1932

Abstract

Although the following polar question forms raise the same issue, the positive question , the low negation question , and the high negation question cannot be used interchangeably because they are sensitive to the expectations that the speaker may originally have (original speaker bias) and to contextual evidence that becomes available during the conversational exchange (contextual evidence bias). This article summarizes the aspects of these constructions on which agreement has been reached and identifies central points of empirical and theoretical divergence in the literature; further, it critically reviews current attempts to derive original speaker bias in high negation questions as well as the asymmetry between positive questions and low negation questions with respect to contextual evidence bias.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-064837
2024-01-16
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-022421-064837.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-064837&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. AnderBois S. 2011. Issues and alternatives PhD Diss. Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  2. AnderBois S 2019. Negation, alternatives and negative polar questions in American English. Questions in Discourse K von Heusinger, E Onea, M Zimmermann 118–71 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnhold A, Braun B, Romero M. 2021. Aren't prosody and syntax marking bias in questions?. Lang. Speech 64:1141–80
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaver D, Roberts C, Simons M, Tonhauser J. 2017. Questions under discussion: where information structure meets projective content. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 3:265–84
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bill C, Koev T 2022. Really: ambiguity and question bias. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 26 D Gutzmann, S Repp 130–48 Cologne, Ger.: Univ. Cologne
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolinger D. 1978. Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. Questions H Hiz 87–105 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Büring D, Gunlogson C. 2000. Aren't positive and negative polar questions the same? Work. Pap. Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  8. Ciardelli I, Groenendijk J, Roelofsen F. 2013. Inquisitive semantics: a new notion of meaning. Lang. Linguist. Compass 7:9459–76
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell C 2000. The discourse function of verum focus in wh-questions. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 1 M Hirotani, A Coetzee, N Hall, J Kim 165–80 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Domaneschi F, Romero M, Braun B. 2017. Bias in polar questions: evidence from English and German production experiments. Glossa 2:126
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Farkas D. 2023. Bias and anti-bias: two case studies from Hungarian. J. Ural. Linguist. 2:96–126
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frana I, Rawlins K. 2019. Attitudes in discourse: Italian polar questions and the particle mica. Semant. Pragmat. 12:16
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodhue D. 2018. On asking and answering biased polar questions PhD Diss. McGill Univ. Montreal, Can.:
  14. Goodhue D. 2022a. All focus is contrastive: on (polarity) verum focus, answer focus, contrastive focus and givenness. J. Semant. 39:117–58
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodhue D 2022b. Bias in high negation questions as a quantity implicature in commitment space semantics. Proceedings of the 23rd Amsterdam Colloquium M Degano, T Roberts, G Sbardolino, M Schouwstra 106–12 Amsterdam: Inst. Logic Lang. Comput.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodhue D. 2022c. Isn't there more than one way to bias a polar question?. Nat. Lang. Semant. 30:379–413
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodhue D. 2023. The evidential condition on asking polar questions Invited talk presented at the International Workshop on the Semantics of Non-Canonical Questions Toronto, Can.: May 17–18
  18. Grice HP 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech Acts P Cole, JL Morgan 41–58 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Groenendijk J, Stokhof M. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers PhD Diss. Univ. Amsterdam
  20. Gutzmann D, Castroviejo-Miró E. 2011. The dimensions of verum. Empir. Issues Syntax Semant. 8:143–65
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gutzmann D, Hartmann K, Matthewson L. 2020. Verum focus is verum, not focus: cross-linguistic evidence. Glossa 5:151
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gyuris B. 2017. New perspectives on bias in polar questions: a study of Hungarian -e. Int. Rev. Pragmat. 9:11–50
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Han CH. 1999. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in universal grammar PhD Diss. Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
  24. Hartung S. 2006. Forms of negation in polar questions MA Thesis Univ. Tübingen
  25. Heim I. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research A von Stechow, D Wunderlich 487–535 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Höhle T. 1992. Über Verum Fockus im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte 4 Informationsstruktur und Grammatik J Jacobs 112–41 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Huddleston R, Pullum GK. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  28. Jeong S. 2021. Deriving dual dimensions of bias: preposed negation questions with EVEN. J. Semant. 38:49–94
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Karttunen L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguist. Philos. 1:13–44
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Karttunen L, Peters S. 1979. Conventional implicature. Syntax and Semantics 11 Presupposition C Oh, D Dineen 1–56 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Krifka M. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 23) T Snider 1–18 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Krifka M 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25) S D'Antonio, M Moroney, CR Little 328–45 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Krifka M 2017. Negative polarity questions as denegations of assertions. Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures C Lee, F Kiefer, M Krifka 359–98 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Krifka M. 2021. Modelling questions in commitment spaces. Asking and Answering M Cordes 63–95 Tübingen, Ger: Narr Francke Attempto
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ladd DR 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society RA Hendrick, CS Masek, MF Miller 164–71 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohammadi M. 2024. Bias effect of response preference. Proceedings of the Fifty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 59) Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Northrup O. 2014. Grounds for commitment. PhD. Diss. Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  38. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  39. Reese BJ. 2007. Bias in questions PhD Diss. Univ. Tex. Austin:
  40. Repp S. 2006. ¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Res. Lang. Comput. 4:4397–423
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Repp S 2013. Common ground management: modal particles, illocutionary negation and verum. Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning D Gutzmann, HM Gärtner 231–74 Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Repp S, Geist L. 2022. Negative polar questions in Russian: question bias and question concern Work. Pap. Univ. Cologne/Univ. Stuttgart
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Roelofsen F, Verhuizen N, Weidman Sassoon G. 2013. Positive and negative questions in discourse. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17 E Chemla, V Homer, G Winterstein 455–72 Paris: ENS Paris
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Romero M. 2006. Biased yes/no questions: the role of verum. Sprache Datenverarb. 30:9–24
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Romero M 2015. High negation in subjunctive conditionals and polar questions. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19 E Csipak, H Zeijlstra 499–516 Göttingen, Ger.: Univ. Göttingen
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Romero M 2020. Form and function of negative, tag, and rhetorical questions. Oxford Handbook of Negation V Deprez, MT Espinal 235–54 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Romero M, Arnhold A, Braun B, Domaneschi F. 2017. Negative polar question types in English. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 47) A Lamont, K Tetzloff 35–48 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Romero M, Han C-H. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguist. Philos. 27:609–58
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rooth M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:75–116
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rullmann H. 2003. Additive particles and polarity. J. Semant. 20:4329–401
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sailor C. 2013. Questionable negation Talk presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Boston: Jan. 3
  52. Sudo Y 2013. Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning D Gutzmann, HM Gärtner 275–95 Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tabatowski M. 2022. Preferring to learn: an attitudinal approach to polar questions PhD Diss., Univ. Chicago
  54. Trinh T 2014. How to ask the obvious: a presuppositional account of evidential bias in English yes/no questions. The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim 2 L Crnič Luka, U Sauerland 227–49 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist
    [Google Scholar]
  55. van Rooy R, Šafářová M 2003. On polar questions. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 13) RB Young, Y Zhou 292–309 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Walkow M. 2009. When to ask an inner negation polar question. Univ. Mass. Occas. Pap. Linguist. 39:125–46
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wilder C. 2013. English ‘emphatic do.’. Lingua 128:142–71
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Zeijlstra H. 2016. Negation and negative dependencies. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:233–54
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-064837
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-064837
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