1932

Abstract

Inquisitive semantics enriches the standard truth-conditional notion of meaning, in order to facilitate an integrated semantic analysis of statements and questions. Taking this richer view on meaning as a starting point, this review presents a new perspective on modal operators and quantifiers, one that has the potential to address a number of challenges for standard semantic analyses of such operators. To illustrate the new perspective, we present an inquisitive take on the semantics of attitude verbs and on quantifiers taking scope out of questions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626
2018-01-14
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/4/1/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alonso-Ovalle L. 2009. Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguist. Philos. 32:207–44 [Google Scholar]
  2. AnderBois S. 2012. Focus and uninformativity in Yukatek Maya questions. Nat. Lang. Semant. 20:349–90 [Google Scholar]
  3. AnderBois S. 2014. The semantics of sluicing: beyond truth conditions. Language 90:887–926 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belnap N. 1966. Questions, answers, and presuppositions. J. Philos. 63:609–11 [Google Scholar]
  5. Belnap N. 1982. Questions and answers in Montague grammar. Processes, Beliefs, and Questions S Peters, E Saarinen 165–98 Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  6. Blok D. 2015. The semantics and pragmatics of directional numeral modifiers. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25) S D'Antonio, M Moroney, CR Little 471–90 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cariani F, Kaufmann M, Kaufmann S. 2013. Deliberative modality under epistemic uncertainty. Linguist. Philos. 36:225–59 [Google Scholar]
  8. Champollion L, Ciardelli I, Roelofsen F. 2015. Some questions in typed inquisitive semantics Presented at Workshop Quest. Log. Semant Amsterdam, Dec:15 [Google Scholar]
  9. Champollion L, Ciardelli I, Zhang L. 2016. Breaking de Morgan's law in counterfactual antecedents. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26), ed M Moroney, CR Little, J Collard, D Burgdorf 304–24 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  10. Charlow N. 2013. What we know and what to do. Synthese 190:2291–323 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia G. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:181–234 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chierchia G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Ciardelli I. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics MSc thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, Neth. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ciardelli I. 2014. Modalities in the realm of questions: axiomatizing inquisitive epistemic logic. Advances in Modal Logic R Goré, B Kooi, A Kurucz 94–113 London: Coll. Publ. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ciardelli I. 2016a. Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26) M Moroney, CR Little, J Collard, D Burgdorf 732–52 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  16. Ciardelli I. 2016b. Questions in logic PhD thesis, Inst. Log. Lang. Comput., Univ. Amsterdam, Neth. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ciardelli I. 2017. Question meaning=resolution conditions. Log. Log. Philos. 26:383–416 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ciardelli I, Coppock L, Roelofsen F. 2016a. Implicatures of modified numerals: quality or quantity?. Proceedings of the 21st Sinn und Bedeutung Conference18 https://sites.google.com/site/sinnundbedeutung21/proceedings-preprints [Google Scholar]
  19. Ciardelli I, Groenendijk J, Roelofsen F. 2015. Inquisitive semantics Lect. notes, Eur. Summer Sch. Log. Lang. Inf. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DkxNDY5Z/lecture-notes.pdf [Google Scholar]
  20. Ciardelli I, Roelofsen F. 2011. Inquisitive logic. J. Philos. Log. 40:55–94 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ciardelli I, Roelofsen F. 2015. Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese 192:1643–87 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ciardelli I, Roelofsen F. 2017. Hurford's constraint, the semantics of disjunctions, and the nature of alternatives. Nat. Lang. Semant. 25:199–222 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ciardelli I, Roelofsen F, Theiler N. 2016b. Composing alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 40:1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Coppock E, Brochhagen T. 2013. Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semant. Pragmat. 6:1–57 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dayal V. 2016. Questions Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  26. Elliott PD, Klinedinst N, Sudo Y, Uegaki W. 2017. Predicates of relevance and theories of question embedding. J. Semant. 34:547–54 [Google Scholar]
  27. Engdahl EB. 1980. The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish PhD thesis, Univ. Mass Amherst: [Google Scholar]
  28. Fine K. 2012. Counterfactuals without possible worlds. J. Philos. 109:221–46 [Google Scholar]
  29. Friedman J. 2013. Question-directed attitudes. Philos. Perspect. 27:145–74 [Google Scholar]
  30. Frittella S, Greco G, Palmigiano A, Yang F. 2016. A multi-type calculus for inquisitive logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9803 Proceedings of the International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation, ed. J Väänänen, Å Hirvonen, R de Queiroz 1–19 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  31. Gajewski J. 2002. L-analyticity and natural language Work. pap MIT, Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  32. George BR. 2011. Question embedding and the semantics of answers PhD thesis, Univ. Calif Los Angeles: [Google Scholar]
  33. Geurts B, Nouwen R. 2007. ‘At least’ et al.: the semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83:533–59 [Google Scholar]
  34. Groenendijk J, Stokhof M. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, Neth. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hamblin CL. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Found. Lang. 10:41–53 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hausser R, Zaefferer D. 1978. Questions and answers in a context-dependent Montague grammar. Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages F Guenthner, SJ Schmidt 339–58 Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  37. Heim I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. J. Semant. 9:183–221 [Google Scholar]
  38. Higginbotham J, May R. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. Linguist. Rev. 1:41–80 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hintikka J. 1962. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Hintikka J. 1969. Semantics for Propositional Attitudes Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  41. Hull RD. 1975. A semantics for superficial and embedded questions in natural language. Formal Semantics of Natural Language E Keenan 33–45 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Karttunen L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguist. Philos. 1:3–44 [Google Scholar]
  43. Karttunen L, Peters S. 1980. Interrogative quantifiers. Time, Tense, and Quantifiers C Rohrer 181–206 Tübingen, Ger.: Niemeyer [Google Scholar]
  44. Kratzer A. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Rerspectives Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Krifka M. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Nat. Lang. Semant. 9:1–40 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kuno S. 1991. Remarks on quantifier scope. Current English Linguistics in Japan H Nakajima 261–87 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  47. Lassiter D. 2011. Measurement and modality: the scalar basis of modal semantics PhD thesis, NYU New York: [Google Scholar]
  48. Pafel J. 1999. Interrogative quantifiers within scope. Linguist. Philos. 22:255–310 [Google Scholar]
  49. Punčochář V. 2015. Weak negation in inquisitive semantics. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 24:323–55 [Google Scholar]
  50. Punčochář V. 2016. A generalization of inquisitive semantics. J. Philos. Log. 45:399–428 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roelofsen F. 2013a. Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese 190:79–102 [Google Scholar]
  52. Roelofsen F. 2013b. An inquisitive perspective on meaning: the case of disjunction Presented at Stanford Linguist. Colloq Stanford, CA: [Google Scholar]
  53. Roelofsen F, Farkas DF. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91:359–414 [Google Scholar]
  54. Roelofsen F, Uegaki W. 2016. The ignorance implication of inquisitive predicates. Proceedings of the 21st Sinn und Bedeutung Conference15 https://sites.google.com/site/sinnundbedeutung21/proceedings-preprintshtt [Google Scholar]
  55. Santorio P. 2016. Alternatives and truthmakers in conditional semantics. J. Philos. In press [Google Scholar]
  56. Spector B, Egré P. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: an answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese 192:1729–84 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stalnaker R. 1984. Inquiry Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Szabolcsi A. 1997. Quantifiers in pair-list readings. Ways of Scope Taking A Szabolcsi 311–47 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  59. Theiler N. 2014. A multitude of answers: embedded questions in typed inquisitive semantics MSc thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, Neth. [Google Scholar]
  60. Theiler N, Roelofsen F, Aloni M. 2016a. Truthful resolutions: a new perspective on false-answer sensitivity. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26), ed M Moroney, CR Little, J Collard, D Burgdorf 122–41 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  61. Theiler N, Roelofsen F, Aloni M. 2016b. A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements Work. pap., Inst. Log. Lang. Comput., Univ. Amsterdam, Neth. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tichy P. 1978. Questions, answers, and logic. Am. Philos. Q. 15:275–84 [Google Scholar]
  63. Uegaki W. 2015. Interpreting questions under attitudes PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  64. Westera M, Brasoveanu A. 2014. Ignorance in context: the interaction of modified numerals and QUDs. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24) T Snider, S D'Antonio, M Weigand 414–31 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  65. Xiang Y. 2015. Complete and true: a uniform analysis for mention-some and mention-all. Proceedings of the 20th Sinn und Bedeutung Conference N Bade, P Berezovskaya, A Schoeller 815–32. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GRmOGQ4N/SUB20html4.html [Google Scholar]
  66. Xiang Y. 2016. Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers PhD thesis, Harvard Univ Cambridge, MA: [Google Scholar]
  67. Yang F, Väänänen J. 2016. Propositional logics of dependence. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 167:557–89 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error