---
title: "The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions"
description: "The paper asks what makes a determiner phrase usable as a concealed question (CQ), i.e., a DP that is understood as an… 19 references."
authors: ["Hana Kalpak"]
year: 2020
venue: "Semantics and Pragmatics"
source: "https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.13.7"
doi: "10.3765/sp.13.7"
licence: "CC BY (Semantics and Pragmatics, journal policy)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kalpak-2020-semantics-pragmatics-nouns-concealed-questions/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kalpak-2020-semantics-pragmatics-nouns-concealed-questions/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2020/page/8/) / The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions

# The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions

**Authors:** Hana Kalpak · **Year:** 2020 · **Venue:** [Semantics and Pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/semantics-and-pragmatics/) ([Semantics and Pragmatics 2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/semantics-and-pragmatics/2020/)) · **Publisher:** [Linguistic Society of America](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/linguistic-society-of-america/) · **Licence:** [CC BY (Semantics and Pragmatics, journal policy)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.7) · [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.13.7/pdf) · [DOI 10.3765/sp.13.7](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.7) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W3045994082)

**Citations:** 2 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper asks what makes a determiner phrase usable as a concealed question (CQ), i.e., a DP that is understood as an embedded question, as when "I know your age" means knowing what that age is. Earlier semantic accounts (Nathan 2006, Barker 2016, Frana 2013/2017) tie CQ readings to the head noun: relational nouns such as *age* or *capital* allow them, while unmodified sortal nouns such as *brick* do not. Kalpak gathers counterexamples that go both ways. "I know your card" works even though *card* is sortal, and "#Alex knows the mother" fails even though *mother* is relational. She concludes that the explanation must be pragmatic.

Her account extends Aloni & Roelofsen's (2011) conceptual-cover semantics in two ways. It adds a standard relational/sortal noun semantics, and it adopts Barker's idea of alternative domains, but treats the domain as set by context rather than fixed by the lexicon. A CQ reading needs a salient way of identifying individuals within that domain. The theory explains why relational nouns usually help (they always supply a default domain), why this tendency sometimes fails, and it removes the need for derived covers.

## Key points
- CQ availability depends mainly on whether context makes a method of identification salient over a domain of alternatives. The head noun only proposes a default domain, which context can override so that the question is non-trivial.
- The noun taxonomy follows Partee 1997 (sortal = sets of individuals; relational = two-place relations). It also uses de Bruin & Scha 1988 to split relational nouns into functional and non-functional, and functional ones further into one-to-one (*nose*) and merely onto (*temperature*).
- For quantified DPs, pair-list readings no longer rely on derived covers. As a result, non-functional relational nouns also get them, as in "Sam knows every phone number."
- An unmodified sortal noun gets a pair-list reading only when context supplies two independent basic covers over the same domain. For cards, these could be suit/rank and position on the table ("Kim knows every card").
- Modifiers help CQ readings for specific reasons:
  - *favorite* supplies the missing relation;
  - relative clauses make the domain resolution consistent;
  - superlatives make uniqueness easier to satisfy.
- These modifiers are not sufficient on their own: "the reddest apple" stays odd because apples have no context-independent way of being identified.

## Interesting ideas
- Instead of treating "can this DP stand for a question?" as a lexical yes/no feature, the paper treats it as a default from the noun that context may override, which avoids brittle hard rules.
- A question is only sensible if there are distinct ways to pick out the same entities (name vs. description, rank vs. position); if only one exists, the question collapses into something trivial.
- The split into sortal, relational, functional and one-to-one nouns predicts which readings appear (unique values, multiple values, pair-lists).
- Each modifier is explained by what it contributes (a relation, a consistent domain, uniqueness) rather than by being on a list of licensers.
- The paper tests its theory against minimal pairs in both directions: sortal nouns that succeed and relational nouns that fail.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): when a DP is the object of *know/reveal/find out/guess*, prag could try a concealed-question frame ("know what X is") preferred for relational nouns, but also allowed for sortal nouns whenever the world offers a way to identify entities.
- **I2** (world): entities in the text world could store several identification keys (name, attributes, position), so that the system can check whether a "which one / what is it" question is non-trivial before trying to answer it.
- **I3** (world): adding these flags to the compiled noun ontology (e.g., *capital* functional, *phone number* non-functional) would help decide whether "every capital" means a single answer or a list of pairs.
- **I4** (frames): the parser could record which piece of information a modifier like *favorite* or a superlative supplies to a DP, so that it is clear in the trace why a definite description now picks out one referent.
- **I5** (learn): evaluation suites could include such two-sided negative controls (e.g., "knows your card" vs. "#knows the mother"), so that a rule learned from noun type alone is caught when it overgeneralises.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Stockholm University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/stockholm-university/) — University, Stockholm, Sweden · 10 works · 1,682 citations

📚 Shelves (5): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,086 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 8,889 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [🤔 Philosophy](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/) · 211 works

## Cite

Cite as: Hana Kalpak. 2020. The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{kalpak2020semantics,
  title = {{The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions}},
  author = {Hana Kalpak},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.13.7},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.7}
}
```

- [← previous The participle as a component of the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/joosten-2020-participle-component-verbal-system-biblical/)
- [next → Towards A Sign Language Gloss Representation Of Modern Standard Arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/anigri-2020-towards-sign-language-gloss-representation/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2020/page/8/)

## References

19 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Aloni, Maria. 2001. Quantification under conceptual covers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aloni%2C+Maria%2E+2001%2E+Quantification+under+conceptual+covers%2E+Amsterdam%3A+University+of+Amsterdam+dissertation%2E)
2. Aloni, Maria & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Interpreting concealed questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(5). 443–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9)
3. Baker, Carl Leroy. 1968. Indirect questions in English. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baker%2C+Carl+Leroy%2E+1968%2E+Indirect+questions+in+English%2E+Urbana%2C+IL%3A+University+of+Illinois+dissertation%2E)
4. Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language & Information. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Barker%2C+Chris%2E+1995%2E+Possessive+descriptions%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Center+for+the+Study+of+Language+%26+Information%2E)
5. Barker, Chris. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1109–1130. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1109. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1109)
6. Barker, Chris. 2016. Why relational nominals make good concealed questions. Lingua 182. 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.01.002. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.01.002)
7. Hana Kalpak de Bruin, Jos & Remko Scha. 1988. The interpretation of relational nouns. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 26. 25–32. https://doi.org/10.3115/982023.982027. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3115/982023.982027)
8. Frana, Ilaria. 2006. The de re analysis of concealed questions: A unified approach to definite and indefinite concealed questions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 16. 17–34. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v16i0.2951. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v16i0.2951)
9. Frana, Ilaria. 2013. Quantified concealed questions. Natural Language Semantics 21(2). 179–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9089-y. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9089-y)
10. Frana, Ilaria. 2017. Concealed questions. Corby: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670925.001.0001. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670925.001.0001)
11. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Groenendijk%2C+Jeroen+%26+Martin+Stokhof%2E+1984%2E+On+the+semantics+of+questions+and+the+pragmatics+of+answers%2E+Amsterdam%3A+University+of+Amsterdam+dissertation%2E)
12. Heim, Irene. 1979. Concealed questions. In Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Semantics from different points of view, 51–60. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_5. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67458-7_5)
13. Kalpak, Hana. 2019. Sortal versus relational nouns in concealed questions. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 54. 325–340. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kalpak%2C+Hana%2E+2019%2E+Sortal+versus+relational+nouns+in+concealed+questions%2E+Chicago+Linguistic+Society+%28CLS%29+54%2E+325%E2%80%93340%2E)
14. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur vox sapientia: Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050080116.287. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050080116.287)
15. Löbner, Sebastian. 1981. Intensional verbs and functional concepts: More on the “rising temperature” problem. Linguistic Inquiry 12(3). 471–477. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178235](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178235). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178235)
16. Nathan, Lance Edward. 2006. On the interpretation of concealed questions. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37423](http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37423). [↗](http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37423)
17. Partee, Barbara. 1997. Uniformity vs. versatility: The genitive, a case study. In Johan van Benthem & Alice van ter Meulen (eds.), The handbook of logic and language, 464–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-044481714-3/50011-4. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/)
18. Roelofsen, Floris & Maria Aloni. 2008. Perspectives on concealed questions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 18. 619–636. https://doi.org/10. 3765/salt.v18i0.2500. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2500)
19. Schwager, Magdalena. 2008. Keeping prices low: An answer to a concealed question. Sinn und Bedeutung 12. 582–596. https://doi . org / 10 . 18148 / sub/2008.v12i0.708. Nouns in concealed questions Vikner, Carl & Per Anker Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2). 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00092. Hana Kalpak Department of Philosophy Stockholm University Universitetsvägen 10D 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden hana.kalpak@philosophy.su.se [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00092)

*Updated 24 October 2026*