Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 361–406 | Cite as

Responding to alternative and polar questions

  • María Biezma
  • Kyle Rawlins
Research Article

Abstract

This paper gives an account of the differences between polar and alternative questions, as well as an account of the division of labor between compositional semantics and pragmatics in interpreting these types of questions. Alternative questions involve a strong exhaustivity presupposition for the mentioned alternatives. We derive this compositionally from the meaning of the final falling tone and its interaction with the pragmatics of questioning in discourse. Alternative questions are exhaustive in two ways: they exhaust the space of epistemic possibilities, as well as the space of discourse possibilities (the Question Under Discussion). In contrast, we propose that polar questions are the opposite: they present just one alternative that is necessarily non-exhaustive. The account explains a range of response patterns to alternative and polar questions, as well as differences and similarities between the two types of questions.

Keywords

Alternative questions Polar questions Syntax Semantics Pragmatics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adger D., Quer J. (2001) The syntax and semantics of unselected embedded questions. Language 77: 107–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aloni M. (2003) Free choice in modal contexts. Proceedings of SuB 7: 28–37Google Scholar
  3. Aloni, M., Égré, P., & de Jager, T. (2009). Knowing whether A or B. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9646-1.
  4. Aloni, M., & van Rooy, R. (2002). The dynamics of questions and focus. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 12. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2004). Simplification of disjunctive antecedents. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 34, pp. 1–15). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2005). Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (Vol. 35). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  8. Aoun J., Li Y.-H. A. (2003) Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker, C. L. (1968). Indirect questions in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  10. Baker Carl Lee (1970) Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197–219Google Scholar
  11. Bartels C. (1999) The intonation of English statements and questions. Garland Publishing., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Beck S., Kim S.-S. (2006) Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 165–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Belnap N., Steel T. (1976) The logic of questions and answers. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  16. Biezma, M. (2009). Alternative vs. polar questions: The cornering effect. In Proceedings of SALT 19.Google Scholar
  17. Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes–no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Bresnan, J. (1972). Theory of complementation in English syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Büring D. (2003) On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26: 511–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Büring, D., & Gunlogson, C. (2000). Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Manuscript, UCSC/UCLA.Google Scholar
  21. Cable, S. (2007). The grammar of q: Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting, as revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  22. Chierchia G. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2009). Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: Evidence for embedded implicatures. In P. Égré & G. Magri (Eds.) Presuppositions and implicatures. Proceedings of the MIT-Paris workshop (Vol. 60). MITWPL 60, Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2011). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Eckardt, R. (2006). The syntax and pragmatics of embedded yes/no questions. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 447–466). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Farkas, D. (2007). The grammar of polarity particles in Romanian. Manuscript, UCSCGoogle Scholar
  27. Farkas, D. (2009). Polarity particles in Hungarian. In M. den Dikken & R. M. Vago (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  28. Farkas D., Bruce K. (2010) On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fox, D. (2006). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Gawron, J. M. (2001). Universal concessive conditionals and alternative NPs in English. In C. Condoravdi & G. R. de Lavalette (Eds.), Logical perspectives on language and information. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Ginzburg, J. (1994). An update semantics for dialogue. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on computational semantics, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  32. Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Language, logic, and computation (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: CSLI Lecture Notes.Google Scholar
  33. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. (Originally from the William James Lectures, Harvard University, 1967.)Google Scholar
  35. Groenendijk, J. (1999). The Logic of Interrogation: Classical Version. In T. Matthews & D.L. Strolovitch (Eds.), The Proceedings of the ninth conference on semantics and linguistic theory. Ithaca, NY: CLC.Google Scholar
  36. Groenendijk, J. (2009). Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction. In P. Bosch, D. Gabelaia, & J. Lang (Eds.), Seventh international Tbilisi symposium on language, logic, and computation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at Stanford workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency.Google Scholar
  38. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055–1124). Amsterdam/Cambridge: Elsevier/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gunlogson C. (2001) True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Rutledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Gunlogson C. (2008) A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamblin C.L. (1958) Questions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36: 159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hamblin C. L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53Google Scholar
  44. Han, C., & Romero, M. (2002). Ellipsis and movement in the syntax of Whether /Q… or questions. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of the NELS (Vol. 32, pp. 197–216). Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  45. Han C., Romero M. (2004a) Disjunction, focus, and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 179–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Han C., Romero M. (2004b) The syntax of Whether /Q… or questions: Ellipsis combined with movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 527–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Haspelmath, Martin, and Ekkehard König. (1998). Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  48. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  49. Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Higginbotham J. (1991) Either/or. Proceedings of NELS 21: 143–155Google Scholar
  51. Holmberg A. (2001) The syntax of Yes and No in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 141–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Holmberg A. (2007) Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61: 212–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Huddleston, R. (1994). The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics, 30(2), 411–439.Google Scholar
  54. Isaacs J., Rawlins K. (2008) Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25: 269–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Izvorski, R. (2000a). Free adjunct free relatives. In WCCFL 19 (pp. 232–245). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  56. Izvorski, R. (2000b). Free relatives and related matters. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  57. Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 167–193Google Scholar
  58. Karttunen L. (1977a) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Karttunen, L. (1977b). To doubt whether. In The CLS book of squibs. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  60. Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1976). What indirect questions conventionally implicate. In CLS 12, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  61. Kramer, R., & Rawlins, K. (2009). Polarity particles: An ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39. Amherst, MA: Graduate Student Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
  62. Kramer, R., & Rawlins, K. (2010). Polarity particles and ellipsis: A (somewhat) cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at UCSC workshop on polarity particles.Google Scholar
  63. Kratzer, A. (2005). Indefinites and their operators. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The Partee effect. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  64. Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  65. (2001) Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ladd R. (1981) A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions.. Proceedings of CLS 17: 164–171Google Scholar
  67. Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  68. Larson R. (1985) On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lewis, D. (1979). A problem about permission. In E. Saarinenand et al. (Eds.), Essays in honor of Jaakko Hintikka. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  70. Maier, E., & van der Sandt, R. (2003). Denial and correction in layered DRT. In Proceedings of DiaBruck’03.Google Scholar
  71. McCloskey J. (1991) Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85: 259–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Menéndez-Benito, P. (2006). The grammar of choice. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  73. Merchant, J. (2003). Remarks on stripping. Manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  74. Merchant J. (2006) Why no(t)?. Style 40: 20–23Google Scholar
  75. Partee, B., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäurle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language (pp. 361–393). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  76. Pope, E. (1972). Questions and answers in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  77. Pruitt, K. (2008a). Mapping prosody to interpretation in alternative questions. Paper presented at CUNY conference on human sentence processing.Google Scholar
  78. Pruitt, K. (2008b). Perceptual relevance of prosodic features in non-wh-questions with disjunction. UMass Amherst, Amherst.Google Scholar
  79. Pruitt, K. (2008c). Prosody and focus in alternative questions: Accounting for interpretation. In Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  80. Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2010). Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Manuscript, UMass Amherst, May 3, 2010.Google Scholar
  81. Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
  82. Rawlins, K. (2008a). Unconditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  83. Rawlins, K. (2008b) Unifying if-conditionals and unconditionals In Proceedings of SALT 18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Rawlins, K. (in press). (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  85. Reese, B. (2007). Bias in questions. Ph.D. dissertation, UT Austin.Google Scholar
  86. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSU Working papers in linguistics 49: Papers in semantics. (pp. 91–136). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  87. Roelofsen, F. (2012). Algebraic inquisitive semantics. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  88. Roelofsen, F., & van Gool, S. (2009). Disjunctive questions, inotnation, and highlighting. In Amsterdam Colloquium 10, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  89. Romero M., Han C.-H. (2004) Negative yes-no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 609–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rooth, M., & Partee, B. (1982). Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope “or”. In Proceedings of WCCFL 1. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  91. Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Simons M. (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Spenader J., Maier E. (2009) Contrast as denial in multi-dimensional semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1707–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Stalnaker R. (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  97. Stockwell, R., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. (1973). Major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  98. van Rooy, R., & Safárová, M. (2003). On polar questions. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistics Theory 13. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  99. van Leusen N. (2004) Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics 21: 415–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Velissaratou, S. (2000). Conditional questions and which-interrogatives. Master of Logic Thesis, University of Amsterdam. ILLC Publications.Google Scholar
  101. von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  102. von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Zaefferer, D. (1990). Conditionals and unconditonals in universal grammar and situation semantics. In R. Cooper, K. Mukai, & J. Perry (Eds.), Situation theory and its applications I (pp. 471–492). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  104. Zaefferer, D. (1991). Conditionals and unconditionals: Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. In D. Zaefferer (Ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics. Berlin: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  105. Zimmermann, T. (Ed.). (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 255–290.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Linguistics and Language StudiesCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Cognitive Science DepartmentJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations