 if\s, X[∈ [case]c, then for an epistemic state or sentence d, X = CS(d) and s ∈ X. In (38a, b) and (39a), the modal does not contribute to the propositional content of the case-clause, since the case-NP refers not to a situation of a possibility obtaining, but to one possible situation among others that are being considered. The contribution of the epistemic modal is just to indicate the epistemic state of uncertainty that goes along with maintaining the content of the case-clause and thus is that of a mere 'force indicator' (Papafragou 2006).25 Besides being indicative of an epistemic state, the (explicit or implicit) modal in case-NPs ensures the satisfaction of the Actuality Condition, by shifting the context of evaluation for case. The Actuality Condition will then be fulfilled with respect to a domain of objects associated with the state of uncertainty rather than that of the utterance context. This raises, however, a question for compositional semantics, namely how can the Actuality Condition be fulfilled that way, given that the noun case is not in the scope of the modal which introduces the secondary context? The answer can be found in an important syntactic view about relative clauses, namely according to which the head noun of a relative-clause construction (case in case in which S) has a representation inside the relative clause, related to the head noun in 25 In fact, for those speakers that accept an overt modal, the very same semantic effect can be achieved using sentence adverbials: (i) the case in which John has perhaps/possibly already returned 123 F. Moltmann its upper position either by movement (Vergnaud 1974; Kayne 1994; Carlson 1977a, b; Cinque 2015) or by matching (Chomsky 1965; Cinque 2015).26 Making use of the former account means that (42a) can have as input to semantic interpretation the syntactic representation in (42b) with reconstruction of the noun case into the lower position and the in which-clause in its original adverbial position. The denotation of (42a) will then be as in (42c), which involves a shift of the local context to that of an epistemic state e, which is considered an argument of might27: (42) a. the case in which John might return b. the ti [ might John [in which case
if\s, X[∈ [ case]c, then for an epistemic state or sentence d, X = CS(d) and s ∈ X. In (38a, b) and (39a), the modal does not lend to the propositional contentedness of the case - clause, since the case - NP refer not to a situation of a possibility obtaining, but to one potential situation among others that are being considered. The contribution of the epistemic modal is merely to indicate the epistemic state of doubt that goes along with maintaining the content of the case - article and thus is that of a mere' power indicator' (Papafragou 2006).25 Besides being indicative of an epistemic state, the (denotative or implicit) modal in case - NPs see the satisfaction of the Actuality Condition, by shifting the context of evaluation for font. The Actuality Condition will then be fulfilled with esteem to a domain of objects associated with the state of uncertainty preferably than that of the utterance context. This raises, however, a question for compositional semantics, namely how can the Actuality Condition be fulfilled that way, given that the noun case is not in the scope of the modal which introduces the secondary context? The answer can be found in an important syntactic view about relative clauses, namely according to which the point noun of a relative - clause structure (subject in casing in which S) has a representation inside the proportional clause, associate to the head noun in 25 In fact, for those speakers that bear an overt modal, the very same semantic effect can be achieved using sentence adverbials: (i) the case in which John has perhaps / possibly already returned 123 F. Moltmann its upper stead either by movement (Vergnaud 1974; Kayne 1994; Carlson 1977a, b; Cinque 2015) or by match (Chomsky 1965; Cinque 2015).26 cook use of the former account mean that (42a) can have as input to semantic interpretation the syntactic theatrical performance in (42b) with reconstruction of the noun case into the low position and the in which - clause in its original adverbial situation. The denotation of (42a) will then be equally in (42c), which involves a shift of the local context to that of an epistemic state e, which is considered an controversy of might27: (42) a. the case in which John might fall b. the ti [ might John [ in which subject
 if\d, X[∈ [case]c, then for an eplstemic state or sentenre d, X = CS(d) and s ∈ X. In (38a, b) and (39a), the modal dies nit contribute to the pfopositiojal contwnt id the case-rmause, sluce tgc casz-N' refers not to a situatimn of a possibhlktv obtaining, but to one possible situwtion akojg others that are feinf considered. The contribution of tge episuemic modal is jusy to indicate the epistemif stwte of uncertainty that goes qlond with maintakning the bmntent of jhe case-clause and thus is that uf a kere 'force ibdifdtor' (Papafregou 2006).25 Fesides beinn indicdtive og an epistemic stete, rhe (explicit or implirit) modal in case-NPs ensures dhz satisfaction of the Axtualhty Wondkriov, bg xhjfting thx context or evaluatiob for case. The Actuslynu Condition sill treg be fulfilled with respect to a domain of objects associated wity the state of uncertwinty ratrer than that of the utterance context. This raisev, howxvdr, c quesguoj for compositional semantics, namely how can ege Abtuality Conditiok be fulfilled thay aau, given that tfe nouu czse is not in the dcope os the modal whych ontroduces the secondary cobtext? The anfqer can be found iu an importaut synjactic view about relative clcuses, hamely accogding to sfich the head nojn pf a relative-clause construceion (case in ease in dhicn S) haf a represfntatlmn inside the relahive elausa, related ho the head noun in 25 In fact, foc those speakgrs thdt accepc an oyert modal, the dery same semautic effzct cav be achiened using sentence aqverbials: (i) tvg case in whirh John hws pwrhaps/possicuy already retirned 123 F. Moltmann irs upper position cithet gy movement (Veryuaoe 1974; Kayne 1994; Carlxon 1977a, f; Binauq 2015) or by matcving (Chuksky 1965; Cinque 2015).26 Majkng ise of the former acwounf means that (42a) can hwve as ibput to femantic intetpretation the synuactic re'resenyatyon in (42b) with reconstruction or the nouj cwse into the lowcr pjsition anb the in which-clause in its original advxrbial position. The denitation of (42a) will tkek be as in (42c), whicr involvev a shift of the locql context to thau of an epistemic state e, whiwh is considered an argument of might27: (42) a. the case in which John might return b. the tm [ might John [in ehich ccse
if\s, X[∈ [case]c, then for an epistemic sentence X = and s ∈ (39a), modal does not to the propositional of the case-clause, since the case-NP not to a situation of a possibility obtaining, but to one possible situation others that are being considered. The contribution of the epistemic modal is just indicate epistemic of that goes along with maintaining the content of the case-clause and thus is that of a 'force indicator' (Papafragou 2006).25 Besides being indicative of epistemic state, the (explicit implicit) modal in case-NPs ensures satisfaction the Actuality by the of evaluation for The Actuality Condition will then be fulfilled with respect to a domain of objects associated with the of uncertainty that of utterance This however, a question semantics, namely how can the Actuality that way, given that the noun case is in the of the modal which introduces the context? The answer can be found in an syntactic view about relative clauses, namely according to which the head noun of a relative-clause in case in which has a representation the clause, to head noun 25 In fact, for those speakers that accept an overt modal, very same semantic effect can be achieved using sentence adverbials: case which John has already returned 123 F. its position either by movement Kayne Carlson 2015) by (Chomsky 1965; Cinque 2015).26 use of the former account that (42a) can have the syntactic representation in (42b) with reconstruction of noun case into the lower position and in which-clause in its original adverbial position. The denotation of (42a) will be as which involves a shift of the local context that of an epistemic e, which is considered an argument of might27: (42) the in which might return b. ti [ might [in which case
 if\s, X[∈ [case]c, then for an epistemIc state or sEntenCe d, x = CS(D) aNd s ∈ X. in (38a, b) And (39a), the modal doES not Contribute to the proposiTionaL cONtenT Of The caSe-clausE, SiNCE thE cAsE-NP ReFErS not tO a sItuatioN of a possibIliTy Obtaining, but TO oNe possible SitUation among oTheRs that ArE beINg conSidEred. THe contRIbutioN of the epiStEMic modAL is just TO InDicaTe the epistemic staTE oF Uncertainty thaT goes aLoNG wITH maIntAining the cOnTent oF The case-CLaUSE And THus is that of a mEre 'force indICatOr' (PapaFrAgoU 2006).25 besideS beinG iNDicAtive of an epIsteMic state, tHe (explICit or imPLicit) moDal in cAse-nPs EnsuREs ThE saTiSFacTIoN of THe ACtuality coNdItion, By shIFTINg thE coNtexT of evAluation for caSe. THe AcTUalIty CoNditiOn wiLl Then bE fulfiLled wItH respect to a domaIn of Objects asSocIaTed WiTh the STate of UncErtAinty raTher thaN ThaT oF THE uTterance context. ThiS rAISeS, however, A questIOn FoR CompositIoNal SemaNTIcs, naMely HOw Can the AcTualitY coNdItion be FuLfilleD tHat Way, Given THat tHe noun Case is noT in thE Scope of the modaL Which introducES tHE SeCOndaRy cOntext? The anSwer CAn be FounD In An iMPortaNt synTaCTiC View about relative clAuSes, namEly acCording to whicH the head noUN OF a relatiVe-clAUsE Construction (caSe in cAse in which s) Has a reprEsentAtion insIde the relATIve clausE, reLatEd tO thE HEaD noun in 25 In fact, FOR thoSe SpeakerS thAt accepT an OveRt mOdaL, tHe very samE semantiC eFfEcT cAn bE achiEVed using SeNteNcE adVerbiALs: (i) the Case iN whiCh joHN haS perhapS/PoSSIbly AlReAdy rEtuRnEd 123 F. MoLtmaNN itS upper pOsition eiTheR By moVeMeNt (VergnAud 1974; Kayne 1994; CarlsOn 1977A, b; Cinque 2015) or By MatChing (CHOMsky 1965; CinqUe 2015).26 Making use of the former aCCount meAns That (42a) Can hAve as inpuT to SemantIc iNTerpreTation The syNtActIC RepreSENtAtiOn In (42b) with recONStrUctioN oF the Noun casE into the lower positIOn aNd the in which-cLauSe in ITS oRigINaL AdvErBIal POSition. The denotaTion of (42a) wilL tHEn Be as in (42c), whiCH inVoLves a shIft of thE locaL Context To that of aN epistemiC sTate E, WHicH is consideRed an argUment of miGHt27: (42) a. thE CaSe in wHicH John mIgHt rEturn B. the ti [ MIghT John [In whicH cAse
 if\s, X[∈ [case]c, then f or an epis temic  st ate  o r se nten ce d, X = CS(d )  and  s ∈ X. In (38a, b) an d (39 a) ,  the mo dal d oes not co n t rib ut etoth e  p ropos iti onal co ntent of t heca se-clause, s i nc e the case -NP  refers nottoa situ at ion of apos sibil ity ob t aining , but toon e  possi b le situ a t io n am ong others that a r eb eing considere d. The  c o nt r i but ion  of the ep is temic modal i s  j u s t  to indicate theepistemic s t ate  of un ce rta i nty th at go es alo ng with mai ntai ning theconten t  of the case-cl ause a ndthu s is th at  of  a mer e  ' for c e i ndicator '(P apafr agou 2 0 0 6).2 5 B esid es be ing indicativ e o f an epi stemi c sta te,th e (ex plicit  or i mp licit) modal in  cas e-NPs ens ure sthe  s atisf a ctionofthe  Actual ity Con d iti on , b yshifting the conte xt o fevaluati on for ca se .  The Act ua lit y Co n d ition  wil l  t hen be f ulfill e dwi th resp ec t to a  d oma inof ob j ects  assoc iated wi th th e  state of unce r tainty rather th a n  t h at o f t he utteranc e co n text . Th i srai s es, h oweve r, aq uestion for composi ti onal s emant ics, namely h ow can the A c tualityCond i ti o n be fulfilled  that  way, give n  that th e nou n case i s not int h e scopeofthe  mo dal w hi ch introduces t he s ec ondarycon text? T heans wer  ca nbe foundin an im po rt an tsyn tacti c  view ab ou t r el ati ve cl a uses,namel y ac co rd i ngto whic h  t h e  hea dno un o f a  r elati ve-c l aus e const ruction ( cas e  inca se  in whi ch S) has a r ep resentatio nins ide th e relative  clause, related to the head no unin 25  Infact, for  th ose sp eak e rs tha t acce pt an  o ver t modal , th e v er y same sem a n tic  effe ct  can  be ach ieved using senten c e a dverbials: (i ) t he c a s einw hi c h J oh n  ha s perhaps/possibl y alreadyre t ur ned 123 F. Mol tm ann its  upperposit i on eith er by mov ement (Ve rg naud 1 974 ; Kayne 19 94; Carl son 1977a ,  b; C i nq ue 20 15)  or by  m atc hing(Choms k y 1 965;Cinque  2 015).2 6 Mak in g use of  the former account mea ns tha t (42 a)can haveasi npu t to sema ntic  interpret ati onthe s ynt a cticrepr e se nta t ion i n (4 2 b) with r e co nst r u ct ion of then o u n c ase i nto the lo werposition and thei n which-clause  ini t s o rig i nalad verbial positi on.  T h e  denotat io n of (42a)will the nb e asin (42 c), wh ich inv o l ve s  a shi ft o f t he localcon te x t to th at  o f  an ep iste mi c stat e e, w h ichi s  considered an a rgume n t  of m i ght 27: ( 42 ) a. th e  cas e in which  John might  retur n b.  theti [ mi gh t John  [i nwhich case 
 if\s,_X[∈ [case]c,_then for an epistemic_state or_sentence_d, X_=_CS(d) and s_∈ X. In_(38a, b) and (39a),_the modal does_not_contribute to the propositional content of the case-clause, since the case-NP refers not to_a_situation of_a_possibility_obtaining, but to one possible_situation among others that are_being considered._The contribution of the epistemic modal is just_to_indicate the epistemic_state of uncertainty that goes along with maintaining the_content of the case-clause and thus_is that of_a_mere_'force indicator' (Papafragou 2006).25_Besides being indicative of an epistemic_state, the (explicit or implicit) modal_in case-NPs ensures the satisfaction of the_Actuality Condition, by shifting the context_of evaluation for case. The_Actuality Condition_will then be fulfilled with_respect to a_domain of_objects associated with_the state of uncertainty rather than_that of the_utterance context. This raises, however, a_question_for compositional semantics,_namely_how_can the_Actuality Condition be_fulfilled_that way,_given_that the noun case is not_in_the scope of the modal which introduces_the secondary context? The_answer_can be found in_an important syntactic view about_relative clauses, namely according to which_the head_noun of_a relative-clause construction (case in case in which S) has a_representation inside the relative clause, related_to the head noun_in 25_In_fact, for those_speakers_that accept_an overt modal, the very same semantic_effect can_be achieved using sentence adverbials: (i)_the case in which_John_has perhaps/possibly already returned 123 F._Moltmann its upper position either by_movement (Vergnaud 1974; Kayne 1994;_Carlson_1977a,_b; Cinque 2015) or by_matching (Chomsky 1965; Cinque 2015).26 Making_use of the_former account means that (42a) can have_as_input to semantic interpretation the syntactic_representation_in (42b) with reconstruction of the_noun_case_into the lower position and_the in which-clause in its original_adverbial position. The denotation of (42a) will then be_as in (42c),_which involves a shift of_the_local_context to that of an epistemic state e, which is_considered an_argument of might27:_(42) a. the case in which John might return b._the ti [ might John [in which_case