Journal publications

1. Silencing the PCC, with Stefan Keine (1^st author). Linguistic Inquiry 1–84 (online).

   
   
   Paper      Preprint
   
   Basque displays what is known as the Strong Person Case Constraint (PCC): an absolutive DP may generally not be 1^st or 2^nd person if it is c–commanded by a dative DP. We make the novel observation that this restriction is obviated under verbal ellipsis, even if this ellipsis does not affect the DPs whose cooccurrence is normally ruled out. We then explore the consequences of this generalization for accounts of the PCC. First, it indicates that the PCC arises from properties of the verb agreement, not of the DP arguments. Second, a comprehensive account of the Basque PCC must be sensitive to both narrow–syntactic and PF properties (in particular whether or not the verb agreement is pronounced). We then develop an account of the Basque PCC based on Coon & Keine’s (2021) feature–gluttony proposal. On this account, the Basque PCC results from an irresolvable conflict that arises in the morphological realization of a probe that has agreed with two DPs. We show that such an account offers a principled explanation of both the syntactic factors and the PF factors that condition the Basque PCC, in particular its interaction with verbal ellipsis.
   
   

2. Non-agreeing degree constructions, with María Teresa Espinal. Journal of Linguistics 61(2): 265–300.

   
   
   Paper
   
   Non–Agreeing Degree (NAD) Constructions have the distinguishing property that the agreement pattern between subjects and degree predicates is optionally disrupted, even in languages (like Spanish) where verbs commonly agree with their subjects. We show that the agreeing vs. non–agreeing alternation comes with important semantic differences for the interpretation of the degree construction. We provide a first systematic description of this type of constructions and postulate a formal syntactic and semantic analysis. We argue that NAD constructions are characterized by degree predicates that introduce a non–conventional nominal scale and by subjects that denote equally non–conventional units of measurement. We postulate an intensionalization process on the subject of NAD constructions that we capture via a general nominalization function.
   
   

3. More on (the lack of) reconstruction in English tough–constructions, with Ethan Poole (1^st author) & Stefan Keine. Linguistic Inquiry 55(4): 871–884.

   
   
   Paper      Preprint
   
   This paper presents three new arguments that the matrix subject in English tough– constructions cannot reconstruct into the embedded gap. The first two arguments reexamine data in the literature purported to show such reconstruction. Upon closer scrutiny, we argue that these data in fact involve short reconstruction below a modal or generic operator in the matrix clause, and not genuine long reconstruction into the embedded gap. The third argument is that property positions, which independently require reconstruction, are unable to host tough–gaps. This ban on long reconstruction in English tough–constructions follows without further ado on a base–generation analysis.
   
   

4. Structural effects on implicature calculations. Journal of Semantics 39(3): 409–442.

   
   
   Paper      Preprint
   
   This paper provides an investigation of Ignorance Inferences by looking at the superlative modifier at least. The formal properties of these inferences are characterized in terms of the epistemic conditions that they impose on the speaker, thereby establishing how much can and must be inferred about what the speaker is ignorant about. The paper makes two main contributions. First, it argues that the form of these inferences depends solely on the structural properties of the expression that at least is modifying, which do not necessarily coincide with semantic entailment: with totally ordered associates, at least triggers Ignorance Inferences that may be formally different than those obtained with partially ordered associates (see Mendia 2016). Second, it builds on neo–Gricean double alternative generation mechanisms (e.g. Schwarz 2016) by showing that one of them must be provided by focus alternative semantics.
   
   

5. Degree relative clauses in Spanish. Isogloss 8(5): 1–15.

   
   
   Paper      Preprint
   
   Degree Neuter Relatives (DNRs) in Spanish are relative clauses formed by a gradable predicate of any sytactic category and the neuter definite determiner lo. The analysis proposed in this paper aims at achieving two things. First, it avoids certain well–known compositionality problems due to sortal mismatches between degrees and entities (see Mendia 2022). Second, based on this analysis, it is suggested that the cross–linguistic rarity of DNRs can be explained by specific aspects of the morphological inventory of Spanish allowing the construction of degree denoting Free Relatives as well as Free Relatives formed by a definite article in this language.
   
   

6. Competing for oddness. Snippets 39: 6–7.

   
   
   Paper
   
   This snippet points out that the oddness of sentences like some dogs have four legs does not receive a straightforward explanation in terms of pragmatic competition with a more informative alternative statement, precisely because of the difficulty to identify what the competiting more informative alternative statement should be.
   
   

7. One more comparative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(2): 581–626.

   
   
   Paper      Preprint
   
   Spanish comparatives have two morphemes that can introduce the standard of comparison: the complementizer que (“that”) and the preposition de (“of”/“from”). This paper defends the idea that comparatives introduced by de always express overt comparison to a degree (type d). On this view, a simple analysis where everything is interpreted as it surfaces suffices to account for all the properties of de comparatives. On the other hand, comparatives introduced by the standard que are compatible with a wider range of constructions, suggesting they involve additional covert structure. These findings in turn point to an unnoticed locus of cross–linguistic variation with respect to the role of the standard morpheme.
   
   

8. Reference to “ad hoc” kinds. Linguistics & Philosophy 43(6): 589–631.

   
   
   Paper      Preprint
   
   Although there is no consensus about what kinds are, there is a common understanding that kinds can be regarded as collections of objects that share certain properties. What these properties exactly are is often left unspecified. This paper explores the semantics of ad hoc kind–referring terms, where the determination of the relevant set of shared properties does not rely on “natural” properties or world knowledge. Rather, information provided by a nominal modifier, typically a relative clause, is used to impute the required regular behavior on the kind–referring NP. Building on Carlson’s (1977) disjointness condition, I show that we can not only account for the ubiquity of these expressions, but we can also extend the analysis to other constructions that have traditionally not been taken to be kind–referring, such as Amount and Degree Relative constructions.
   
   

9. Interpreting quantifiers in subject position. Iberia 7: 33–67.

   
   
   Paper
   
   This paper was writen in 2009/2010 as one of my MA qualifying papers. It provides evidence that the so–called Taub’s Generalization (Taub 1989) holds not only for a variety of QPs, but also in a variety of languages. In the light of these facts, the paper argues against a cover–based semantics for all (pace Brisson 2003).
   
   

Book chapters & conference proceedings

1. A side–road to degree interpretations. In Anastasiia Vyshnevska & Edoardo Cariani (eds.), Generative Perspectives on Degrees: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of Scalarity. 351–380. De Gruyter Mouton.

   
   
   Book      Preprint
   
   Degrees have traditionally been conceived in one of two ways: either as primitive (abstract) representations of measurement (von Stechow 1984, Heim 2001, Kennedy 2007), or as derivative of sets of objects sharing some relation to each other (Cresswell 1976, Bierwisch 1989, Bale 2006). This paper contributes to this debate by making the case that degree interpretations arise in some cases from mechanisms similar to those of derivative degrees, one in which degrees are related to a particular species of kinds (Landman & Morzycki 2003, Anderson & Morzycki 2015, Scontras 2017, Mendia 2020), and argues that these mechanisms are useful in understanding pervasive cross–linguistic patterns in equative constructions.
   
   

2. On the distinction between amounts and degrees, with Stephanie Solt. Sinn und Bedeutung 29, 1004–1019.

   
   
   Paper
   
   This paper investigates copular constructions such as Five dogs is too many pets and Ten kilos of broccoli is too much food, in which a property is seemingly ascribed to an amount or quantity. We argue that the subject noun phrases in such examples do in fact denote an amount—construed as the entity correlate of a quantized property—and that amount predication is a form of predication in its own right. We further demonstrate, on the basis of a range of distributional and interpretative pattern, that amounts are distinct from degrees; that is, the place of amounts in semantic theory is not in lieu of but rather in addition to degrees. We thus argue against recent proposals to align degrees more generally to kinds.
   
   

3. The “soler” + INF periphrasis in Spanish. WCCFL 41, 442–447.

   
   
   Paper
   
   This short paper describes the main syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of habitual constructions with “soler” and sketches a first corresponding formal analysis capturing its main semantic properties, its differences with restpect to habitual readings of its unmarked imperfective counterpart, and the pragmatic inferences that soler is argued to convey.
   
   

4. When subjects do not agree, with María Teresa Espinal. Sinn und Bedeutung 28, 577–591.

   
   
   Paper
   
   In this paper we examine a number of constructions that show lack of agreement between the subject and either the verb or some constituent within the predicate. We focus on Non–Agreeing Degree constructions (see Mendia and Espinal 2025), which we compare with so–called Pancake Sentences (Enger 2004, Wechsler 2011, Haugen and Enger 2019) and Topic Categorical Sentences (Britto 2000). All three constructions show a non–standard agreement pattern that nevertheless signals some form of semantic shift in interpretation. We argue that, despite surface similarities, these constructions do not belong to the same category.
   
   

5. A note on sufficiency predicates, with María Teresa Espinal. NELS 53(2): 199–208.

   
   
   Book      Preprint
   
   Expressions of sufficiency like enough, suffice, etc. have long attracted attention due to their complex syntactic and semantic properties. Two of the common questions concerning such constructions include whether they obligatorily require an infinitival complement, or whether sufficiency predicates are intrinsically modal. In this paper we contribute to this body of work by studying the subjects of predicates of sufficiency, a hitherto unnoticed source of variation in constructions of sufficiency. Focusing mainly on Spanish data, we show that definite and quantificational expressions that are otherwise ungrammatical subjects of certain sufficiency predicates may nevertheless be “rescued” by the preposition con (“with”), thereby revealing that the class of expressions that may appear in subject position of sufficiency predicates is rather heterogeneous.
   
   

6. Pragmatic filtering and presupposition projection. In Gabriela Bîlbîie, Berthold Crysmann & Gerhard Schaden (eds.), Empirical Issues in Semantics and Pragmatics 14. 189–218.

   
   
   Book      Preprint
   
   The so–called satisfaction theories of presupposition propose weak presuppositions that are then pragmatically strengthened under to–be–determined conditions. The opposite view, first pioneered by Gazdar (1979) and van der Sandt (1988), contends instead that presuppositions are semantically strong but can nevertheless be canceled under to–be–determined conditions. This paper explores two ideas: (i) one such case of cancellation can be restated in terms of pragmatic weaking, in the sense that presuppositions do not project if, in doing so, the speaker would declare that they hold an inconsistent epistemic state; (ii) presuppositions that fail to be inherited wholesale by the sentence may nevertheless project conditionally, as suggested by satisfaction theory, provided certain contextual conditions are met.
   
   

7. Neuter relative constructions. NELS 52(2): 231–240.

   
   
   Book      Preprint
   
   Spanish allows an unusual relative clause construction involving a relative clause seemingly headed by a gradable predicate and the neuter determiner lo. Previous analyses have put forth the idea that neuter relatives denote maximal degrees, but while intuitive, straightforward implementations of the idea run into trouble when combining the resulting definite degree (type d) with verbal predicates that do not take d–type arguments. This paper proposes an analysis wherein the DP containing the relative clause is of predicative type, but contains within it a maximal degree that serves as a Measure Phrase within an Adjective Phrase.
   
   

8. Epistemic numbers. SALT 28, 493–511.

   
   
   Paper
   
   Epistemic numbers are syntactically complex numbers formed by some combination of number and (non–numerical) indefinite expressions that convey uncertainty, vagueness or ignorance. I examine these constructions in a number of languages and provide an analysis that capitalizes on independently motivated properties of their two sub–components: epistemic indefinites and complex numerals. I argue that variability in these two components explain the cross–linguistics variability in the nature and interpretation of epistemic numbers across languages.
   
   

9. Spurious NPI licensing and exhaustification, with Ethan Poole & Brian Dillon. SALT 28, 233–250.

   
   
   Paper
   
   Under certain circumstances, speakers are subject to so–called spurious NPI licensing effects, whereby they perceive that NPIs without a c–commanding licensor are in fact licensed and grammatical. Previous studies have all involved the presence of a licensor in a position that linearly precedes, but does not c–command the NPI. In this paper, we show that spurious NPI licensing can occur in the outright absence of a licensor, in contexts that force an exhaustive parse. We reason that at least these instances of spurious NPI licensing might be reduced to the EXH operator pragmatically “rescuing” the NPI, in the sense of Giannakidou (1998, 2006).
   
   

10. Emphatic relative constructions as answered questions. NELS 48(2): 187–200.

    
    
    Book      Preprint
    
    Emphatic Relative Constructions in Spanish (ERCs) are constructions that superficially resemble definite DPs modified by a restrictive relative clause. However, despite their surface appearance, they differ from these in two important respects: (i) they can be embedded under a great variety of wh–embedding predicates. This paper argues that despite their surface appearance, ERCs are subordinate questions: syntactically, they involve an interrogative core that combines with a definite determiner; semantically, the interrogative core yields a question meaning, and the definite determiner returns the most informative proposition from the Hamblin set delivered by the CP (e.g. Dayal 1996).
    
    

11. Some kind of relative clause. Sinn und Bedeutung, 163–180.

    
    
    Paper
    
    Amount Relatives (ARs) differ from restrictive relative clauses in that they do not refer to a particular object denoted by the head of the relative clause, but to an amount of such objects (Carlson 1977, Heim 1987). Traditionally, ARs have been regarded as degree expressions. In this paper I argue against this view and propose instead that amount interpretations of relative clauses are in fact a special case of kind interpretation.
    
    

12. Complex cardinals of approximation. WCCFL 35, 280–287.

    
    
    Paper
    
    Numeral expressions like twenty–three may contain some kind of vague quantifier (like some, many or few; cf. twenty–some in English). I present a sketch of a general system to interpret cardinal numbers flexible enough to account for the variety of quantifiers that can appear in a variety of languages.
    
    

13. Conventionalizing at least some determiners. CLS 52(1): 359–373.

    
    
    Book      Preprint
    
    Emphatic Relative Constructions in Spanish (ERCs) are constructions that superficially resemble definite DPs modified by a restrictive relative clause. However, despite their surface appearance, they differ from these in two important respects: (i) they can be embedded under a great variety of wh–embedding predicates. This paper argues that despite their surface appearance, ERCs are subordinate questions: syntactically, they involve an interrogative core that combines with a definite determiner; semantically, the interrogative core yields a question meaning, and the definite determiner returns the most informative proposition from the Hamblin–set delivered by the CP (e.g. Dayal 1996).
    
    

14. Reasoning with Partial Orders. SALT 26, 489–505.

    
    
    Paper
    
    Experimental evidence is presented showing that when at least takes a complement that constitutes a Total Order (like numerals), the exhaustive interpretation of the prejacent must obligatorily constitute an epistemic possibility for the speaker. In contrast, when the complement is Partially Ordered, the exhaustive interpretation of the prejacent can but need not be a live possibility for the speaker. These facts are taken to suppor previous neo–Gricean accounts of the Ignorance Inferences that Superlative Modifiers come with.
    
    

15. Focusing on scales. NELS 46(3): 11–24.

    
    
    Book      Preprint
    
    Computing implicatures with Superlative Modifiers like at least and at most requires to factor in both Horn Set alternatives and focus alternatives. The account formulates a classical neo–Gricean implementation elaborating on the following ideas: that these modifiers are conventionally associated with focus (Krifka 1999), and that the alculation of implicatures with SMs requires two sets of alternatives (Mayr 2013, Schwarz 2016). In addition, I propose in the paper that the set of alternatives relevant for the Gricean calculus is provided by two independent mechanisms: the familiar substitution method within elements of a Horn Set (Horn 1972, Sauerland 2004) and Association with Focus, whereby a set of alternatives is obtained by replacing the focus–bearing constituent with contextually relevant alternatives (Rooth 1985; cf. Fox and Katzir 2011).
    
    

16. Non–atomic distributivity and typicality. WCCFL 33, 86–95.

    
    
    Paper
    
    Non–atomic distributive interpretations of plural quantified NPs are better explained by means of some notion of “typicality.” Sentences of the form all the X are P are predicted to have a non–atomic reading only if X can form a typical group. I suggest that typical groups are conceptually salient sub–pluralities of atomic individuals that, most importantly, are claimed to be relevant for the grammar. Two consequences follow: (i) quantifier–determiners have access to typical groups and (ii) non–atomic distribution over typical groups is context–independent.
    
    

17. Conveying ignorance. ConSOLE XXIII, 150–174.

    
    
    Paper
    
    The inferences of ignorance that come with superlative numerals are better understood as primary implicatures, derived in a neo–Gricean framework together with a basic epistemic logic. The paper supports the view of superlative numerals first advanced by Büring (2007), where their ignorance inferences are equal to those of a disjunctive expression, of the form exactly n or more/less than n.
    
    

Manuscripts

Work in various stages of development, either in progress, under review, or in the revision pipeline.

1. A new type of interpretation, with María Teresa Espinal.

   
   
   Email me for copy
   
   Some nominal expressions, such as definite descriptions and demonstrative phrases of the form the (same) N and that (same) N, fail to refer to either tokens or kinds in certain contexts, giving rise to what we call a “type–interpretation.” In this paper, we first discuss which linguistic forms in the nominal domain support such type–interpretations, what their main characteristics are and how they differ from other forms of interpretations available to those same nominal expressions, arguing that it is a phenomenon independent from kind–, subkind– and ad hoc kind–interpretations.
   
   

2. Questions in disguise.

   
   
   Email me for copy
   
   Certain DPs that superficially resemble definite descriptions modified by a relative clause show the syntactic and semantic behavior of interrogatives. I show that unlike concealed questions, these constructions possess full interrogative syntax. I propose a syntactic and semantic analysis of these constructions on which they are garden–variety wh–constructions that are selected by a D–head that is argued to be the overt exponent of an Answerhood operator à la Dayal (1996).
   
   

3. Amount Relative Constructions (Parts I & II).

   
   
   Email me for copy
   
   These two papers present a primer on Amount Relative constructions, first discussed in Carlson (1977). Amount Relatives constitute a class of relative clause constructions with a particular set of syntactic and semantic properties. Most notable among these is their ability to semantically denote amounts, quantities and degrees of various sorts, all while keeping the superficial shape and form of ordinary entity–denoting relative constructions. The first paper describes the general landscape of Amount Relatives and the second part takes a deeper dive on the formal challenges that Amount Relatives pose for grammatical theory, with a special emphasis on the particularities of their syntax/semantics mapping and the various proposals that have been put forth in the literature in order to properly understand them. The second focuses on the compositionality challenges that such constructions present.
   
   

Presentations

Materials from past presentations—some recent, some not so much—and/or those that do not yet have an accompanying paper.

1. Habituality through event iteration. Colloquium on Generative Grammar 35, UB.

   
   
   Poster
   
   Basque may express habituality in two ways: by means of verbs bearing morphological markers of imperfective aspect (which also allow so–called ongoing and dispositional interpretations), or by means of the dedicated “habitual” particle ohi together with perfective aspect (in the Western/Central varieties that we focus on). This paper (i) presents a description of the main semantic and pragmatic properties of habitual constructions with ohi in Basque, and (ii) a corresponding formal analysis capturing its semantic properties, its differences wrt. habitual readings of its unmarked counterpart, and the pragmatic inferences that ohi is argued to convey.
   
   

2. A grammatical recipe for kind construction. Functional Categories, Dimensions of Meaning and Explitiveness, UAB.

   
   
   Slides
   
   What counts as a kind is not set by the grammar, but amounts instead to conventional knowledge of a community of speakers: we simply “impute to them a sufficiently regular behavior” (Chierchia 1998). If that is so, what stops us from picking non–natural properties that nevertheless single out a sufficiently regular behavior in some population and constructing a corresponding kind denoting term? I argue that this is not just cognitively plausible, but is in fact grammatically sanctioned: certain grammatical constructions allow us to disregard natural/essential regularities and spontaneously build kinds in real time; i.e. they allow us to construct ad hoc kinds.
   
   

3. Compositionality in comparative constructions. CRISSP Colloquium, KU Leuven.

   
   
   Handout
   
   This handout discusses some data that calls into question the notion that the conditions governing the distribution of standard markers across languages is solely syntactic. Work in progress.
   
   

4. Generics and grammar. Rutgers University Colloquium.

   
   
   Handout
   
   This handout discusses the main empirical issues posed by characterizing generic statements and advocates the impossibility of a uniform analysis. Empirical data supporting the grammatical reality of so–called weak (or inductive) generic statements is provided by discussing the behavior of certain generic and habitual particles in a number of languages.
   
   

5. Domain restrictions in Bangla concealed questions, with Diti Bahdra. LSA 2019.

   
   
   Slides
   
   This paper investigates a puzzling pattern in Bangla whereby only concealed questions that denote identity questions about a number/degree/amount are grammatical in the language, while ordinary individual–referring extensions cannot form concealed questions. We provide a domain–restricted individual concept analysis of concealed questions whereby measure DPs are DPs whose denotation makes reference to a nominalized degree, a point in an ordering of sets of entities. Bangla is argued to have a much more restricted type–shifter than its very well–studied English counterpart, and only measure DPs satisfy the restriction. This analysis effectively establishes a categorical difference between ordinary and restricted concealed questions.
   
   

6. Genericity and epistemic commitments, with Hana Filip. Semantics and Philosophy in Europe 10.

   
   
   Slides
   
   This talk suggests that a key aspect in providing a semantics of characterizing genericity is to factor in the point of view of the speaker’s stance on exceptions to the generically predicated property. We argue that the speaker’s stance on exceptions systematically correlates (i) with different types of generalizations, and (ii) with different natural language expressions (Q–Adverbs, affixes, i.a.) signaling the type of generalization a sentence expresses.
   
   

Dissertation

1. Amount Relatives Redux. UMass Amherst.

   
   
   Dissertation
   
   This dissertation provides a novel analysis of Amount Relatives (Carlson 1977, Heim 1987, Grosu and Landman 1998, Herdan 2008, Meier 2015, a.o). Amount Relatives are a form of non–intersective relative clause that is usually associated with amount interpretations . For example, the sentence it will take us the rest of our lives to drink the champagne they spilled that evening is most naturally interpreted as referring to an amount of champagne, and not any particular champagne. Here I propose that natural languages allow two different strategies for deriving amount interpretations of relative clauses: a degree–based strategy and a degree–less strategy, where degree semantics does not come into play at all. It is argued that while some languages employ both strategies, as is the case with Spanish, languages like English only have the degree–less strategy.