlike the indefinite een schilderij ‘a painting’ in (42).
(43) Wie heeft het museum [WELK schilderij van Rembrandt] gegeven?
who has
‘Who has given the museum which painting by Rembrandt?’
the museum [which painting by Rembrandt] given
Quexistentials behave similarly in this respect: if we replace welk schilderij by wat and we still
want to express a multiple wh-question, wat needs to be stressed (see figure 1).17
(44) Wie heeft het museum [WAT van Rembrandt] gegeven?
who has
‘Who has given the museum what by Rembrandt?’
the museum [QUEX by Rembrandt] given
If stress is placed on Rembrandt instead of wat (see figure 2), only the existential reading is
possible.
(45) Wie heeft het museum [wat van REMbrandt] gegeven?
who has
‘Who has given the museum something by Rembrandt?’
the museum [QUEX by Rembrandt] given
16 One might wonder at this point whether the stress on WIE ‘who’ in (40UN) and the stress on JAN in (41UN) Avere
the same phonetic properties. Questo è, does the stress on WIE in (40UN) have exactly the same phonetic profile as nuclear
stress under default prosody? We have not undertaken a phonetic study to determine this, but it will soon become clear
in the main text that this question reduces to the question of whether stress under contrastive focus (which is what WIE
gets in (40UN)) is phonetically distinguishable from nuclear stress under default prosody (which is what JAN gets in (41UN)).
As there is considerable leeway in the accent possibilities for both, the question in turn reduces to whether the limits in
the two cases are significantly different. We leave this question open here.
17 The pitch tracks come from one of the authors, who is a male native speaker of Dutch. They were collected and
analyzed using the Praat software package (Boersma and Weenink 2020).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
586
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
190
150
100
60
)
z
H
(
H
C
T
io
P
Wie
heeft het
museum
wat
van Rembrandt
gegeven
1.368
4.181
Time (S)
Figura 1
Pitch track of example (44), where wat is stressed
190
150
100
60
)
z
H
(
H
C
T
io
P
Wie
heeft het
museum
wat
van
Rembrandt
gegeven
1.008
3.825
Figura 2
Pitch track of example (45), where Rembrandt is stressed
Time (S)
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
587
To sum up so far, in-situ quexistentials on the qu of quex reading and nonquexistential
interrogative words behave alike: they both need to be stressed, even if they are not in a position
that attracts stress due to the rules of nuclear stress placement. The next question is, what could
be the difference between indefinites like een schilderij ‘a painting’ and interrogative words such
as welk in welk schilderij ‘which painting’ such that the latter, unlike the former, must be stressed
when in situ?
4.2 Interrogative Words Require Contrastive Focus Marking
According to Haida (2007) and the body of earlier work he surveys, interrogative words in
languages like Dutch, German, and English are always stressed when in situ because such words
must generally be marked as contrastive foci.18 Before we address the question of why interroga-
tive words would be marked as contrastive foci, let us first consider whether this hypothesis is
compatible with the prosodic patterns we find in Dutch, and then turn to some languages in which
focus is not (only) expressed prosodically, Ma (also) by means of movement or a specific focus
particle.
Consider example (42) Ancora, but now in a context in which een schilderij ‘a painting’ is
contrasted with something else, namely, een ets ‘an etching’ by Rembrandt.
(46) UN. Sommige sponsoren hebben het museum [een ETS
van Rembrandt] gegeven.
sponsors have
some
‘Some sponsors have given the museum an ETCHING by Rembrandt.’
B. Maar wie heeft het museum [een SCHILDERIJ van Rembrandt] gegeven?
the museum [an etching by Rembrandt] given
but who has
‘But who has given the museum a PAINTING by Rembrandt?’
the museum [UN
painting
by Rembrandt] given
In questo caso, een schilderij must be stressed in order to mark contrastive focus.19 The stress that
marks constrastive focus in (46) is perceived to be very similar to the stress on the quexistential
In (44). This similarity is also visible in the pitch contours displayed in figures 1 E 3.20 While
18 We should note that according to Truckenbrodt (2013), the prosodic effects of focus on in-situ interrogative words
in German and English are “reduced” in a particular way. In short, while in-situ interrogative words must always be
accented, subsequent words are not necessarily completely deaccented. Other foci do generally require deaccenting of
subsequent given material. For Japanese, Ishihara (2003) and others have argued that the prosody accompanying interroga-
tive words is completely parallel to the prosody in cases of contrastive focus. Truckenbrodt (2013) suggests that this
difference between German and English on the one hand and Japanese on the other is due to the fact that the former are
wh-movement languages while the latter is a wh-in-situ language. We will briefly return to this in footnote 34, but must
leave a more careful investigation for future work.
19 If (46UN) E (46B) are uttered by the same speaker, then it is most natural for that speaker to stress not only
schilderij ‘painting’ in (46B) but also ets ‘etching’ in (46UN), presumably to signal “forward-looking” contrastive focus.
Tuttavia, if (46UN) E (46B) are uttered by different speakers, then it is most natural for ets not to be stressed (unless it
contrasts with something else in the preceding discourse).
20 In figure 3, instead of een schilderij ‘a painting’ we have used watten ‘cotton wool’ as the contrastive element
so as to make it phonologically similar to wat—the fact that the resulting question does not make much pragmatic sense
is irrelevant for the purpose of comparing the pronunciation of the two cases. We are grateful to Paul Boersma for helpful
suggestions in constructing these examples.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
588
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
190
150
100
60
)
z
H
(
H
C
T
io
P
Wie
heeft het
museum
watten
van Rembrandt
gegeven
0.8949
3.875
Time (S)
Figura 3
Pitch track of a variant of example (44) in which the quexistential wat has been replaced by the contrastively
focused plural indefinite watten ‘cotton wool’
more systematic empirical work is evidently required here, we take this to provide initial support
for the hypothesis that question words (whether quexistential or not) require contrastive focus in
Dutch.
Now let us consider two languages where contrastive focus is not (only) marked prosodically.
In Hungarian, contrastive foci are placed in a designated focus position. In Gungbe, on the other
hand, they are accompanied by a focus particle. We will start with Hungarian, discussed for in-
stance in E´ . Kiss 1992 and Haida 2007:sec. 7.2.2. First consider the following sentence, without
focus (examples below from Do´ra Taka´sz, pers. comm.):
(47) Marcsi meg-hı´v-ta
Ba´lint-ot.
Marcsi PART-call-PAST.3SG Balint-ACC
‘Marcsi invited Balint.’
Contrastive focus on the object requires deviance from the baseline order in (47). The object must
move to a preverbal position, and the verb itself moves in front of its particle (meghı´vni ‘to invite’
is a particle-verb in Hungarian).
(48) Marcsi Ba´lint-ot
hı´v-ta
meg, nem Pe´ter-t.
Marcsi Balint-ACC call-PAST.3SG PART not Peter-ACC
‘Marcsi invited Balint, not Peter.’
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
589
The same two relevant order effects obtain in the corresponding question.
(49) UN. Marcsi ki-t
hı´v-ott
meg?
Marcsi who-ACC call-PAST.3SG PART
‘Who did Marcsi invite?’
hı´v-ott
meg Marcsi?
who-ACC call-PAST.3SG PART Marcsi
‘Who did Marcsi invite?’
B. Ki-t
While (49UN) E (49B) differ in the position of the subject, they share the necessity for a preverbal
object, and verb-particle order.
Turning now to Gungbe, the examples in (50) show that question words and (other) con-
trastively focused constituents are marked by means of the same focus particle (Aboh and Pfau
2011).
(50) UN. M[`nu` w[` wa´?
who FOC came
‘Who has come?’
(Aboh and Pfau 2011:93)
B. Ma`rı´ w[` yro´ Ma´rcu` e´ ma` nyı´n Pı´ta`.
Mary FOC call Marc it NEG COP Peter
‘MARY called Marc, not Peter.’
(Enoch Aboh, pers. comm.)
What is important here is that, even though the strategy for marking contrastive focus differs
across Dutch, Hungarian, and Gungbe, in each case interrogative words are marked in the same
way as contrastive foci. This supports what we will call the contrastive focus requirement on in-
terrogative words.21
21 Richards (2010:145) proposes a closely related generalization, namely, that “every language tries to create a
prosodic structure for wh-questions in which the wh-phrase and the corresponding complementizer are separated by as
few prosodic boundaries as possible.” Note that this generalization is independent of the contrastive focus requirement,
although if both hold, then their effects will sometimes be difficult to tease apart in languages where contrastive foci
are marked prosodically. Yun (2019) emphasizes the importance of Richards’s generalization for the interpretation of
quexistentials in Korean. She argues that the qu of quex in Korean involves both a prosodic prominence on the quexistential
and the absence of prosodic boundaries between the quexistential and the corresponding interrogative complementizer.
Yun also claims, Tuttavia, that in interpretation, the absence of prosodic boundaries between the quexistential and the
interrogative complementizer is a much more important factor in ensuring a question interpretation than the presence of
prosodic prominence on the quexistential. Yun argues that her experiments are to be interpreted as showing that when
there is no prosodic prominence, the absence of prosodic boundaries gives rise to a question interpretation in 66% del
cases tested, while in the presence of prosodic boundaries, prosodic prominence gives rise to a question interpretation in
only 10% of the cases.
The production of Korean quexistentials is clearly in line both with Richards’s prosodic boundary generalization
and with the contrastive focus requirement. Yun’s experimental data regarding prosodic effects on the interpretation of
quexistentials are, we believe, also compatible with both generalizations. For this, Tuttavia, it is crucial that the contrastive
focus requirement only goes in one direction. Interrogative words need to be marked as contrastive foci. But this in itself
does not imply that quexistentials, when contrastively focused, must be interpreted interrogatively. In many languages
this does seem to be the case, but it is not forced by the contrastive focus requirement.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
590
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(51) Contrastive focus requirement on interrogative words
Interrogative words are generally marked using the same strategies that are used to
mark contrastive foci.
Above we have shown that languages may use syntactic (Hungarian), morphological (Gungbe),
and prosodic (Dutch and Korean) means to mark contrastive foci. And where languages use pro-
sodic means, these may vary across languages again, as shown above for Dutch (see footnote
13) and Korean (see footnote 14). The important point is, Tuttavia, that we predict that, Qualunque cosa
the strategy used to mark contrastive focus, interrogative words will be marked the same. Further-
more, we should note that in wh-movement languages fronted interrogative phrases are not neces-
sarily accented the way contrastive foci are. Infatti, in many cases they can be left completely
deaccented. Following Truckenbrodt (2013), we assume that in these languages, fronting of a
wh-word to a designated position in the left periphery is in itself a way to mark contrast.22 This
is in line with the observation that in many languages, contrastive foci can or even must appear
in exactly this position in the left periphery (Vedere, per esempio., Rizzi 1997, Aboh 2016).
We thus assume that in wh-movement languages like Dutch and English, interrogative phrases
generally require marking of contrastive focus, but that there are two ways of doing so, movement
and prosody. Independently, there is a requirement in these languages that in wh-questions, exactly
one interrogative phrase moves to the left periphery. This interrogative phrase, Poi, does not
require prosodic contrastive focus marking, while in-situ interrogative phrases do.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
22 Haida (2007) offers a different account. Namely, he assumes that the prosodic requirement on contrastively focused
constituents is that they receive the strongest pitch accent within their domain, and he suggests that this requirement is
trivially satisfied even in the absence of a prominent pitch accent if a wh-word moves to the left periphery, because in
that case the wh-word comes to form a focus domain on its own. In support of this proposal, Haida (2007:sec. 7.2.6)
points out that in German, even interrogative words that have moved to the left periphery sometimes require a prominent
pitch accent—namely, if they are part of a larger phrase that has been fronted as a whole, which means that they do not
form a focus domain on their own. Haida uses the following contrast to illustrate this:
(io) UN. WAS aus Gold mag er?
QUEX out.of gold likes he
‘What does he like that is made out of gold?’
B. Was aus GOLD mag er.
QUEX out.of gold
likes he
‘He likes something that is made out of gold.’
(Haida 2007:186)
It is not clear what predictions this account would make for a multiple question involving three wh-constituents (‘Who
gave what to whom?’) since the last two wh-constituents may end up being in the same domain. We leave a detailed
comparison of Haida’s and Truckenbrodt’s approaches for future work.
A reviewer rightly points out that in cases like (ii), the two wh-phrases must receive a prominent pitch accent, even
though both are fronted in their respective clauses.
(ii) Mary knows WHAT to read, but not WHEN.
We assume that in such cases there is an external contrast across the two clauses, in addition to an internal contrast
inside each clause (see section 4.4). The external contrast concerns the sortal restrictions of the two wh-phrases. A
account for the obligatory prosodic emphasis in such cases, we have to assume that the signaling of external contrast
always requires prosodic focus marking, even if the focused element moves to the left periphery.
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
591
If there is indeed a general requirement for interrogative phrases to be marked as contrastive
foci, we would of course like to understand why this is the case. To this we turn next.23 In section
4.3, we discuss existing accounts that aim to understand the relation between interrogatives and
contrastive focus. We then turn to our proposal in section 4.4.
4.3 Existing Accounts of the Contrastive Focus Requirement
There are several existing accounts of the contrastive focus requirement (either as a language-
particular constraint or as a crosslinguistic pattern). Most of these are synchronic accounts; one
is diachronic. The synchronic accounts can be divided into syntactic and semantic ones, E
among the semantic ones a further distinction can be made between two major approaches: one
that is based on the assumption that questions involve a question operator in the left periphery
that operates on focus alternatives generated by the associated wh-elements (and crashes if those
wh-elements do not generate focus alternatives), and one based on the assumption that focus
“activates” the latent inquisitive content of wh-elements. A schematic overview of the various
accounts is given in figure 4. We will discuss each in turn, starting with the syntactic ones.
4.3.1 The Diachronic Syntactic Approach Eckardt (2007) provides a diachronic account of
the focus requirement on question words. Specifically, she proposes that question words are
etymologically rooted in focused deictic elements. This proposal is motivated as follows:
Let us assume for a moment that we are speakers of a language which possesses deictic elements (Questo,
HE) and a way to form polar questions, but no wh-pronouns. What could be reasonable ways to ask
constituent questions? We could resort to polar questions with a focus like those in [(52)].
[(52)] UN. Do you want THIS?
B. Is the key HERE?
(Eckardt 2007:220)
Suppose that the deictic this in (52UN) refers in a given context to some object a. Then the question
In (52UN) asks whether or not the addressee wants a. Allo stesso tempo, Tuttavia, by virtue of the
focus on this, a range of alternative polar questions are evoked as well: whether the addressee
wants b, whether she wants c, whether she wants d, and so on. Eckardt suggests that there are
two possible reasons for a speaker to evoke this range of alternative polar questions:
23 We can’t but remark on the following curious absence of circumstances. Haspelmath (1997) shows that in many
languages, an indefinite is constructed on the basis of an interrogative word by the addition of extra morphology. Such
is the case of Modern Greek, Per esempio, as seen in (7). Inoltre, Haspelmath claims that the reverse is not observed.
Questo è, there is no language where the interrogative is constructed from the indefinite with the addition of some extra
morphology. As far as we know, no counterexample to this claim has been put forth. So now, imagine that there is a
language that, like Gungbe, marks focus with a particle but, unlike Gungbe, has quexistentials. Then, if focus on the
quexistential is necessary for the qu of quex, we would expect the reverse-Haspelmath pattern: for the ex of quex we
would have the plain quexistential, but for the qu of quex we would have the quexistential plus some added morpheme
(the focus particle). As just noted, no such language seems to have been found. This could be coincidental, in that no
language with quexistentials happens to have overt focus particles of this sort. But of course one is always wary of
coincidences. Inoltre, we should point out that the generalization that the qu of quex requires focus can itself also be
described as standing in tension with Haspelmath’s generalization: while in the domain of overt morphology, the indefinite
generally has “more” than the interrogative, when it comes to quexistentials, the qu of quex has “more” (cioè., focus) di
the ex of quex.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
592
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
Synchronic
approcci
Diachronic approach
Eckardt 2007
Syntactic
approcci
Haida 2007
Truckenbrodt 2013
Semantic
approcci
Question operators
require focus alternatives
Beck 2006
Cable 2010b
Kotek 2014
Uegaki 2018
Focus activates
latent inquisitive content
AnderBois 2012
Möller Kalpak 2018
Figura 4
Existing approaches to capturing the contrastive focus requirement
She might indicate that she intends to cover the alternative questions until she receives at least one
positive answer. Or she might indicate that she intends to cover the whole set of alternatives, asking
for exhaustive information. (Eckardt 2007:220)
Così, the overall communicative effects of the focused polar questions in (52) are very similar
to those of the corresponding wh-questions in (53).
(53) UN. What do you want?
B. Where is the key?
Eckardt proposes that it is plausible to expect that speakers of the restricted language, without
wh-questions, will over time reanalyze the pragmatic effects of polar questions with focused
deictic elements to be part of the conventional, semantic content of such constructions. The fo-
cused deictic element would then form the basis for the corresponding question word.24
If this is how question words come into existence, Eckardt proposes, it is to be expected
that they retain, at least to some extent, the formal features that realize focus in the language at
hand (prosody, a focus particle, or movement to a dedicated focus position). She refers to this
as lexical focus and distinguishes it from bona fide focus. The lexical focus on question words
reflects their diachronic roots, but does not contribute anything to their synchronic semantic
interpretation. In particular, question words with lexical focus do not generate focus alternatives,
unlike items with bona fide focus.
Finalmente, Eckardt (2007:222–223) proposes that question words, as interpreted in her frame-
lavoro, may receive the interpretation of an existential indefinite through a simple shift in semantic
24 This approach predicts a typological affinity between question words and deictic elements. Eckardt (2007:221)
suggests that some evidence supporting this prediction can be found in sign languages.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
593
type.25 She discusses the fact that the existential interpretation of question words generally requires
the absence of any formal features realizing focus. She notes, Tuttavia, that this is not predicted
on her account: the shift in semantic type from question words to existential indefinites is not
connected in any way on the proposed account to a loss of lexical focus.
Let us now comment on the various aspects of Eckardt’s proposal. Primo, while Eckardt
provides interesting motivation for the idea that question words are etymologically rooted in
focused deictic elements, if this were the only way for question words to come into existence,
one would expect to see a stronger typological affinity between question words and deictic ele-
menti. D'altra parte, if the route that Eckardt describes is just one way for question words
to come into existence, we would expect to see a considerable number of languages in which
question words are not necessarily focused. But at present there is no evidence that such languages
exist.
Secondo, if question words are formed on the basis of focused deictic elements, it is plausible
that they would initially retain the formal features that realize focus. Tuttavia, one would expect
that these formal features would in many cases erode over time. Certamente, in languages where
focus is realized prosodically, it would be natural for the prosodic features that question words
would initially inherit from their deictic ancestors to disappear in later stages of grammaticaliza-
zione. Tuttavia, if this is indeed a natural possibility, the theory does not lead us to expect question
words to be focused across so many languages today. Piuttosto, it would predict that question words
would only involve lexical focus in languages that have resisted erosion.
Finalmente, as noted by Eckardt herself and already mentioned above, the account does not
explain why question words with lexical focus would lose their lexical focus property when used
as indefinites.
4.3.2 Synchronic Syntactic Approaches The proposals by Haida (2007) and Truckenbrodt
(2013) are syntactic in nature as far as the contrastive focus requirement on interrogative phrases
is concerned. Essentially, they assume that interrogative phrases must enter into an Agree relation
with a question operator in the left periphery. Inoltre, this Agree relation requires the presence
of an F-feature on the interrogative phrase, which has the same prosodic reflexes as the F-feature
on contrastive foci. We should say at the outset that neither account explains why the F-feature
should be necessary to mediate this Agree relationship (other than the fact that we know that
focus is present on wh-words).
While both Haida and Truckenbrodt assume that interrogative phrases and contrastive foci
must carry an F-feature with the same prosodic reflexes, there are also differences between the
two accounts. In particular, for Haida the F-feature on an interrogative phrase must be accompanied
by a wh-feature; otherwise, an Agree relationship with the question operator is not possible. Questo
prevents non-wh contrastive foci from being interpreted as standing in an Agree relationship with
a question operator. In other words, in Haida’s account the F-feature, while necessary, is not suf-
25 We do not discuss the details of this semantic type shift here, since they are not immediately relevant for our
purposes and would require an exposition of the particular type-theoretic framework that Eckardt introduces. While
interesting in its own right, this would take us too far afield here.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
594
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
ficient to establish an Agree relationship between the question operator and the wh-word; a wh-
feature must be present as well.
Truckenbrodt does not assume wh-features in addition to F-features. Tuttavia, on his account
the F-feature on interrogative phrases has a completely different syntactic and semantic status
from the F-feature on contrastive foci. What they share is just their prosody.
These proposals, while capturing the empirical generalization, do not explain why interroga-
tive words would have to be marked as contrastive foci.
Inoltre, an empirical issue for Haida’s account is that it predicts focus on wh-words to
be both necessary and sufficient to yield an interrogative interpretation. As already briefly men-
tioned in section 3 and discussed in much more detail in section 5, this prediction is at first sight
not always borne out. For instance, in example (33), repeated here, focus on Dutch wat, Quale
might be a wh-item on Haida’s assumptions, is not always sufficient to force an interrogative
interpretation.
(33) UN: Heeft Miranda haar huiswerk ingeleverd?
has Miranda her homework submitted
‘Has Miranda submitted her homework?’
B: Nou, ze heeft WEL↑ WAT↓ ingeleverd maar NIET↑ VEEL↓.
BENE, she has VF
non
‘Well, she did submit something but not much.’
QUEX submitted but
much
4.3.3 First Synchronic Semantic Approach: Question Operators Require Focus Alternatives We
now turn to a possible semantic account of the focus requirement on question words, based on
the work of Beck (2006).26 We should note at the outset that Beck herself did not present her
proposal as an account of the focus requirement on question words; Piuttosto, she viewed it as an
account of so-called focus intervention effects in questions. Tuttavia, when viewed from a slightly
different angle, the proposal may be seen as providing an account of the focus requirement on
question words as well—and this interpretation of the proposal is of course the one that is most
relevant here.
We will first briefly present the original motivation for Beck’s proposal, and the core assump-
tions of the account. Then we will clarify how it could be viewed as providing an account of the
focus requirement on question words. Finalmente, we will critically discuss the proposal, both as an
account of intervention effects and as an account of the focus requirement on question words
(with the caveat, Ancora, that Beck herself never claimed to provide an account of the latter).
Let us first illustrate what focus intervention effects in questions are. Consider the examples
In (54) E (55) (we use German examples here because demonstrating focus intervention effects
in English requires more complex constructions; see Pesetsky 2000, Beck 2006, and Kotek 2019
for discussion).
26 See also Cable 2010b, Kotek 2014, and Uegaki 2018 for further elaborations of Beck’s (2006) theory of the
semantics of questions.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
595
(54) Wen hat Karl wo
getroffen?
who has Karl where met
‘Who did Karl meet where?’
(adapted from Beck 1996:4)
(55) *Wen hat nur Karl wo
getroffen?
who has only Karl where met
Intended: ‘Who did only Karl meet where?’
(Beck 1996:31)
While (54) is interpreted as a multiple wh-question, inserting the focus-sensitive operator nur
‘only’ in (55) makes this interpretation unavailable. Such intervention effects have been observed
to arise in many typologically unrelated languages (per esempio., Kim 2002, Beck 2006). According to
Beck (2006), this is because a wh-word generates focus alternatives, and these alternatives must
be visible to the interrogative complementizer (more specifically, the complementizer turns these
focus alternatives into alternatives in the ordinary semantic value of the question, representing
its inquisitive content). Focus-sensitive operators like nur ‘only’ “consume” any focus alternatives
that are generated within its scope, and make these focus alternatives invisible for operators out-
side of its scope. Così, in a configuration like (55) nur ‘only’ makes the focus alternatives
generated by wo ‘where’ invisible for the interrogative complementizer. Beck proposes that this
gives rise to uninterpretability.27
On Beck’s account of intervention effects, Poi, for a lexical item to function as a question
word, it must generate focus alternatives. After all, if an interrogative complementizer receives
no focus alternatives as input, it will never output a set of alternatives in the ordinary semantic
value of the sentence representing the inquisitive content of a wh-question. Così, the proposal
explains why question words need to be focused.
We will discuss two issues for Beck’s proposal (see Eckardt 2007, Mayr 2014, and Li and
Legge 2016 for further critical discussion of the approach). The first issue concerns the original
motivation for the proposal based on intervention effects. For the approach to deliver an account
of focus intervention effects in questions, it is crucial that focus-sensitive operators like only are
assumed to be unselective—that is, that they operate on all focus alternatives that are generated
within their scope. Tuttavia, as Beck (2006: sec. 5.2) herself discusses, the validity of this assump-
tion is controversial. Consider example (56).
(56) UN. John only introduced SUE to his mother.
B. He also only introduced SUE to his FATHER.
(adapted from Krifka 1991:130)
27 While Beck’s account of focus intervention effects in questions has been very influential, various alternative
accounts have been proposed as well. For instance, some have argued that a semantic anomaly (a type mismatch or a
logical contradiction) arises when a wh-word appears in the scope of a focus-sensitive operator like only or even (Haida
2007, Eckardt 2007), and still others have proposed that wh-words generate alternatives in the ordinary semantic value
of a sentence (rather than focus alternatives) and that a clash arises when these interact with focus alternatives in the
compositional interpretation of a question (Li and Law 2016, Kotek 2017).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
596
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
In (56B), only associates with the focus alternatives generated by SUE, while also associates with
the focus alternatives generated by FATHER. Krifka (1991) and Wold (1996), among others, Avere
concluded from such observations that focus-sensitive operators can be selective; questo è, they do
not necessarily associate with all focus alternatives generated within their scope. If this conclusion
is valid, Beck’s account of focus intervention effects in questions cannot be right.
Tuttavia, there is no full consensus yet as to whether the conclusion is indeed valid. Beck
(2006:sec. 5.2) surveys further literature on this topic and also presents a small empirical study.
The results of this study are mixed. Whether unselective association is possible seems to depend
both on the specific focus-sensitive operators involved and on the language/dialect under consider-
ation (Beck tested in English and German, and found variation between the two languages as
well as within each language among different speakers/dialects). Ovviamente, it may be that focus
intervention effects in questions arise exactly with those focus-sensitive operators and for those
speakers that do not allow for selective association with focus alternatives. Questo, Tuttavia, remains
to be investigated. For now, it is an open issue whether focus intervention effects in questions
correlate with the impossibility of selective association.28
The second issue for Beck’s proposal that we will discuss pertains both to the underlying
motivation based on intervention effects and to the explanation of the focus requirement on
question words. The crucial observation is that focused non-wh-words cannot be interpreted as
question words. For instance, (57UN) can only be interpreted as a polar question, not as a wh-
question, E (57B) can only be interpreted as a single wh-question, not as a multiple wh-question.
(57) UN. Did BILL vote for you? (cid:2)/ Who voted for you?
B. Who did BILL vote for? (cid:2)/ Who voted for whom?
This means that generating focus alternatives is not sufficient for an item to be interpreted as a
question word. As a consequence, it must be assumed under Beck’s approach that the interrogative
operator, let’s call it Q, is a selective focus-sensitive operator: it can only associate with focus
alternatives generated by wh-words, not with focus alternatives generated by non-wh-words. Questo
28 A possible additional issue for Beck’s theory of intervention effects in questions concerns the assumption that
focus-sensitive operators like only always “reset” the focus semantic value, making the focus alternatives that they operate
on invisible outside of their scope. Schwarzschild (1993) and Bu¨ring (2016:sec. 10.5.4) have argued that this assumption
is not valid. Consider the following example:
(io) UN. John once only drank CIDER for a whole week.
B. He also once only drank WINE for a whole week.
(adapted from Bu¨ring 2016:291)
In (ib), both also and only seem to associate with the focus alternatives generated by WINE. This would be impossible
if only made the alternatives that it operates on invisible for also. This is problematic for Beck’s account of focus
intervention effects, because the account crucially assumes that when only appears in a question, it makes all the focus
alternatives that are generated within its scope invisible for the interrogative complementizer. Under this view, one would
expect to see similar intervention effects in examples such as (ib).
A possible response to this criticism, Tuttavia, would be that also in (ib) in fact does not necessarily associate with
focus alternatives generated by WINE. Another possibility might be that, besides the narrow focus on WINE there is also
broad focus on the entire VP, only drank WINE for a whole week. The additive presupposition that also generates would
then not be that there is something else, besides wine, that John once drank for a whole week; Piuttosto, it would be that
there is some other weird/extreme thing, besides only drinking wine for a whole week, that John once did. The satisfaction
of this presupposition is ensured by (ia).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
597
weakens the motivation for the proposal based on intervention effects. After all, the account needs
to assume that Q is selective, while other focus-sensitive operators such as only are not. Apart
from the fact that the empirical validity of the latter assumption is controversial (as discussed
above), the presumed difference between Q and other focus-sensitive operators would have to be
explained.
Allo stesso tempo, the fact that Q can only associate with alternatives generated by wh-words
also undermines the explanation of the focus requirement on question words. On the proposed
account, Q is looking for focus alternatives, so question words need to provide such alternatives.
This entails their focus requirement. Tuttavia, since “wh-related focus alternatives” must be sep-
arated from other focus alternatives (so as to avoid the possibility that all focused items could
be interpreted as question words), there is nothing really substantial about the fact that “wh-related
focus alternatives” are treated as a kind of focus alternatives. The account may just as well assume,
for instance, that wh-words are variables (unrelated to focus) and that Q generates alternatives in
the ordinary semantic value of the question corresponding to the possible values of the associated
wh-variables. This account would derive the same semantic values for questions as Beck’s original
account, except it would not entail a focus requirement on question words. This means that the
original account does not really provide an explanation for the focus requirement either.
4.3.4 Second Synchronic Semantic Approach: Focus Activates Latent Inquisitive Content The
proposals of AnderBois (2012) and Mo¨ller Kalpak (2018) are also semantic in nature, but differ
substantially from Beck’s (2006). For concreteness, we focus here on AnderBois’s proposal,
though our main concerns also apply to Mo¨ller Kalpak’s.
AnderBois argues that in Yucatec Maya, wh-questions are formed using quexistentials
marked as contrastive foci.29 If these quexistentials are not marked as contrastive foci, they are
interpreted as existentials. AnderBois proposes that quexistentials have both informative content,
conveying that there is some individual with a certain property, and inquisitive content—namely,
the issue of which individual it is that has the given property (see Groenendijk and Roelofsen
2009). He proposes, Tuttavia, that the inquisitive content is in some sense latent: the issue is
only raised if the informative content of the sentence is trivial in the context of utterance. For
instance:
(58) Yan ma´ax t-u
le
sa’-o’.
yuk’-aj
exists QUEX PFV-A.3 drink-STATUS DEF atole-DISTAL
‘QUEX drank the atole.’
Informative content: ‘Someone drank the atole.’
Latent inquisitive content: ‘Who was it?’
(AnderBois 2012:361)
29 It is not clear to us whether Yucatec Maya has quexistentials in the strict sense in which we have defined the
term, since the relevant elements seem to always be accompanied by some additional morphology on their existential
reading. However this may be, AnderBois’s proposal is very relevant here, since we are interested in the contrast require-
ment on interrogative phrases in general (quexistential or not).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
598
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
Against this background, AnderBois proposes that when contrastive focus is placed on the quexis-
tential, it contributes an existential presupposition (cioè., the presupposition that some individual
has the given property), which renders the informative content of the sentence contextually trivial.
Questo, in turn, “activates” the latent inquisitive content of the sentence, which results in an interroga-
tive interpretation.
So on AnderBois’s proposal, a semantic reflex of contrastive focus that has been indepen-
dently argued for in other work (Vedere, per esempio., Geurts and van der Sandt 2004)—namely, an existential
presupposition—makes it possible, and is in fact necessary, for a quexistential to get an interroga-
tive interpretation in Yucatec Mayan.
Tuttavia, when applied to other languages this type of account encounters a number of
challenges. One question that the account leaves unanswered is why nonquexistential interrogative
phrases generally require contrastive focus marking just as much as quexistential interrogative
frasi. Since nonquexistential interrogative phrases are always interrogative (cioè., do not allow
for a plain existential interpretation), it would be natural to assume that their inquisitive content
is not “latent” but surfaces automatically. Why, Poi, do such phrases still need contrastive focus
marking?
Let us make this point in somewhat more general terms. One of the fundamental ideas behind
AnderBois’s account is that contrastive focus is necessary in order for quexistentials to receive
an interrogative interpretation. So the assumed causal connection between contrastive focus and
interrogative interpretation is as follows:
(59) contrastive focus ⇒ interrogative interpretation
Our point is that, if this is indeed the causal connection, it is unclear why purely interrogative
(nonquexistential) phrases require contrastive focus marking as well.30
4.4 Our Proposal: Inverting the Causal Connection
We propose that the causal connection between contrastive focus and interrogative interpretation
is as in (60) (cioè., the opposite direction from (59), repeated here).
(59) contrastive focus ⇒ interrogative interpretation
30 Inoltre, even if we consider just quexistentials, AnderBois’s account encounters a difficult challenge when we
consider multiple wh-questions with in-situ quexistentials in languages like Dutch. For instance:
(io) Wie heeft hem wat/WAT gegeven?
who has him QUEX
‘Who gave him something/WHAT?’
given
The problem that such cases present for AnderBois’s account is the following. A central assumption of the account is
that the inquisitive content of a wh-word is “activated” if and only if the informative content of the sentence in which
it appears is trivial in the context of utterance. Now, the inquisitive content of wie in (io) is always activated, no matter
whether the quexistential wat is focused or not. So, apparently, the informative content of the sentence is always trivial,
in any context of utterance. But then, the inquisitive content of the quexistential should also always be activated, NO
matter what its prosody is like. Questo, Tuttavia, is not the case. The quexistential is only interpreted as a question word
when stressed in sentences like (io).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
599
(60) interrogative interpretation ⇒ contrastive focus
In other words, contrastive focus does not automatically and necessarily yield an interrogative
interpretation. Piuttosto, it is the other way around: phrases that receive an interrogative interpretation
must generally be marked as contrastive foci. This in fact naturally follows, we propose, from
only a slight generalization of existing theories of contrastive focus.
To develop this idea, we must first briefly review what we take to be a common view on
contrastive focus. To do so, we consider a simple case that involves contrastive focus but has
nothing to do with interrogativity.
(61) UN: Tom married Kim.
B: No, Tom married SAM.
B’s response, Tom married Sam, contrasts with A’s initial statement, Tom married Kim, and this
contrast is signaled by the focal stress on Sam. Many theories of contrastive focus (from Rooth
1992 to Bu¨ring 2016 and Kratzer and Selkirk 2018) essentially hold that in order to mark some
constituent E as contrasting with another constituent E′, a speaker places focus on subconstituents
of E in such a way that the focus semantic value of E (F) has the ordinary semantic value of E′
(O) as one of its elements. This is exactly what happens in (61), because the focus semantic value
of B’s response is as shown in (62), and this set contains the ordinary semantic value of A’s
initial statement.
(62) (cid:2)Tom married SAMF(cid:3)F (cid:2)
(cid:2)Tom married Sam(cid:3)O,
(cid:2)Tom married Kim(cid:3)O,
(cid:2)Tom married Lyn(cid:3)O,
. . .
Let us make this a bit more general and precise. The basic effect of marking a constituent
E with contrastive focus is to evoke a set of alternatives to the ordinary semantic value of E.
These alternatives, together with the ordinary semantic value itself, make up the focus semantic
value of E. Marking a constituent with contrastive focus and thereby evoking alternatives may
be done for a number of reasons. For instance, the alternatives may serve as input for focus-
sensitive operators like only. But another reason to evoke focus alternatives, most relevant here,
is to signal the presence of contrasting alternatives in the discourse. It is assumed that speakers
should signal the presence of contrasting alternatives in the discourse by means of focus whenever
they can, while on the other hand they should never “overfocus”—that is, they should not focus
constituents without any purpose (per esempio., Schwarzschild 1999).
In (63), we summarize the three main tenets of the common view on the use of focus to
signal the presence of contrasting alternatives.
(63) UN. Focus semantics: Every focused expression has both an ordinary semantic value
and a focus semantic value. The focus semantic value of a sentence is a set whose
elements are called focus alternatives.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
600
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
B. Using focus to signal the presence of contrasting alternatives in the discourse:
Placing focus on a constituent can be done for several reasons. One of them is to
signal that an expression E contrasts with another expression E′ in the discourse.
This is done by placing focus on a subconstituent of E in such a way that (cid:2)E(cid:3)F
contains (cid:2)E′(cid:3)O.
C. Pragmatics of focus placement: Whenever the presence of a contrasting expression
in the discourse can be signaled by means of focus, this should be done. On the
other hand, overfocusing should be avoided; questo è, constituents should not be fo-
cused without a reason.
Note that this view as such does not account for the contrastive focus requirement on interrogative
parole. Suppose A walks up to her colleague B and says the following:
(64) UN. I may want to attend the workshop that you are organizing next week.
B. WHO will be presenting WHAT?
Clearly, there is no sentence in the discourse that the question in (64B) could possibly be taken
to contrast with. So at first blush, there seems to be no reason for the (optional) contrastive accent
on who and the (obligatory) contrastive accent on what.31
Tuttavia, we will propose a generalization of the common view that provides an explanation
for these facts. The crucial observation underlying this generalization is that it is implicitly assumed
In (63B) that the type of contrast that speakers signal by means of focus is always a contrast be-
tween two different expressions. In our example above, these two expressions are Tom married
Kim and Tom married Sam. The ordinary semantic value of each of these expressions is usually
taken to be a proposition. So the contrast is taken to involve two propositions. Focus is placed
on a subconstituent of the second sentence, Sam, such that the focus semantic value of this sentence
contains both of the contrasting propositions.
Now consider the question in (65).
(65) Who did Tom marry?
This question can be resolved in a number of ways: by providing the information that Tom married
Sam, that he married Kim, that he married Lyn, and so on. We propose that it is natural to think
of these possible resolutions as contrasting with each other in much the same way as Tom married
Kim and Tom married Sam contrast with each other in the dialogue in (61).
To make this more precise, let us assume—in line with theories of questions based on
Hamblin 1973, Karttunen 1977, or Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984, as well as more recent theories
based on inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen 2018)—that the ordinary
31 We noted in section 4.2 that in English, wh-phrases that have moved to the left periphery are often not stressed.
This is true in particular for single wh-questions like Who will be presenting the results? Tuttavia, in multiple wh-
questions like (64B), it seems most natural for the wh-word in the left periphery to be stressed, just like the in-situ wh-
word. Truckenbrodt (2013) notices this fact, but also states that there still seems to be optionality and that the exact data
are unclear. Like him, we will leave further exploration of this issue for future work.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
601
semantic value of a question is (or at least determines) a set of propositions, each corresponding
to a minimal piece of information resolving the question. For (65), this set of propositions is
given in (66). Note that it contains exactly the same propositions as the focus semantic value of
Tom married SAM, which was given in (62).
(66) (cid:2)Who did Tom marry?(cid:3)O (cid:2)
(cid:2)Tom married Sam(cid:3)O,
(cid:2)Tom married Kim(cid:3)O,
(cid:2)Tom married Lyn(cid:3)O,
. . .
The idea is that these propositions (cioè., these alternative resolutions of the question) contrast with
each other, and that this contrast must be signaled by contrastively focusing a subconstituent of
the question in such a way that the focus semantic value of the question contains the contrasting
propositions. This means contrastively focusing who (under the assumption that the focus alterna-
tives of who are Sam, Kim, Lyn, eccetera.)—for, if who is focused, the focus semantic value of the
question becomes the following:32
(67) (cid:2)WhoF did Tom marry?(cid:3)F (cid:2)
(cid:2)Tom married Sam(cid:3)O,
(cid:2)Tom married Kim(cid:3)O,
(cid:2)Tom married Lyn(cid:3)O,
. . .
Note that, Infatti, as a result of focusing who, the contrasting propositions in the ordinary semantic
value of the question, given in (66), are all elements of the focus semantic value of the question
In (67). So focusing who successfully signals the presence of contrasting propositions.
As discussed above, we assume that in languages like English and Dutch, contrastive focus
on wh-words manifests itself either as movement to a designated position in the left periphery,
or prosodically, or both. So in (65), prosodic marking of focus is not necessary because the wh-
word has moved to the left periphery, but in the case of in-situ wh-words prosodic marking of
contrastive focus is necessary.
What does it mean, Poi, for a speaker uttering an expression E in a context C to signal
contrast by means of focus? As reviewed above, Rooth (1992) and others have proposed that this
means for the speaker to place focus on a subexpression of E in such a way that the focus semantic
value of E includes the ordinary semantic value of some other expression E′ that has been used
in context C.
We propose something slightly more general: namely, that in order to signal a contrast, UN
speaker places focus on a subconstituent of E in such a way that the focus semantic value of E
includes at least two (nonidentical) alternatives (cid:3)E (cid:4)such that (cid:3)is an element of the ordinary
semantic value of E, E (cid:4)is an element of the ordinary semantic value of some expression used
32 We assume here that the ordinary semantic value of an expression is not an element of the focus semantic value
of that expression. Tuttavia, our account of the focus requirement on question words does not hinge on this assumption.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
602
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
in C, which may be either E itself or some other expression E′.33 Given this general notion of
what it means to signal a contrast by means of focus, we can identify two special cases:
(68) Internal contrast
When (cid:4)is an element of the ordinary semantic value of E itself, we say that the signaled
contrast is internal.
(69) External contrast
When (cid:4)is an element of the ordinary semantic value of some expression other than
E, we say that the signaled contrast is external.
External contrast is exactly the same as the standard Roothian notion of contrast. On the other
hand, internal contrast is the one that is relevant for questions. The fact that both are subcases
of a single more general notion makes it natural for languages to mark them in the same way,
although it is also imaginable that certain languages mark them differently.34
Let us return now to the common view on contrastive focus, whose three main tenets we
summarized in (63). What we propose is to leave the first and third tenets untouched, but to
slightly adapt the second one in view of our more general notion of contrast. Questo è, we propose
to replace (63B) by (70).
(70) Using focus to signal contrast (generalized): Placing focus on a constituent can be
done for several reasons. One of them is to signal a contrast. This is done by placing
focus on a subconstituent of an expression E in such a way that (cid:2)E(cid:3)F includes at least
two (nonidentical) alternatives (cid:3)E (cid:4)such that (cid:3)is an element of (cid:2)E(cid:3)O and (cid:4)is an
element of the ordinary semantic value of some expression used in the context, Quale
may be either E itself or some other expression E′.
Together with the pragmatics of focus placement in (63C), this generalized notion of contrast
accounts for the fact that interrogative words (whether quexistential or not) generally must be
focused. On this account, the focus on interrogative words signals an internal contrast. Depending
on the way(S) in which focus is generally expressed in a given language, the focus on interroga-
tive words may manifest itself through movement, prosody, a focus particle, or a combination of
these.
Let us sum up what we have established so far on how the qu of quex interacts with stress
and focus. Primo, we have shown that an in-situ qu of quex in a language like Dutch always re-
33 For this to make sense not just in case E and E′ are interrogatives but also when they are declaratives, we must
assume that both declaratives and interrogatives express sets of propositions. This assumption is made both in Hamblin
semantics (Hamblin 1973) and in inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen 2018). In Hamblin seman-
tic, declarative sentences express singleton sets of propositions; in inquisitive semantics, they express sets of propositions
with a single maximal element. For instance, in Hamblin semantics (cid:2)Bill left(cid:3)O is a set containing a single proposi-
tion—namely, the proposition that Bill left, (cid:5)(cid:5)w | Bill left in w(cid:6)(cid:6). In inquisitive semantics. (cid:2)Bill left(cid:3)O is the set of all
propositions entailing that Bill left, (cid:5)P | ∀w (cid:2) P : Bill left in w(cid:6). Our proposal can be implemented naturally in either
of these frameworks. For comparison of the two, see Ciardelli and Roelofsen 2017, Ciardelli, Roelofsen, and Theiler
2017, and Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen 2018.
34 Recall from footnote 18 that according to Truckenbrodt (2013), the prosodic effects of focus on in-situ interrogative
words in German and English are “reduced” in a particular way. We speculate that in these languages, reduced prosodic
focus effects signal internal contrast while nonreduced prosodic effects signal external contrast. Tuttavia, this is a mere
speculation at this point. Further investigation is needed.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
603
quires focal stress. Secondo, following Haida (2007) and others, we have suggested that this fact is
a particular instance of a much more general pattern—namely, that interrogative words (whether
quexistential or not) always require contrastive focus marking. We have argued that existing ac-
counts of this generalization are not fully satisfactory, and we have offered an alternative account.
We should (Rif)emphasize that while our proposal predicts a tight connection between con-
trastive focus and wh-questions, we do not run the risk of being confronted with questions like
“Why isn’t it the case that focus on any pronoun/noun yields a question?” The reason is that we
do not take contrastive focus to be an ingredient in the construction of inquisitiveness. In this
article, we say nothing about the source of the latter. What we do say is that once inquisitiveness
enters the picture, contrastive focus follows it (in the case of wh-questions; polar questions are
a different matter and remain to be explored from this perspective, possibly in relation to the
expression of verum focus).
We now turn from the qu of quex to the ex of quex.
5 Stress and Focus on the Ex of Quex
We have shown that a quexistential in the qu of quex interpretation behaves just like any nonquex-
istential interrogative word when it comes to stress and focus. In this section, we will ask a related
question for the ex of quex: to what extent does the ex of quex behave like nonquexistential in-
definites when it comes to stress and focus?
We already argued in section 3 that an account of how the ex of quex relates to focus will
not be sufficient on its own to capture the relation between the ex of quex and stress in general.
This is because we would expect that in an out-of-the-blue context, without focus on any particular
constituent, the ex of quex should receive stress when it is in a position that normally receives
stress in default prosody. But this is not the case, as we already illustrated with Dutch examples
(36) E (37), repeated in (71) E (72).
(71) Miranda heeft wat geGEten.
Miranda has QUEX eaten
‘Miranda has eaten something.’
(72) *Miranda heeft WAT gegeten.
Miranda has QUEX eaten
Intended: ‘Miranda has eaten something.’
This means that we are faced with two tasks: to understand the relation between the ex of quex
and stress in default prosody, and separately from that, to understand the relation between the ex
of quex and focus. Starting with the first question, we will show that the ex of quex behaves like
nonquexistential indefinites.
5.1 The Impossibility of Stress on the Ex of Quex in Default Prosody
In this section, we discuss the ex of quex as it relates to stress in default prosody. In the following
sections, we will look at focus. We propose that (72) is ruled out by general prosodic constraints,
which prohibit stress in default prosody falling on existential quantifiers across the board. Infatti,
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
604
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
the Dutch nonquexexistential existential iets ‘something’ shows the same behavior. It does not
receive a pitch accent in default prosody even when it is in the position where that accent is
usually placed; instead, the accent shifts to the verb.35
(73) Miranda heeft iets
Miranda has
‘Miranda ate something.’
something eaten
geGEten.
(74) #Miranda heeft IETS
Miranda has
Intended: ‘Miranda ate something.’
something eaten
gegeten.
The fact that existential quantifiers resist a pitch accent in default prosody is known. It also
manifests itself in English. The examples in (75) show that the existential quantifier does not
receive stress in default prosody even when it appears in a position where such stress is usually
placed, as seen in (75C).
(75) UN.
I SMELL something.
B. #I smell SOMEthing.
I smell DUMPlings.
C.
(Bu¨ring 2016:146, adapted)
Why would this be? One proposed line of reasoning is that the existential is a functional item
and thereby incapable of receiving stress in default prosody, which is reserved for lexical items
(see Bu¨ring 2016 for discussion and references). One difficulty for this hypothesis is that one
would have to assume that just existential quantifiers are functional items, because other quantifiers
(per esempio., English everything or Dutch alles) have no problem receiving stress in default prosody (Vedere
also Wagner 2006 for a critique of accounts based on the existential’s not being able to receive
stress because it is a functional item).
At least two alternative proposals exist. Wagner (2006) argues that existential quantifiers
are always deaccented because they trivially meet the requirements for givenness, and given items
are generally deaccented. Ahn (2015), on the other hand, provides an account that relies on the
assumption that the syntax of existentials like something differs from that of DPs like dumplings
in a way that is relevant for the mechanism that assigns stress in default prosody.
Whatever the right account of this general phenomenon is, it is clear that the pattern involving
quexistentials on their existential use should be seen as a particular instance of it. There is no
reason to believe that there is something special about the inability of quexistentials on their
existential use to receive stress in default prosody. The contrast in (71)–(72) is due to something
that is not specific to quexistentials, but rather is common to all existential quantifiers (their in-
herent givenness status if Wagner (2006) is right, or their syntactic status if Ahn (2015) is right).
The next question is whether it is possible for the ex of quex to receive stress due to contras-
tive focus rather than default prosody. We address this question in the next two sections.
35 We use # to mark examples whose stress pattern diverges from default prosody; see also footnote 15.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
605
5.2 Contrastive Focus on the Ex of Quex
The QF biconditional as stated by Haida (2007) and others appears to stand on firm empirical
ground. Haida shows that the part of the biconditional that precludes focus on the ex of quex
holds for German, and we have found that it also holds for Russian.
When it comes to the ex of quex not being able to receive nuclear stress in default prosody,
the facts in German and Russian are the same as in Dutch: like other existential indefinites, IL
ex of quex resists it.
As for contrastive focus, the ex of quex in German and Russian also abides by the QF bicondi-
tional: namely, it never receives stress due to contrastive focus.36
(76) German
Sie hat was/*WAS abgegeben, aber nicht viel.
she has QUEX
submitted but not much
‘She did submit something but not much.’
(77) Russian
MoÅet, SU ??to/*Cˇ TO pro?ital, no ne o?en’ mnogo.
maybe he QUEX
‘Maybe he read something but not very much.’
but not very much
read
In German, it is possible to use stress to signal the contrast in (76), but only if it is placed either
on the auxiliary hat ‘has’ or on a nonquexistential existential quantifier, etwas ‘something’.
(78) UN. Sie HAT was abgegeben, aber nicht viel.
she has QUEX submitted but not much
‘She did submit something but not much.’
B. Sie hat ETwas
abgegeben, aber nicht viel.
she has something submitted but not much
‘She did submit something but not much.’
Russian behaves the same way as German: while the ex of quex cannot be contrastively focused,
the language has a series of other indefinites that can.
36 Superficially, the same pattern holds for Passamaquoddy.
(io) ’Kisuwikhomon keq/*KEQ, ma tehpu wikhikon.
he.wrote.it
QUEX
‘He wrote something, but not a book.’
not only book
Tuttavia, Passamaquoddy should not be treated on a par with German or Russian in this discussion. The reason is that
while Passamaquoddy does have nonquexistential indefinites, for the meanings ‘someone’ and ‘something’ it only has
quexistentials, no nonquexistential indefinites. Di conseguenza, it is not possible to compare the ex of quex with a nonquexisten-
tial indefinite. In a way, Poi, this example shows that no indefinite can be stressed in Passamaquoddy, not just the ex
of quex. So we leave Passamaquoddy out of this discussion for now, or at least until we have learned more about the
expression of contrastive focus in this language (as mentioned earlier, the Passamaquoddy stress system is quite different
overall from that of languages like English and Dutch; see LeSourd 1993).
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
606
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
So far, Poi, the relation between quexistentials and focus does appear to be a biconditional.
We have proposed an explanation for why the qu of quex requires focus (and in this we showed
that the qu of quex behaves like other interrogative words). We have shown that on the ex of
quex interpretation, the quexistential resists stress associated with default prosody (and in this
we showed that the ex of quex behaves like other existentials). Finalmente, in this section we showed
that in German and Russian, the ex of quex cannot receive contrastive focus either (in this, IL
German and Russian quexistentials differ from other indefinites in those languages). It would
seem, Poi, that this is the last part of the QF biconditional that needs an explanation.
Tuttavia, it may be that the conclusion that the ex of quex cannot be contrastively focused
is too hasty, and that the “QF biconditional” is not a biconditional at all, but a one-way entailment.
In other words, before we try to explain a phenomenon as universal, or at least as being of
significant crosslinguistic stability, we need to make sure it is indeed that. In the next section,
we show that Dutch provides a potential counterexample to this part of the QF biconditional. Noi
will thus find ourselves faced with two logical possibilities: either we decide that the relation
between the ex of quex and contrastive focus is not captured by the QF biconditional (in which
case we will need to investigate the difference between German and Russian on the one hand
and Dutch on the other), or we try to find grounds for removing Dutch as a counterexample. Noi
attempt this in section 5.4.
5.3 Focal Stress on the Ex of Quex in Dutch
In this section, we will give several examples involving focal stress on the ex of quex in Dutch.
Since all these examples will involve verum focus, we should start with a general point about
verum focus in Dutch. In corrective statements such as (79B), verum focus is expressed using
the particle wel with a strong falling pitch accent.37
(79) UN: Miranda is niet weggegaan.
Miranda is not left
‘Miranda didn’t leave.’
B: Ze is WEL↓ weggegaan.
she is VF
left
‘She DID leave.’
Note that this is different from English, which expresses verum focus by means of an accented
auxiliary verb, as in She DID leave, She HAS left, She IS studying. This is impossible in Dutch.
The same pattern occurs in response to a question that is biased toward a negative answer.
(80) UN: Miranda is niet weggegaan toch?
Miranda is not left
right
‘Miranda didn’t leave, did she?’
37 The term verum focus goes back to Ho¨hle 1992. For more background on the use of Dutch wel, see Hogeweg
2009. After Sassen 1985, Hogeweg analyzes wel as a double negation.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
607
B: Ze is WEL↓ weggegaan.
she is VF
left
‘She DID leave.’
When the question is neutral, stressed wel is not felicitous. Unstressed wel is possible but only
as part of a more elaborate answer that itself involves a contrast.
(81) UN:
Is Miranda weggegaan?
is Miranda left
‘Did Miranda leave?’
B: *Ze is WEL↓ weggegaan.
she is VF
left
‘She DID leave.’
C: Ze is (wel) WEGgegaan↑ maar NIET↑ op TIJD↓.
she is (VF) gone
‘She did leave, but not in time.’
Ma
non
in time
With this background in mind, let us turn to contrastive focus on the ex of quex.
5.3.1 Reponses to Negative Assertions and Negatively Biased Questions
In response to a nega-
tive assertion or a negatively biased question, stressed wel appears again. The stress on wel here
is the falling pitch accent of contrastive focus. Inoltre, the quexistential again behaves the
same as a nonquexistential existential in that neither can be focused.
(82) UN: Miranda heeft niks
ingeleverd.
Miranda has
‘Miranda has not submitted anything.’
nothing submitted
B: Ze heeft WEL↓ wat/iets
ingeleverd.
she has VF
‘She DID submit something.’
C: *Ze heeft (wel) WAT↓/IETS↓
QUEX/something submitted
ingeleverd.
she has
Intended: ‘She DID submit something.’
(VF) QUEX/something submitted
Tuttavia, both the quexistential and the nonquexistential indefinite can be contrastively focused
if they contrast with a subsequent denial of a stronger or more specific alternative. In questo caso,
wel and niet are marked as contrastive topics by means of rising pitch accents, while the con-
trastively focused quexistential or nonquexistential indefinite receives the falling pitch accent
characteristic of contrastive focus.38
38 For discussion of the mapping of contrastive topic and focus to rising and falling pitch accents, rispettivamente, Vedere
Bu¨ring 2016 and references given there.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
608
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(83) A case where the ex of quex is marked as contrastive focus
UN: Miranda heeft niks
ingeleverd.
Miranda has
nothing submitted
‘Miranda didn’t submit anything.’
B: Nou, ze heeft WEL↑ WAT↓/IETS↓
ingeleverd maar NIET↑ VEEL↓.
well she has VF
‘Well, she did submit something but not much.’
QUEX/something submitted but
non
much
C: Nou, ze heeft WEL↑ WAT↓/IETS↓
ingeleverd maar het was NIET↑ wat we
what we
QUEX/something submitted but
well she has VF
verWACHT↓ hadden.
expected
‘Well, she did submit something but it was not what we had expected.’
it was not
had
Inoltre, both the quexistential and the nonquexistential indefinite can be marked as con-
trastive topics, with a falling focus accent on ingeleverd ‘submitted’.
(84) A case where the ex of quex is marked as contrastive topic
UN: Miranda heeft niks
ingeleverd.
Miranda has
nothing submitted
‘Miranda didn’t submit anything.’
B: Nou, ze heeft wel WAT↑/IETS↑
INgeleverd↓ maar het was NIET↑ VEEL↓.
well she has VF QUEX/something submitted
‘Well, she did submit something but not much.’
Ma
it was not
much
C: Nou, ze heeft wel WAT↑/IETS↑
INgeleverd↓ maar het was NIET↑ wat we
what we
it was not
Ma
well she has VF QUEX/something submitted
verWACHT↓ hadden.
expected
‘Well, she did submit something but it was not what we had expected.’
had
Again, In (84B) E (84C) the nonquexistential iets can appear with the same prosody as the
quexistential wat.
In a response to a neutral question, unstressed wel can
5.3.2 Responses to Neutral Questions
optionally be used, but it cannot be marked as contrastive focus. As for the quexistential and the
nonquexistential indefinite, if they are not contrasted with any stronger or more specific alternative
in the response, they must be left unstressed.
(85) UN: Heeft Miranda gegeten vandaag?
has Miranda eaten
‘Has Miranda eaten today?’
Ja, ze heeft (wel) wat/iets
yes she has
‘Yes, she did eat something.’
today
B:
(VF) QUEX/something eaten
gegeten.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
609
C: *Ja, ze heeft WEL↓ wat/iets
gegeten.
yes she has VF
Intended: ‘She DID eat something.’
QUEX/something eaten
Tuttavia, just as in responses to negative assertions and questions, they both can be contrastively
focused if they contrast with a subsequent stronger or more specific alternative. In questo caso, wel
and niet are marked as contrastive topics by means of rising pitch accents, while the quexistential
or nonquexistential indefinite is marked as a contrastive focus by means of a falling pitch accent.
(86) A case where the ex of quex is marked as contrastive focus
UN: Heeft Miranda haar huiswerk ingeleverd?
has Miranda her homework submitted
‘Has Miranda submitted her homework?’
B: Nou, ze heeft WEL↑ WAT↓/IETS↓
ingeleverd maar het was NIET↑ VEEL↓.
well she has VF
‘Well, she did submit something but not much.’
QUEX/something submitted but
it was not
much
Alternatively, both the quexistential and the nonquexistential indefinite can be marked as con-
trastive topics, with a falling focus accent on ingeleverd ‘submitted’.
(87) A case where the ex of quex is marked as contrastive topic
UN: Heeft Miranda haar huiswerk ingeleverd?
has Miranda her homework submitted
‘Has Miranda submitted her homework?’
B: Nou, ze heeft wel WAT↑/IETS↑
INgeleverd↓ maar het was NIET↑ VEEL↓.
well she has VF QUEX/something submitted
‘Well, she did submit something but not much.’
Ma
it was not
much
So the ex of quex in Dutch can receive either a falling or a rising contrastive pitch accent, Di-
pending on whether it is marked as a contrastive focus or a contrastive topic. It behaves just like
the nonquexistential indefinite in this respect. In other words, Dutch appears not to conform to
both parts of the QF biconditional: it is possible to manipulate the environment in such a way
that focus and the ex of quex are compatible.
5.3.3 Two Additional Environments Contrastive focus on the ex of quex in Dutch seems possible
in two further environments as well. Primo, in the context of sluicing it again behaves exactly as
a nonquexistential indefinite does.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
(88) Hij heeft WEL↑ WAT↓/IETS↓
ingeleverd maar ik weet NIET↑ hoeVEEL↓.
how.much
I know not
he has VF
‘He did submit something but I don’t know how much.’
QUEX/something submitted but
Secondo, it can be stressed, presumably due to contrastive focus, when it appears as the associate
of the scalar NPI ook maar (literally ‘also but’, roughly equaling even in English), which compares
its argument with amount alternatives and requires that its argument be the endpoint on some
610
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
amount scale, similar to English even. Ovviamente, focused wat can only appear with ook maar in
environments where the latter is licensed. As an NPI, it is not licensed in plain positive environ-
menti.
(89) *Maria heeft ook maar WAT/IETS
verkeerd gedaan.
also but QUEX/something wrong
Maria has
Intended: ‘Maria has done something wrong.’
done
But when ook maar is licensed, the ex of quex reading of wat is compatible with focus.
(90) UN. Yes/No questions
Heb ik ooit ook maar WAT/IETS
have I ever also but QUEX/something wrong
‘Have I ever done even the slightest thing wrong?’
verkeerd gedaan?
done
B. Antecedent of a conditional
ook maar WAT/IETS
Als je
if
‘If you do even the slightest thing wrong, you have to redo everything.’
you also but QUEX/something wrong
verkeerd doet, moet je
do must you everything redo
alles
overdoen.
C. Restrictor of a universal
Iedere leerling die ook maar WAT/IETS
every student who also but QUEX/something wrong
overdoen.
redo
‘Every student who does even the slightest thing wrong has to redo everything.’
verkeerd doet moet alles
does must everything
In short, we have shown again that the ex of quex can be made compatible with focus in Dutch,
and as such again behaves just like the nonquexistential indefinite.
5.3.4 A Case Where Qu and Ex of Quex Have Similar Prosody The above discussion leads one
to expect that it should be possible to set up a case where the qu of quex and the ex of quex have
similar prosody. Specifically, when the ex of quex is contrastively focused, it should exhibit the
same intonational contour as an in-situ qu of quex, which is always contrastively focused. Questo
expectation is indeed borne out, as can be seen by comparing (91) E (92). The pitch contours
for these sentences are displayed in figures 5 E 6, rispettivamente. Note that these contours are
very similar.
(91) WIE↓ heeft WAT↓ ingeleverd bij WELke↓ docent?
lecturer
who has QUEX submitted at which
‘Who has submitted what to which lecturer?’
(92) WIE↓ heeft WAT↓ ingeleverd maar NIET↑ ALLES↓?
who has QUEX submitted but
everything
‘Who has submitted something but not everything?’
non
In Dutch, Poi, the behavior of the qu of quex with respect to stress and focus is just like that of
other question words (always contrastively focused), and the behavior of the ex of quex is just
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
240
200
150
100
60
)
z
H
(
H
C
T
io
P
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
611
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
Wie
heeft
wat
ingeleverd
bij
welke
docent
1.018
Figura 5
Pitch track of (91)
Time (S)
4.269
like that of other existentials (never stressed due to default prosody, but possibly stressed due to
contrastive focus or topic marking).
So the Dutch reality is not captured by the QF biconditional “qu if focused, ex if not focused.”
We are confronted with a choice, Poi: either we treat the relation between quexistentials and
contrastive focus as not being as universal as the QF biconditional would have us believe (E
therefore start to explore its parameterization), or we look deeper into Dutch for grounds to explain
it away as a counterexample and thereby maintain a stronger belief in the potential universality
of the QF biconditional. We attempt the latter in the next section.39
39 We should point out here that contrastive focus and contrastive topic on the ex of quex shows that Postma (1994),
according to whom the ex of quex is not possible outside of the VP, does not derive the right facts. Primo, (io) E (ii)
show that when the ex of quex is contrastively focused, it can appear to the left of the VP-edge adverb snel ‘quickly’.
opgeschreven maar NIET↑ ALLES↓.
(io) Hij heeft WEL↑ WAT↓ snel
he has VF
‘He did quickly write down something but not everything.’
QUEX quickly written.down but
non
everything
(ii) Hij heeft WEL↑ WAT↓ snel
opgeschreven maar NIET↑ waar we om GEVRAAGD↓ hadden.
he has VF
‘He did quickly write down something but not what we had asked for.’
QUEX quickly written.down but
what we for asked
non
had
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
612
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
240
200
150
100
60
)
z
H
(
H
C
T
io
P
Wie
heeft
wat
ingeleverd
maar
niet
alles
0.9055
Figura 6
Pitch track of (92)
Time (S)
3.631
Allo stesso modo, the ex of quex is also possible outside of the VP when it is a contrastive topic. This is exemplified by the
following examples, in which the quexistential appears in subject position (iiib) and in first position of a verb-second
sentence (ivb).
(iii) UN. VEEL↑ van wat
ik op het bord geschreven had was weg . . .
had was gone . . .
much of what I on the board written
‘Much of what I had written on the board was gone . . . ’
. . . maar WAT↑ stond er
nog wel.
. . . but QUEX stood there still VF
‘ . . . but SOMETHING was still there.’
B.
(iv) UN. De nieuwe strategie van het bedrijf
heeft de hoge verwachtingen niet echt waargemaakt . . .
B.
strategy of
the company has
the new
‘The new strategy of the company did not really fulfill the high expectations . . . ’
. . . maar WAT↑ heeft het wel opgeleverd.
. . . but QUEX has
it VF delivered
‘ . . . but SOMETHING it did deliver.’
For more details, see Hengeveld, Iatridou, and Roelofsen 2019.
the high expectations
not really made.true
Several of these observations hold for German as well. Tuttavia, as mentioned by a reviewer and confirmed by our
consultants, there is a further context in this language in which quexistentials are allowed outside of the VP—namely,
embedded clauses, as shown in (v).
(v) . . . weil
was passiert
ist.
. . . because QUEX happened is
‘ . . . because something happened.’
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
613
5.4 A Possible Reanalysis of Dutch
In this section, we will attempt to find a difference between Dutch on the one hand and Rus-
sian—and in particular the closely related German—on the other, so that we can explain Dutch
away as a counterexample to the QF biconditional. If an orthogonal (to the QF biconditional)
difference can be found that is responsible for the Dutch pattern discussed earlier, then we do
not have to give up faith in the crosslinguistic stability of the biconditional and try to explain it. Noi
will be explicit with the details, so that future research might find any gaps in our argumentation.
So what difference(S) are there between Dutch and German/Russian40 that may cause the
different behavioral patterns when the ex of quex is contrastively focused?41
One difference between Dutch and German is that Dutch wat, unlike German was, can
function as a determiner, as in (93) with a plural count noun and in (94) with a mass noun. It
cannot function as a determiner on a single count noun; Vedere (95).42
(93) Hij heeft wat bloemen geplukt.
he has QUEX flowers picked
‘He has picked some flowers.’
(94) Hij heeft wat water gedronken.
he has QUEX water drunk
‘He has drunk some water.’
(95) *Hij heeft wat broodje gegeten.
he has QUEX bread
‘*He has eaten some roll.’
eaten
The German quexistential was cannot function as a determiner, as seen in (96) E (97).
(96) *Er hat was Blumen gepflu¨ckt.
he has QUEX flowers picked
Intended: ‘He has picked some flowers.’
40 One might think that a difference between Dutch and German that plays a role here is that the two languages
express verum focus in different ways: Dutch necessarily uses the particle wel; German uses stress on the finite verb or
the complementizer (Ho¨hle 1992). According to a reviewer, Tuttavia, there are varieties of German that do use a verum
focus particle where it is still extremely difficult to stress the quexistential in the presence of this particle, unlike in Dutch.
In preliminary fieldwork, we have found that for some consultants the quexistential was ‘what/something’ can be stressed
in such constructions, as in (io).
(io) Sie hat schon WAS gegeben, aber nicht viel.
but not much
QUEX given
she has VF
‘She has given something, but not much.’
It seems that for some of these speakers the use of was as a determiner is marginally possible too. Tuttavia, we leave
further empirical research on this issue for future work.
41 Yun (2019) describes Korean quexistentials as permitting focus under their existential reading, just like quexisten-
tials in Dutch. We leave a detailed discussion of Korean for another occasion.
42 That a quantifier would take plural count nouns and mass nouns as arguments but not singular count nouns is not
a coincidence according to Chierchia (1998). He argues that plural count nouns and mass nouns are closed under sum
formation and so form a natural class that a quantifier can select for. D'altra parte, singular count nouns and mass
nouns do not share a property to the exclusion of plural count nouns that a quantifier can select for.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
614
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(97) *Er hat was Wasser getrunken.
he has QUEX water
Intended: ‘He has drunk some water.’
drunk
Could this be part of the reason why the Dutch ex of quex permits focal stress while the German
one does not (per esempio., contrast with other determiners would be more straightforward (‘some but not
much’))? If the question is put in these terms, the answer cannot be affirmative because this
distinction does not cut along the correct crosslinguistic lines: the Russian quexistential kakoj
can be used as determiner, but still cannot receive focal stress on its existential reading.
Tuttavia, maybe it is possible to press this point further: what if Dutch wat as a determiner
is not a quexistential at all, while when Russian kakoj is a determiner, it is still a quexistential?
Then we would be looking at the following situation: when wat accepts contrastive focus, it is
always and only a nonquexistential determiner and, as such, its relationship to focus is irrelevant
to the QF biconditional, whose domain is only quexistentials.
The first reason to suspect that wat as a determiner is not a quexistential is that sentences
like (98) E (99) are ungrammatical. In other words, determiner wat cannot function as an
interrogative word, as one would expect of a quexistential.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
(98) *Wat bloemen heeft hij geplukt?
QUEX flowers has
Intended: ‘What/Which flowers did he pick?’
he picked
(99) *Wat water heeft hij gedronken?
QUEX water has
he drunk
Intended: ‘What/Which water did he drink?’
If the determiner wat were a quexistential, one would expect (98) E (99) to be grammatical as
questions.
Allo stesso modo, consider the following examples:
(100) Wie heeft wat bloemen geplukt?
who has QUEX flowers picked
‘Who picked some flowers?’
‘Who picked which flowers?’
(101) Wie heeft wat water gedronken?
who has QUEX water drunk
‘Who drank some water?’
‘Who drank which water?’
These sentences lack a multiple question interpretation, unlike their counterparts with independent
wat.
(102) Wie heeft wat geplukt?
who has QUEX picked
‘Who picked something/what?’
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
615
(103) Wie heeft wat gedronken?
who has QUEX drunk
‘Who drank something/what?’
This is further evidence that when wat is a determiner, it is not a quexistential.
Inoltre, determiner wat with an overt restrictor can appear unproblematically in the con-
trastive environments that we have already illustrated: with a mass noun, as in (104)–(105), E
with a plural count noun, as in (106)–(107).
(104) UN. Heeft hij brood gekocht voor de lunch?
the lunch
he bread bought
ha
‘Has he bought bread for lunch?’
for
B. Nou, hij heeft wel WAT brood gekocht maar niet genoeg voor iedereen.
everyone
well he has VF QUEX bread bought but
not enough for
‘Well, he did buy SOME bread but not enough for everyone.’
(105) UN. Heeft hij brood gekocht voor de lunch?
the lunch
he bread bought
ha
‘Has he bought bread for lunch?’
for
B. Nou, hij heeft wel WAT brood gekocht maar niet dat
well he has VF QUEX bread bought but
om gevraagd had.
for asked
had
‘Well, he did buy SOME bread but not that tasty bread that I had asked for.’
not that tasty
lekkere brood waar
ik
bread where I
(106) UN. Heeft hij bramenstruiken
geplant in de moestuin?
ha
he blackberry.bushes planted in the kitchen.garden
‘Has he planted blackberry bushes in the kitchen garden?’
B. Nou, hij heeft wel WAT bramenstruiken
well he has VF QUEX blackberry.bushes planted but
‘Well, he did plant SOME blackberry bushes but not many.’
geplant maar niet veel.
not many
(107) UN. Heeft hij bramenstruiken
geplant in de moestuin?
he blackberry.bushes planted in the kitchen.garden
ha
‘Has he planted blackberry bushes in the kitchen garden?’
B. Nou, hij heeft wel WAT bramenstruiken
geplant maar niet die met die
well he has VF QUEX blackberry.bushes planted but
lekkere grote bramen.
tasty
‘Well, he did plant SOME blackberry bushes but not those with the big tasty black-
berries.’
not those with those
blackberries
big
The above are cases in which wat is stressed and clearly functions as a determiner. What then if
wat, when it carries focal stress but has no overt nominal restrictor, is still a determiner but with
a null noun as restrictor (or null NP; we will not distinguish these here)? (For arguments in favor
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
616
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
of the existence of null nouns, see Postal 1969, Panagiotidis 2003, and Corver and Van Koppen
2011, among others. For a possible account of why such nouns are null, see Kayne 2005.)43
If this hypothesis is correct—that is, if every occurrence of focused wat is indeed an occur-
rence of it as a nonquexistential determiner—then Dutch would not constitute a counterexample
to the crosslinguistic generalization that the ex of quex is incompatible with focal stress: any
stressed occurrence of wat would be an instance of the nonquexistential determiner. But how safe
is this conclusion?
One could counter the claim that wat as a determiner is not a quexistential by arguing that
there are in fact cases in which wat receives an interrogative interpretation in determiner position,
specifically in the somewhat famous wat voor construction, as illustrated in (108) E (109).
(108) Wat voor bloemen heeft hij geplukt?
what for
he picked
flowers has
‘What kind of flowers did he pick?’
(109) Wat voor water heeft hij gedronken?
what for water has
‘What kind of water did he drink?’
he drunk
The rationale would be as follows: According to Heck (2009) and Huhmarniemi (2012), among
others, when an interrogative XP moves to the left periphery of a clause (per esempio., the specifier of
CP), there is also XP-internal wh-movement to the left periphery of that XP.
43 One might wonder whether examples like (33B), where we presumably see the determiner wat without an overt
restrictor, are instances of NP-ellipsis, instead of a determiner followed by a null noun. Tuttavia, there are at least two
arguments against NP-ellipsis. When wat is a determiner, it can go with a human NP.
(io) Ik heb wat
studenten gezien.
I have QUEX students
seen
‘I have seen some students.’
This is not possible with bare wat. (ii) cannot mean that I saw some person(S). Only an inanimate interpretation is possible.
(ii) Ik heb wat gezien.
I have QUEX seen
‘I have seen something.’
Note that (iii) is fully grammatical, while when the NP studenten ‘students’ is missing the sentence is odd; compare (iii)
E (iv).
(iii) Ik heb wel WAT studenten gezien maar niet VEEL.
I have VF QUEX students
‘I have seen some students but not many.’
seen
Ma
not many
(iv) #Ik heb wel WAT gezien maar niet VEEL studenten.
I have VF QUEX seen
‘I did see something but not many students.’
not many students
Ma
Esempio (iv) is as odd as the English translation: wat can only refer to something inanimate, which means that no ellipsis
of studenten has taken place.
So if (va) were the result of NP-ellipsis from (vb), as indicated, then we would expect (iv) to be as good as (iii)
with NP-ellipsis.
(v) UN. *Ik heb wel WAT gelezen maar niet alle kranten.
I have VF QUEX read
‘I have read something but not all newspapers.’
not all newspapers
Ma
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
617
(110) [[XP whm . . . tm . . . ]k . . . tk . . . ]
Inoltre, following Bennis (1995), voor in the wat voor construction is an interrogative comple-
mentizer. Putting everything together, one could conclude that wat voor bloemen ‘what kind of
flowers’ and wat voor water ‘what kind of water’ in (108) E (109) are the qu of quex equivalent
of the ex of quex in (93) E (94), with the element voor appearing for orthogonal reasons.
(111) [[XP whm voor . . . tm . . . ]k . . . tk . . . ]
One piece of evidence for this is that wat voor bloemen and wat voor water cannot be used as
existential expressions.
(112) *Hij heeft wat voor bloemen geplukt.
flowers picked
he has what for
Intended: ‘He picked some flowers.’
B.
Ik heb wel WAT (cid:4)kranten(cid:5)
I have VF QUEX (cid:4)newspapers(cid:5) read
‘I have read some newspapers but not all newspapers.’
Ma
gelezen maar niet alle kranten.
not all newspapers
Another reason to exclude the NP-ellipsis in (vb) as the source of (va) is that its meaning is not ‘I have read some
but not all newspapers’, which it should be if ellipsis were involved. Invece, it is ‘I have read something but not all
newspapers’.
When the determiner wat does not have an overt restrictor, Poi, we are dealing not with NP-ellipsis but with a null
noun. The null noun could in principle just stand for ‘thing(S)’ (count) or ‘stuff’ (mass). Alternatively, it could get its
content from the context.
(vi) UN. Heeft hij eten gekocht voor de lunch?
the lunch
ha
‘Has he bought food for lunch?’
he food bought
for
B. Nou, hij heeft wel WAT gekocht maar niet genoeg voor iedereen.
everyone
well he has VF QUEX bought but
‘Well, he did buy SOME things/food but not enough for everyone.’
not enough for
This type of anaphora would not be required, Anche se, even in the presence of an explicit possible antecedent. In (vii),
the interpretation of the null noun could revert to something vague like ‘stuff’ or ‘things’, since interpreting it as ‘books’
would lead to a contradiction.
(vii) UN. Heeft hij de boeken langsgebracht?
he the books brought
ha
‘Did he bring the books?’
B. Nee, hij heeft wel WAT langsgebracht maar geen boeken.
he has VF QUEX brought
NO
‘No, he did bring SOME things/stuff but no books.’
Ma
NO
books
È interessante notare, contrastive focus on the possessor mijn ‘my’ in (viiib) strengthens the possibility that the alleged null noun
stands for ‘books’ (as opposed to no contrastive focus in the second clause, which forces the reading in which the null
noun refers to ‘things’).
(viii) UN. Heeft hij jouw boeken langsgebracht?
he your books brought
ha
‘Did he bring your books?’
B. Nee, hij heeft wel WAT langsgebracht maar niet MIJN boeken.
he has VF QUEX brought
not my
NO
‘No, he did bring SOME books but not MY books.’
Ma
books
This can be explained by the fact that, if the alleged null noun were to be interpreted as ‘things/stuff’, then the contrastive
focus on mijn ‘my’ would not be licensed—focus would instead fall on the entire DP mijn boeken ‘my books’, con
stress on boeken.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
618
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
(113) *Hij heeft wat voor water gedronken.
he has what for water drunk
Intended: ‘He drank some water.’
The voor item appears only in questions, arguably for orthogonal reasons, as we said.
If this rationale is correct, then we are not forced to conclude that when it is a determiner,
wat is a pure existential rather than a quexistential: the determiner wat is indeed a quexistential,
since it permits both ex of quex and qu of quex readings (albeit the latter with an added interrogative
voor that must appear for language-specific purposes). This would mean that Dutch is indeed a
counterexample to the QF biconditional, since under this scenario, it does have a quexistential
that can be contrastively focused without becoming an interrogative.
To pronounce a verdict on the debate at this point, we must ask whether the above rebuttal
(which aims to establish that determiner wat is a quexistential after all) is unassailable.
The answer is no. There are in fact a few weak points: there is an important semantic dif-
ference between the ex of quex and the wat voor construction that does not reduce to the dif-
ference between the ex of quex and the qu of quex readings. Namely, the only available readings
Di (108) E (109) are about kinds of flowers and kinds of water.
(114) What kind of flowers did he pick?
(115) What kind of water did he drink?
These questions do not ask the addressee to identify specific entities, unlike the following:
(116) Which flowers did he pick?
(117) Which water did he drink?
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
Tuttavia, the ex of quex in general is not restricted to kind readings. So it would be difficult to
maintain that wat voor bloemen and wat voor water are the qu of quex equivalents of the ex of
quex phrases wat bloemen and wat water. Inoltre, the qu of quex reading of the Russian
quexistential kakoj when used as a determiner is not restricted to kind readings. Questo è, the kind
reading is not a necessary consequence of interpreting a quexistential determiner interrogatively.
Finalmente, the German was fu¨r construction behaves the same way as the Dutch wat voor construction
with respect to the points just mentioned. So the wat voor/was fu¨r construction does not rely on
the possibility of wat/was being a determiner, which it is in Dutch, but not in German.
So the previous hypothesis still stands: it is quite possible that Dutch wat, qua determiner,
is not a quexistential. E, as we said, this conclusion brings out the possibility that when wat
receives focal stress, it always does so as a nonquexistential determiner. This would mean that
Dutch is not a counterexample to the crosslinguistic generalization that the ex of quex is incompati-
ble with focal stress. The QF biconditional would still stand.
Under this scenario, Russian would show the regular pattern, as the determiner use of its
quexistential does not force a kind reading and has the expected qu of quex reading. The nonfo-
cusability of its quexistential determiners would then be par for the course. So are we ready to
declare that Dutch is not a counterexample to the QF biconditional, since focused wat is a focused
nonquexistential determiner and the biconditional holds sway only over quexistentials?
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
619
We would indeed like to adopt this hypothesis as the one that has the most support: Dutch
is not a counterexample to the QF biconditional since focus on determiner wat is not focus on a
quexistential.
Ovviamente, challenges remain. We have shown that the conclusion that focused wat is not a
quexistential but a nonquexistential determiner is fully compatible with the data. But we have
not shown that focused wat is never a quexistential DP. Such a negative existential statement is
very hard to prove, possibly like most negative existential statements.
Another remaining question pertains to the interaction of the nonquexistential determiner
wat with Postma’s (1994) observation that an ex of quex reading is possible in Dutch only in
certain syntactic environments—specifically, only inside the VP. We have shown that focused
wat is fine outside the VP, contra Postma’s generalization (see footnote 39). Tuttavia, if we are
right that determiner wat is not a quexistential, one might expect that this determiner can appear
outside the VP even without focus.
But this is not what we find. Unfocused determiner wat is not possible in subject position.
Per esempio:
(118) *Wat studenten zijn gekomen.
QUEX students are come
‘Some students have come.’
But inside the VP, it is fine, as we have already shown.
(119) Ik heb wat
studenten gezien.
I have QUEX students
seen
‘I have seen some students.’
One could thus ask whether the inability of unfocused determiner wat to appear outside the VP
might not be an argument in favor of the quexistential status of determiner wat, contra our earlier
conclusion. The answer is no—especially if Postma is correct that the restriction to the VP is an
indication that wat needs to be bound by existential closure, as in the work of Heim (1982) E
Diesing (1992). Heim and Diesing argue that certain determiners lack quantificational force of
their own, obtaining it by an existential quantifier that is inserted as a last resort operation on a
syntactically defined domain, Quale, according to Diesing, is the VP.44 In other words, being
subject to existential closure is a characteristic not of quexistentials but of certain determiners
that lack quantificational force of their own and are introduced into a sentence as variables. Dopo
Tutto, the original proposals, like Heim’s and Diesing’s, were about nonquexistential determiners.
In other words, if indeed determiner wat is introduced into the sentence as a variable and requires
default existential closure, this does not mean that it is therefore a quexistential. Under the relevant
assumptions, it would only mean that it lacks its own quantificational force.
44 For Heim (1982), it is the IP but that is because she is not assuming VP-internal subjects. Semantically, both
Heim and Diesing define the domain of existential closure as the nuclear scope of an operator.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
620
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
Having said this, we are not asserting that Dutch wat, whether as a quexistential or a nonquex-
istential determiner, is in fact subject to existential closure. We remain at best agnostic about that
in the current context. In Hengeveld, Iatridou, and Roelofsen 2019, we argue that even for the
ex of quex, Postma’s (1994) proposal for existential closure meets with difficulties, because wat
cannot be caught by other quantificational elements in the sentence, the way indefinites can in
Heim’s and Diesing’s work.
(120) Norwegians are usually/rarely blond ⇔ Most/Few Norwegians are blond
D'altra parte, Dutch wat, with or without a nominal restriction, cannot be bound by adverbs
of quantification.
(121) UN. *Jammer
genoeg maakt wat mij vaak bang.
unfortunately enough makes QUEX me often afraid
‘Unfortunately something often makes me afraid.’
Intended: ‘Many things make me afraid.’
B. *Gelukkig maakt wat mij zelden bang.
fortunately makes QUEX me seldom afraid
‘Fortunately something seldom makes me afraid.’
Intended: ‘Few things make me afraid.’
These sentences are fine on the intended meaning with bare plural dingen ‘things’.
In questo articolo, Poi, we do not take a position on the relationship of existential closure to
Dutch wat. What we wanted to point out is that the fact that determiner wat is not acceptable in
subject position does not mean that it should be considered a quexistential.
Note that when wat is preceded by certain degree modifiers, it is acceptable in subject
position.
(122) Heel wat
/ Nogal wat
/ Tamelijk wat
studenten zijn gekomen.
many QUEX / quite QUEX / fairly
‘Many/Quite a few/A fair number of students have come.’
QUEX students are come
It is possible that these form complex determiners. We leave them for future research.
6 Conclusione
In questo articolo, we explored the conditions under which quexistentials can or must be focused,
depending on their interrogative or existential interpretation. We did not address the issue of how
these two readings come about, nor what the nature of a quexistential must be so that it can yield
these two interpretations in different environments.
Previous literature has suggested that quexistentials are always focused on their interrogative
use, and never on their existential use. We argued that the first part of this generalization is correct
and proposed that the obligatory focus of the qu of quex is a particular instance of a more general
fact—namely, that interrogative words (quexistential or not) are always contrastively focused.
We proposed an account of this more general fact, based on the idea that focus is used to signal
not only external but also internal contrasts.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
621
The second part of the generalization, which holds that the ex of quex is incompatible with
focus, took us to Dutch, which appeared to violate it. We identified a number of environments
where Dutch wat can receive focal stress without turning into an interrogative item. This could
have meant that the second part of the QF generalization does not hold (cioè., it would not be a
biconditional), but we proposed an analysis under which Dutch is not a counterexample after all.
In short, while we explained only one part of the QF biconditional and did not explain the part
that relates to the incompatibility of the ex of quex with focus, we removed one possible counter-
example to it, leaving the biconditional open for explanatory accounts.
A natural next step in this investigation would be to look for and examine other languages
where the ex of quex is compatible with prosodic prominence. We already noted that Korean
appears to permit focus on the ex of quex (see footnotes 14 E 21) and therefore should be
closely examined soon to determine whether it is indeed a counterexample, unlike Dutch. Further
crosslinguistic investigation of the relation among quexistentials, prosodic prominence, and focus
will doubtless play an important role in investigating the phenomenon of quexistentials at large.
Riferimenti
Aboh, Enoch. 2016. Information structure: A cartographic perspective. In The Oxford handbook of infor-
mation structure, ed. by Caroline Fe´ry and Shinichiro Ishihara, 147–164. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Aboh, Enoch, and Roland Pfau. 2011. What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Mapping the left periphery:
The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 5, ed. by Paola Beninca` and Nicola Munaro, 91–124.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ahn, Byron. 2015. There’s nothing exceptional about the Phrasal Stress Rule. Ms., Boston University.
AnderBois, Scott. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Natural Language Semantics
20:349–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3.
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4:
1–56.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14:
1–56.
Bennis, Hans. 1995. The meaning of structure: The wat voor construction revisited. Linguistics in the
Netherlands 12:25–36.
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4:365–400.
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2020. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version
6.1.36, retrieved 6 Dicembre 2020.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles. Linguistic
Inquiry 38:139–166.
Bruening, Benjamin, and Yaping Tsai. 2009. Wh-words as indefinites: Passamaquoddy-Maliseet versus
Mi’kmaq. Handout presented at the Conference on Endangered Languages and Cultures of Native
America (CELCNA).
Bu¨ring, Daniel. 2016. Intonation and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cable, Seth. 2010UN. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Cable, Seth. 2010B. Notes on the possible treatment of imperatives in inquisitive semantics. Ms., Università
of Massachusetts Amherst.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1994. Wh-words as polarity items. Chinese Languages and Linguistics 2:615–640.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
622
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter.” In Events and
grammar, ed. by Susan Rothstein, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chierchia, Gennaro, and Hsiu-Chen Daphne Liao. 2015. Where do Chinese wh-items fit? In Epistemic
indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, ed. by Luis Alonso-Ovalle and Paula
Mene´ndez-Benito, 47–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen. 2018. Inquisitive semantics. Oxford: Oxford
Stampa universitaria.
Ciardelli, Ivano, and Floris Roelofsen. 2017. Hurford’s constraint, the semantics of disjunctions, and the
nature of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics 25:199–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050
-017-9134-sì.
Ciardelli, Ivano, Floris Roelofsen, and Nadine Theiler. 2017. Composing alternatives. Linguistics and Philos-
ophy 40:1–36.
Corver, Norbert, and Marjo van Koppen. 2011. NP-ellipsis with adjectival remnants: A micro-comparative
perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:371–421.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.
Eckardt, Regine. 2007. Inherent focus on wh-phrases. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. by Louise
McNally and Estela Puig-Waldmu¨ller, 209–228. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub
/issue/view/18.
E´ . Kiss, Katalin. 1992. Logical structure in syntactic structure: The case of Hungarian. In Logical structure
and linguistic structure, ed. by C.-T. James Huang and Robert May, 111–147. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Geurts, Bart, and Rob van der Sandt. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30:1–44.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to
nonveridicality. In CLS 38: Papers from the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
Parasession on Polarity and Negation, ed. by Maria Andronis, Anne Pycha, and Keiko Yoshimura,
1–21. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at
the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency. Stanford, CA. https://projects
.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics
of answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Haida, Andreas. 2007. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt Uni-
versity.
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41–53.
Hanssen, Judith, Jo¨rg Peters, and Carlos Gussenhoven. 2008. Prosodic effects of focus in Dutch declaratives.
In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody, ed. by Plinio Almeida Barbosa, Sandra
Madureira, and Cesar Reis, 609–612. Campinas: Editora RG/CNPq.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heck, Fabian. 2009. On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40:75–111.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, Università
of Massachusetts Amherst.
Hengeveld, Kees, Sabine Iatridou, and Floris Roelofsen. 2019. Quexistentials: Polarity-sensitivity and topo-
logical restrictions. Ms., University of Amsterdam and MIT.
Hogeweg, Lotte. 2009. The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel. Journal of Pragmatics
41:519–539.
Ho¨hle, Tilman. 1992. U¨ ber Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, ed. by
Joachim Jacobs, 112–141. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Huhmarniemi, Saara. 2012. Finnish A′-movement: Edges and islands. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Helsinki.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Q U E X I S T E N T I A L S A N D F O C U S
623
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1998. Non-indicative wh-complements of possessive and existential predicates. In
NELS 28: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Pius
N. Tamanji and Kiyomi Kusumoto, 159–173. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Lin-
guistics Students Association.
Jun, Sun Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
Università.
Karcevski, Serge. 1941. Introduction a` l’e´tude de l’interjection. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 1:57–75.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:3–44. https://doi
.org/10.1007/bf00351935.
Kayne, Richard. 2005. A note on the syntax of quantity in English. In Movement and silence, 176–214.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kim, Shin-Sook. 2002. Intervention effects are focus effects. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10, ed. by
Noriko Akatsuka and Susan Strauss, 615–628. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kotek, Hadas. 2017. Intervention effects arise from scope-taking across alternatives. In NELS 47: Proceed-
ings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Andrew Lamont and
Katerina Tetzloff, 153–166. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students
Association.
Kotek, Hadas. 2019. Composing questions. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2018. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa 5(1), 113.
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Proceedings of SALT
1, ed. by Steven K. Moore and Adam Zachary Wyner, 127–158. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org
/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/136.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
LeSourd, Philip S. 1993. Accent and syllable structure in Passamaquoddy. New York: Garland.
Li, Haoze, and Jess H.-K. Legge. 2016. Alternatives in different dimensions: A case study of focus intervention.
Linguistics and Philosophy 39:201–245.
Liao, Hsiu-Chen. 2011. Alternatives and exhaustification: Non-interrogative uses of Chinese wh-words.
Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 1998. On existential polarity-wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:
219–255.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2004. Choice functions and scope of existential polarity wh-phrases in Mandarin Chinese.
Linguistics and Philosophy 27:451–491.
Liu, Mingming, and Yanyan Cui. 2019. Situating Mandarin wh-indefinites in the typology of modal indefi-
nites. Journal of Foreign Languages 42(3):26–37.
Livitz, Inna. 2012. Modal possessive constructions: Evidence from Russian. Lingua 122:714–747.
Mayr, Clemens. 2014. Intervention effects and additivity. Journal of Semantics 31:513–554.
Mitchell, Lewis. 1976. Mikcic [Turtle]. Indian Township, ME: Wabnaki Bilingual Education Program. Edited
and updated version of text in J. D. Prince, Passamaquoddy texts. Volume X of the Publications of
the American Ethnological Society (1921).
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. LF affix raising in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:362–367.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.
Mo¨ller Kalpak, Hana. 2018. Inquisitive logical triviality and grammar. MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Newell, Irene. 1979. Kehtaqs [Ghost stories]. Indian Township, ME: Wabnaki Bilingual Education Program.
Newell, Wayne. 1974. Kukec [Game warden]. Indian Township, ME: Wabnaki Bilingual Education Program.
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2003. Empty nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:381–432.
Park, Jeemin. 2019. Quexistentials in Korean and Yucatec Maya. Term paper, Department of Linguistics,
University of Amsterdam.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
624
K E E S H E N G E V E L D, S A B I N E I A T R I D O U, A N D F L O R I S R O E L O F S E N
Postal, Paul. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. In Modern studies in English, ed. by David Reibel
and Sanford Schane, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Postma, Gertjan. 1994. The indefinite reading of wh. Linguistics in the Netherlands 11:187–198.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman,
281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Sassen, Albert. 1985. Ontkenning ontkend: Over uitroepende zinnen en zinnen met wel [Negation negated:
About exclamative sentences and sentences with wel]. Spektator 14:363–368.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1993. The contrastiveness of associated foci. Ms., Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural
Language Semantics 7:141–177.
0imı´k, Radek. 2011. Modal existential wh-constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.
Tran, Thuan, and Benjamin Bruening. 2013. Wh-phrases as indefinites: A Vietnamese perspective. In Linguis-
tics of Vietnamese, ed. by Daniel Hole and Elisabeth Lo¨bel, 217–241. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2013. An analysis of prosodic F-effect in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax, and seman-
tic. Lingua 124:131–175.
Uegaki, Wataru. 2018. A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ‘ka’ in indefinites, questions and
disjunctions. Glossa 3(1), 14.
Ultan, Russell. 1978. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. Universals of Human Language
4:211–248.
Wagner, Michael. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. by Masayuki Gibson and
Jonathan Howell, 295–312. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/iss
ue/view/93.
Wold, Dag E. 1996. Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed.
by Teresa Galloway and Justin Spence, 311–328. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings
/index.php/SALT/issue/view/103.
Yanovich, Igor. 2005. Choice-functional series of indefinite pronouns and Hamblin semantics. In Procedi-
ings of SALT 15, ed. by Efthymia Georgala and Jonathan Howell, 309–326. https://journals.lingu
isticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/94.
Yun, Jiwon. 2019. Meaning and prosody of wh-indeterminates in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 50:630–647.
Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25:286–312.
Kees Hengeveld
Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication
University of Amsterdam
kees.hengeveld@uva.nl
Sabine Iatridou
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
MIT
iatridou@mit.edu
Floris Roelofsen
ILLC
University of Amsterdam
floris.roelofsen@gmail.com
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
e
D
tu
/
l
io
/
N
G
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
5
4
3
5
7
1
2
1
3
6
7
5
0
/
l
io
N
G
_
UN
_
0
0
4
4
1
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
9
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Scarica il pdf