\n

\n \n 2022\n \n \n (10)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Free Choice in Modal Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Karl Nygren.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Free$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n The problem of closure and questioning attitudes.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Richard Teague.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 200(5): 1–19. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{teague2022problem,\n  title={The problem of closure and questioning attitudes},\n  author={Teague, Richard},\n  journal={Synthese},\n  volume={200},\n  number={5},\n  pages={1--19},\n  year={2022}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Counterfactuals, hyperintensionality and Hurford disjunctions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Huseyin Gungor.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Counterfactuals,$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{gungor2022counterfactuals,\n  title={Counterfactuals, hyperintensionality and Hurford disjunctions},\n  author={Gungor, Huseyin},\n  journal={Linguistics and Philosophy},\n  abstract={This paper investigates propositional hyperintensionality in counterfactuals. It starts with a scenario describing two children playing on a seesaw and studies the truth-value predictions for counterfactuals by four different semantic theories. The theories in question are Kit Fine’s truthmaker semantics, Luis Alonso-Ovalle’s alternative semantics, inquisitive semantics and Paolo Santorio’s syntactic truthmaker semantics. These predictions suggest that the theories that distinguish more of a given set of intensionally equivalent sentences (Fine and Alonso-Ovalle’s) fare better than those that do not (inquisitive semantics and Santorio’s). Then we investigate how inquisitive semantics and Santorio can respond to these results. They can respond to them by helping themselves to considerations from Hurford disjunctions, disjunctions whose disjuncts stand in an entailment relation to one another. I argue that considerations from Hurford disjunctions are ad hoc modifications to less fine-grained theories to predict the expected results and they are not independently motivated. I conclude that the scenarios suggest a need for more fine-grained theories of sentential meaning in general.},\n  url             = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-022-09360-3},\n  year={2022}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Coherence in inquisitive first-order logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Gianluca Grilletti.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Coherence$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CIARDELLI2022103155,\ntitle = {Coherence in inquisitive first-order logic},\njournal = {Annals of Pure and Applied Logic},\nyear = {2022},\nissn = {0168-0072},\ndoi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2022.103155},\nurl = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168007222000707},\nauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli and Gianluca Grilletti},\nkeywords = {Inquisitive logic, Coherence, Compactness, Axiomatization, Team semantics},\nabstract = {Inquisitive first-order logic, InqBQ, is a conservative extension of classical first-order logic with questions. Formulas of InqBQ are interpreted with respect to information states—essentially, sets of relational structures over a common domain. It is unknown whether entailment in InqBQ is compact, and whether validities are recursively enumerable. In this paper, we study the semantic property of finite coherence: a formula of InqBQ is finitely coherent if in order to determine whether it is satisfied by a state, it suffices to check substates of a fixed finite size. We show that finite coherence has interesting implications. Most strikingly, entailment towards finitely coherent conclusions is compact. We identify a broad syntactic fragment of the language, the rex fragment, where all formulas are finitely coherent. We give a natural deduction system which is complete for InqBQ entailments with rex conclusions, showing in particular that rex validities are recursively enumerable. On the way to this result, we study approximations of InqBQ obtained by restricting to information states of a fixed cardinality. We axiomatize the finite approximations and show that, in contrast to the situation in the propositional setting, InqBQ does not coincide with the limit of its finite approximations, settling a question posed by Sano [19].}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learnability and constraints on the semantics of clause-embedding predicates.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Mora Maldonado, Jennifer Culbertson, & Wataru Uegaki.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2022. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Learnability$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 22 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{maldonado2022learnability,\n  title={Learnability and constraints on the semantics of clause-embedding predicates},\n  author={Maldonado, Mora and Culbertson, Jennifer and Uegaki, Wataru},\n  booktitle={Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society},\n  url={https://escholarship.org/content/qt9h13v9db/qt9h13v9db.pdf},\n  abstract={Responsive predicates are clause-embedding predicates like\nEnglish know and guess that can take both declarative and interrogative clausal complements. The meanings of responsive\npredicates when they take a declarative complement and when\nthey take an interrogative complement are hypothesized to be\nconstrained in systematic ways across languages, suggesting\nthat these constraints represent semantic universals. We report\nan artificial language learning experiment showing that one of\nthese proposed constraints is indeed reflected in the inferences\nparticipants make while learning a novel responsive predicate.\nOur results add support to a growing body of evidence linking\nsemantic universals to learning.},\n  KEYWORDS = {Questions ; Inquisitive Semantics ; Clause-embedding predicates; Artifical Language learning},\n  year={2022}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On the interpretation and distribution of embedded main clause syntax: new perspectives on complex discourse moves.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kajsa Djärv.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, (7). 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Djarv:22,\n    author = {Djärv, Kajsa},\n    title = "{On the interpretation and distribution of embedded main clause syntax: new perspectives on complex discourse moves}",\n    journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},\n\tnumber = {7},\n    year = {2022},\n    doi = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5752},\n    url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5752}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Syntactic Encoding of Conventional Implicatures in Sicilian Polar Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Silvio Cruschina, & Valentina Bianchi.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Probus. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CruschinaBianchi+2022,\nauthor = {Silvio Cruschina and Valentina Bianchi},\ndoi = {doi:10.1515/probus-2022-0006},\nurl = {https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2022-0006},\ntitle = {The Syntactic Encoding of Conventional Implicatures in {Sicilian} Polar Questions},\njournal = {Probus},\nnumber = {},\nvolume = {},\nyear = {2022}\n}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Quexistentials and Focus.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kees Hengeveld, Sabine Iatridou, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistic Inquiry,1-54. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Quexistentials$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 19 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Hengeveld:22,\n    author = {Hengeveld, Kees and Iatridou, Sabine and Roelofsen, Floris},\n    title = "{Quexistentials and Focus}",\n    journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},\n    pages = {1-54},\n    year = {2022},\n    abstract = "{Many languages have words that can be interpreted either as question words or as existentials. We call such words quexistentials. It has been claimed in the literature (e.g., Haida 2007) that, across languages, quexistentials are (a) always focused on their interrogative interpretation and (b) never focused on their existential interpretation. We refer to this as the quexistential-focus biconditional. The article makes two contributions. The first is that we offer a possible explanation for one direction of the biconditional: the fact that quexistentials are generally contrastively focused on their interrogative use. We argue that this should be seen as a particular instance of an even more general fact—namely, that interrogative words (quexistential or not) are always contrastively focused—and propose an account for this fact. The second contribution of the article concerns the other direction of the biconditional. We present evidence that, at least at face value, suggests that focus on a quexistential does not necessarily preclude an existential interpretation. Specifically, we show that it is possible for Dutch wat to be interpreted existentially even when it is focused. We attempt to explain this phenomenon.}",\n    issn = {0024-3892},\n    doi = {10.1162/ling_a_00441},\n    url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/ling\\_a\\_00441},\n    eprint = {https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/ling\\_a\\_00441/2023191/ling\\_a\\_00441.pdf},\n}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Alexandre Cremers, Liz Coppock, Jakub Dotlačil, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, (45): 683-740. 2022.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Ignorance$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{cremers2022ignorance,\n  title={Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals},\n  author={Cremers, Alexandre and Coppock, Liz and Dotla{\\v{c}}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},\n  journal={Linguistics and Philosophy},\n  pages={683-740},\n  number           = {45},\n  year={2022},\n  abstract = {Modified numerals, such as at least three and more than five, are known to sometimes give rise to ignorance inferences. However, there is disagreement in the literature regarding the nature of these inferences, their context dependence, and differences between at least and more than. We present a series of experiments which sheds new light on these issues. Our results show that (a) the ignorance inferences of at least are more robust than those of more than, (b) the presence and strength of the ignorance inferences triggered by both at least and more than depends on the question under discussion (QUD), and (c) whether ignorance inferences are detected in a given experimental setting depends partly on the task that participants are asked to perform (e.g., an acceptability task versus an inference task). We offer an Optimality Theoretic account of these findings. In particular, the task effect is captured by assuming that in performing an acceptability task, participants take the speaker’s perspective in order to determine whether an expression is optimal given a certain epistemic state, while in performing an inference task they take the addressee’s perspective in order to determine what the most likely epistemic state of the speaker is given a certain expression. To execute the latter task in a fully rational manner, participants have to perform higher-order reasoning about alternative expressions the speaker could have used. Under the assumption that participants do not always perform such higher-order reasoning but also often resort to so-called unidirectional optimization, the task effect finds a natural explanation. This also allows us to relate our finding to asymmetries between comprehension and production that have been found in language acquisition.},\n  keywords = {asymmetry,experimental linguistics,numerals,theoretical linguistics},\n  url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-021-09336-9},\n  mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics,experimental linguistics,numerals,asymmetry},\n  publisher={Springer}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Toward a unified semantics for English\" either\".\n \n \n \n\n\n \n William Carl Thomas.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, volume 31, pages 446–465, 2022. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{thomas2022toward,\n  title={Toward a unified semantics for English" either"},\n  author={Thomas, William Carl},\n  booktitle={Semantics and Linguistic Theory},\n  volume={31},\n  pages={446--465},\n  year={2022}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2021\n \n \n (14)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Embedding Intensional Semantics into Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Philippe Groote, & Valentin D. Richard.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In MOL 2021 - 17th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language, Montpellier (online), France, 2021. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Embedding$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Degroote:21,\n  TITLE = {{Embedding Intensional Semantics into Inquisitive Semantics}},\n  AUTHOR = {de Groote, Philippe and Richard, Valentin D.},\n  URL = {https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03541183},\n  BOOKTITLE = {{MOL 2021 - 17th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language}},\n  ADDRESS = {Montpellier (online), France},\n  YEAR = {2021}\n}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An inquisitive account of wh-questions through event semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maxime Amblard, Maria Boritchev, & Philippe Groote.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In LACL 2021 - Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, Montpellier (online), France, 2021. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Amblard:21,\n  TITLE = {{An inquisitive account of wh-questions through event semantics}},\n  AUTHOR = {Amblard, Maxime and Boritchev, Maria and de Groote, Philippe},\n  URL = {https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03541222},\n  BOOKTITLE = {{LACL 2021 - Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics}},\n  ADDRESS = {Montpellier (online), France},\n  YEAR = {2021},\n  KEYWORDS = {Questions ; Logic ; Semantics ; Inquisitive Semantics ; Events},\n  PDF = {https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03541222/file/inquisitive-wh-questions-event-semantics.pdf}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Explaining presupposition projection in (coordinations of) polar questions.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Émile Enguehard.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics,1–52. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Enguehard:21,\n  title={Explaining presupposition projection in (coordinations of) polar questions},\n  author={Enguehard, {\\'E}mile},\n  journal={Natural Language Semantics},\n  pages={1--52},\n  year={2021},\n  publisher={Springer}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Lattices of Intermediate Theories via Ruitenburg's Theorem.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gianluca Grilletti, & Davide Quadrellaro.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Language, Logic, and Computation. Post-proceedings of theTwelfth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (TbiLLC 2019)., Berlin, Heidelberg, 2021. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{GrillettiQuadrellaro:21,\n\taddress = {Berlin, Heidelberg},\n\tauthor = {Grilletti, Gianluca and Quadrellaro, Davide},\n\tbooktitle = {Language, Logic, and Computation. Post-proceedings of theTwelfth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (TbiLLC 2019).},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Lattices of Intermediate Theories via Ruitenburg's Theorem},\n\tabstract={For every univariate formula A we introduce a lattices of intermediate theories: the lattice of A-logics. The key idea to define A-logics is to interpret atomic propositions as fixpoints of the formula A squared, which can be characterised syntactically using Ruitenburg's theorem. We develop an algebraic duality between the lattice of A-logics and a special class of varieties of Heyting algebras. This approach allows us to build five distinct lattices corresponding to the possible fixpoints of univariate formulas|among which the lattice of negative variants of intermediate logics. We describe these lattices in more detail.},\n\tkeywords={inquisitive logic},\t\n\tyear = {2021}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The event structure of attitudes.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Deniz Ozyildiz.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Ozyildiz:21,\n\tabstract = {This dissertation focuses on what it means to think that or to think whether something is the case. First, I show that the type of clause that think combines with makes a difference in the kind of attitude a thought report ascribes, and in the kind of eventuality that it describes. With a declarative complement, think entails belief and introduces an eventuality description that may (but need not be) stative. With a question complement, think introduces an eventuality description that is necessarily dynamic, and often deliberative. In this case, there is no entailment of belief, but one of agnosticism and curiosity about the answer to the embedded question. This, and a second generalization that governs the attitude related and the aspectual properties of think that and of think whether hold cross-linguistically. \nSecond, I attempt to square the observation that think whether is grammatical and necessarily dynamic with two recent proposals that predict that think should be ungrammatical with embedded questions (Mayr, 2019; Theiler et al., 2019). As these go, the excluded middle presupposition, which is associated with think to derive neg(ative)-raising with declaratives, gives rise to an anomalous meaning with embedded questions, which is perceived as ungrammaticality. I argue that question embedding and neg-raising do exclude each other, pace White (accepted), but that this is because the former requires think to introduce a dynamic description, and the latter requires a stative one (Xiang, 2013; Bervoets, 2014, 2020). I stress that think whether is often unacceptable in the sentence frames in which we have been trying to observe it---for example, with the verb in the present simple---but argue that such restrictions are reducible for the most part to interpretive restrictions on dynamic predicates in those frames. \nThird, we need to derive the attitude related and the aspectual alternations that think gives rise to with declarative and question complements. I propose that think's attitude component encodes the entertain modality from inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli and Roelofsen, 2015, a.o.), which is equivalent to belief in the declarative case and compatible with an inquisitive attitude in the quesvi tion case. Turning to the aspectual alternation, I propose to structure attitude eventualities with embedded clause denotations by relating subeventualities of the former and the alternatives provided by the latter. Declaratives provide a single alternative, which makes it possible to construct a divisive (hence stative) predicate. Questions, on the other hand, provide multiple alternatives, which forces think whether to introduce a non-divisive (hence non-stative) predicate. \nFinally, I sketch out some ways in which attitude predicates vary in terms of their attitude related and lexical aspectual properties. I ask whether believe that and believe wh- could be given a treatment similar to think. I point out that there are predicates like know, remember and agree that may or must remain stative in question embedding, and speculate whether presupposing truth or belief might be enabling this option. I end with a typology of predicates that should all be possible if the stative/dynamic alternation seen for think were free, observe that many are missing and characterize the ones that are.},\n\tauthor = {Ozyildiz, Deniz},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tschool = {University of Massachusetts Amherst},\n\ttitle = {The event structure of attitudes},\n\turl = {https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3292&context=dissertations_2},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3292&context=dissertations_2}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n This dissertation focuses on what it means to think that or to think whether something is the case. First, I show that the type of clause that think combines with makes a difference in the kind of attitude a thought report ascribes, and in the kind of eventuality that it describes. With a declarative complement, think entails belief and introduces an eventuality description that may (but need not be) stative. With a question complement, think introduces an eventuality description that is necessarily dynamic, and often deliberative. In this case, there is no entailment of belief, but one of agnosticism and curiosity about the answer to the embedded question. This, and a second generalization that governs the attitude related and the aspectual properties of think that and of think whether hold cross-linguistically. Second, I attempt to square the observation that think whether is grammatical and necessarily dynamic with two recent proposals that predict that think should be ungrammatical with embedded questions (Mayr, 2019; Theiler et al., 2019). As these go, the excluded middle presupposition, which is associated with think to derive neg(ative)-raising with declaratives, gives rise to an anomalous meaning with embedded questions, which is perceived as ungrammaticality. I argue that question embedding and neg-raising do exclude each other, pace White (accepted), but that this is because the former requires think to introduce a dynamic description, and the latter requires a stative one (Xiang, 2013; Bervoets, 2014, 2020). I stress that think whether is often unacceptable in the sentence frames in which we have been trying to observe it—for example, with the verb in the present simple—but argue that such restrictions are reducible for the most part to interpretive restrictions on dynamic predicates in those frames. Third, we need to derive the attitude related and the aspectual alternations that think gives rise to with declarative and question complements. I propose that think's attitude component encodes the entertain modality from inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli and Roelofsen, 2015, a.o.), which is equivalent to belief in the declarative case and compatible with an inquisitive attitude in the quesvi tion case. Turning to the aspectual alternation, I propose to structure attitude eventualities with embedded clause denotations by relating subeventualities of the former and the alternatives provided by the latter. Declaratives provide a single alternative, which makes it possible to construct a divisive (hence stative) predicate. Questions, on the other hand, provide multiple alternatives, which forces think whether to introduce a non-divisive (hence non-stative) predicate. Finally, I sketch out some ways in which attitude predicates vary in terms of their attitude related and lexical aspectual properties. I ask whether believe that and believe wh- could be given a treatment similar to think. I point out that there are predicates like know, remember and agree that may or must remain stative in question embedding, and speculate whether presupposing truth or belief might be enabling this option. I end with a typology of predicates that should all be possible if the stative/dynamic alternation seen for think were free, observe that many are missing and characterize the ones that are.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Questions in two-dimensional logic.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thom Gessel.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Review of Symbolic Logic,1-30. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Gessel:21, \n\ttitle={Questions in two-dimensional logic}, \n\tDOI={10.1017/S1755020321000186}, \n\tjournal={The Review of Symbolic Logic}, \n\tpublisher={Cambridge University Press}, \n\tabstract={Since Kripke, philosophers have distinguished a priori true statements from necessarily true ones. A statement is a priori true if its truth can be established before experience, and necessarily true if it could not have been false according to logical or metaphysical laws. This distinction can be captured formally using two-dimensional semantics.\nThere is a natural way to extend the notions of apriority and necessity so they can also apply to questions. Questions either can or cannot be resolved before experience, and either are or are not about necessary facts. Classical two-dimensionalism has no account of question meanings, so it has to be combined with a framework for question semantics in order to capture these observations. It is shown in [14] how two-dimensional semantics can be combined with inquisitive semantics, in which questions are analyzed in terms of information. The present paper investigates the logic of two-dimensional inquisitive semantics, and provides a complete proof system.},\n\tauthor={van Gessel, Thom}, \n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tyear={2021}, \n\tpages={1-30}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Proof-Theoretic Semantics and Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Will Stafford.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Proof-Theoretic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Stafford:21,\n\tabstract = {Prawitz (1971) conjectured that proof-theoretic validity offers a semantics for intuitionistic logic. This conjecture has recently been proven false by Piecha and Schroeder-Heister (2019). This article resolves one of the questions left open by this recent result by showing the extensional alignment of proof-theoretic validity and general inquisitive logic. General inquisitive logic is a generalisation of inquisitive semantics, a uniform semantics for questions and assertions. The paper further defines a notion of quasi-proof-theoretic validity by restricting proof-theoretic validity to allow double negation elimination for atomic formulas and proves the extensional alignment of quasi-proof-theoretic validity and inquisitive logic.},\n\tauthor = {Will Stafford},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10992-021-09596-7},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Philosophical Logic},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {Proof-Theoretic Semantics and Inquisitive Logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10992-021-09596-7},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10992-021-09596-7},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09596-7}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Epistemic extensions of substructural inquisitive logics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Pun ̌cochá ̌r, & Igor Sedlár.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Logic and Computation, exab008. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Epistemic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{PuncocharSedlar:21jlc,\n\tabstract = {In this paper, we study the epistemic extensions of distributive substructural inquisitive logics. Substructural inquisitive logics are logics of questions based on substructural logics of declarative sentences. They generalize basic inquisitive logic which is based on the classical logic of declaratives. We show that if the underlying substructural logic is distributive, the generalization can be extended to embrace also the epistemic modalities `knowing whether' and `wondering whether' that are applicable to questions. We construct a semantic framework for a language of propositional substructural logics enriched with a question-forming operator (inquisitive disjunction) and epistemic modalities. We show that within this framework, one can define a canonical model with suitable properties for any (syntactically defined) epistemic inquisitive logic. This leads to a general approach to completeness proofs for such logics. A deductive system for the weakest epistemic inquisitive logic is described and completeness proved for this special case using the general method.},\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v c}och{\\'a}{\\v r}, V{\\'\\i}t and Sedl{\\'a}r, Igor},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/logcom/exab008},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Logic and Computation},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {Epistemic extensions of substructural inquisitive logics},\n\turl = {https://academic.oup.com/logcom/advance-article/doi/10.1093/logcom/exab008/6259459},\n\tvolume = {exab008},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/logcom/advance-article/doi/10.1093/logcom/exab008/6259459},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exab008}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Propositional Dynamic Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Pun ̌cochá ̌r, & Igor Sedlár.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 30: 91-116. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{PuncocharSedlar:21,\n\tabstract = {This paper combines propositional dynamic logic (PDL) with propositional inquisitive logic (InqB). The result of this combination is a logical system (InqPDL) that conservatively extends both PDL and InqB, and, moreover, allows for an interaction of the question-forming operator from InqB with the structured modalities from PDL. We study this system from a semantic as well as a syntactic point of view. These two perspectives are linked via a completeness proof, which also shows that InqPDL is decidable.\n\n},\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v c}och{\\'a}{\\v r}, V{\\'\\i}t and Sedl{\\'a}r, Igor},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10849-020-09326-3},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Logic, Language and Information},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {91-116},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Propositional Dynamic Logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10849-020-09326-3},\n\tvolume = {30},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10849-020-09326-3},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-020-09326-3}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Heyting Algebras.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Pun ̌cochá ̌r.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Studia Logica. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:21,\n\tabstract = {In this paper we introduce a class of inquisitive Heyting algebras as algebraic structures that are isomorphic to algebras of finite antichains of bounded implicative meet semilattices. It is argued that these structures are suitable for algebraic semantics of inquisitive superintuitionistic logics, i.e. logics of questions based on intuitionistic logic and its extensions. We explain how questions are represented in these structures (prime elements represent declarative propositions, non-prime elements represent questions, join is a question-forming operation) and provide several alternative characterizations of these algebras. For instance, it is shown that a Heyting algebra is inquisitive if and only if its prime filters and filters generated by sets of prime elements coincide and prime elements are closed under relative pseudocomplement. We prove that the weakest inquisitive superintuitionistic logic is sound with respect to a Heyting algebra iff the algebra is what we call a homomorphic p-image of some inquisitive Heyting algebra. It is also shown that a logic is inquisitive iff its Lindenbaum--Tarski algebra is an inquisitive Heyting algebra.},\n\tauthor = {V{\\'\\i}t Pun{\\v c}och{\\'a}{\\v r}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11225-020-09936-9},\n\tjournal = {Studia Logica},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Heyting Algebras},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11225-020-09936-9},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11225-020-09936-9},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-020-09936-9}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Coordinating Ifs.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Justin Khoo.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 38(2): 341-361. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Coordinating$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Khoo:21,\n\tabstract = {Accounting for the behavior of conjoined and disjoined if-clauses is not easy for standard theories of conditionals that treat if as either an operator or restrictor. In this paper, I discuss four observations about coordinated if-clauses, and motivate a semantics for conditionals that reorients the compositional structure of the restrictor theory. On my proposal, if-clauses provide restrictions on modal domains, but they do so by way of a higher type intermediary---a set of propositions---that is collapsed by the modal. I argue that combining this view with an independently plausible type-shifting operation applied to or and and predicts the range of data we find for conditionals with coordinated if-clauses.},\n\tauthor = {Justin Khoo},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffab006},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {conditionals},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tpages = {341-361},\n\ttitle = {Coordinating Ifs},\n\turl = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/38/2/341/6279440},\n\tvolume = {38},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/38/2/341/6279440},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffab006}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Indefinites and Free Choice: When the Past Matters.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Marco Degano, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Indefinites$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Degano:21,\n\tabstract = {Indefinites display a great functional variety and they give rise to different pragmatic effects. We focus on free choice indefinites and in particular on the Italian qualsiasi. Our aim is to reconstruct the grammaticalization path of this item and understand how diachronic data might shed some light on existing semantic theories of free choice. We employ corpus-based tools to build a database containing occurrences of qualsiasi from its origin and early forms to its current usage. We show that qualsiasi emerged from a particular unconditional construction and we outline the different stages which led to its grammaticalization. We analyze the compatibility of our diachronic study with formal accounts of free choice inferences, with a focus on Alternative Semantics analyses for indefinite pronouns and so-called grammatical theories of free choice. Our work shows that an integration between formal semantics and historical linguistics is fruitful and worth pursuing.},\n\tauthor = {Degano, Marco and Aloni, Maria},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11049-021-09518-x},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language and Linguistic Theory},\n\ttitle = {Indefinites and Free Choice: When the Past Matters},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11049-021-09518-x},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11049-021-09518-x},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09518-x}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Games and cardinalities in inquisitive first-order logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gianluca Grilletti, & Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Review of Symbolic Logic,1-28. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Games$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{GrillettiCiardelli:21,\n\tabstract = {Inquisitive first-order logic, InqBQ, is a system which extends classical first-order logic with formulas expressing questions. From a mathematical point of view, formulas in this logic express properties of sets of relational structures. This paper makes two contributions to the study of this logic. First, we describe an Ehrenfeucht--Fra{\\"\\i}ss{\\'e} game for InqBQ and show that it characterizes the distinguishing power of the logic. Second, we use the game to study cardinality quantifiers in the inquisitive setting. That is, we study what statements and questions can be expressed in InqBQ about the number of individuals satisfying a given predicate. As special cases, we show that several variants of the question how many individuals satisfy a(x) are not expressible in InqBQ, both in the general case and in restriction to finite models.},\n\tauthor = {Grilletti, Gianluca and Ciardelli, Ivano},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S1755020321000198},\n\tjournal = {The Review of Symbolic Logic},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {1-28},\n\tpublisher = {Cambridge University Press},\n\ttitle = {Games and cardinalities in inquisitive first-order logic},\n\turl = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-symbolic-logic/article/games-and-cardinalities-in-inquisitive-firstorder-logic/78E467CE016D566F1C367069253D0AA5},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-symbolic-logic/article/games-and-cardinalities-in-inquisitive-firstorder-logic/78E467CE016D566F1C367069253D0AA5},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020321000198}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On Dialogue Modeling: A Dynamic Epistemic Inquisitive Approach.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maria Boritchev, & Philippe Grootte.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Boritchev:2021,\n\tabstract = {This paper introduces a formal model of dialogue based on insights and ideas developed by Jonathan Ginzburg in [11]. This model, which is logic based, takes advantage of inquisitive semantics [4], which allows to model both declarative and interrogative sentences in a uniform way. It appeals to ideas derived from classical epistemic logic in order to model the knowledge states of the dialogue participants, and includes a context-updating mechanisms based on the type-theoretic dynamic logic developed in [15].},\n\tauthor = {Boritchev, Maria and Philippe de Grootte},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-030-79942-7_2},\n\tjournal = {New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {On Dialogue Modeling: A Dynamic Epistemic Inquisitive Approach},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-79942-7_2},\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79942-7_2}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2020\n \n \n (16)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions and Quantification.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gianluca Grilletti.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Grilletti:20,\n\tauthor = {Grilletti, Gianluca},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tschool = {Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Questions and Quantification},\n\turl = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=7055a5a3-0e50-4940-a788-9cc7067a3707},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=7055a5a3-0e50-4940-a788-9cc7067a3707}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions in Context.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thom Gessel.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Gessel:20,\n\tauthor = {van Gessel, Thom},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic, questions},\n\tschool = {Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Questions in Context},\n\turl = {https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/52555303/Thesis.pdf},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/52555303/Thesis.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Goldblatt-Thomason-style Characterization for Intuitionistic Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Katsuhiko Sano.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Nicola Olivetti, Rineke Verbrugge, Sara Negri, & Gabriel Sandu., editor(s), Advances in Modal Logic (AiML), volume 13, pages 541-560, London, 2020. College Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Sano:20,\n\taddress = {London},\n\tauthor = {Katsuhiko Sano},\n\tbooktitle = {Advances in Modal Logic (AiML)},\n\teditor = {Nicola Olivetti and Rineke Verbrugge and Sara Negri and Gabriel Sandu},\n\tpublisher = {College Publications},\n\ttitle = {Goldblatt-Thomason-style Characterization for Intuitionistic Inquisitive Logic},\n\tvolume = {13},\n\tpages = {541-560},\n\tabstract={The purpose of this paper is to investigate a possible characterization of frame definability of intuitionistic inquisitive logic by Ciardelli et al. (2020) in terms of frame\nconstructions such as generated subframes and bounded morphic images. Sano and\nVirtema (2015, 2019) provided a Goldblatt-Thomason-style characterization for (extended) modal dependence logic with the help of a normal form result for the logic.\nA key ingredient of establishing the characterization was to show that the ordinary\nmodal logic expanded with positive occurrences of the universal modality and extended modal dependence logic have the same definability over Kripke models. This\npaper first reviews Goldblatt-Thomason-style characterization for intuitionistic logic\nfrom Rodenburg (1986)’s work on intuitionistic correspondence theory. Then we\nemploy a similar strategy to Sano and Virtema (2015, 2019) and provide a GoldblattThomason-style characterization for intuitionistic inquisitive logic.},\n\tkeywords={inquisitive logic},\n\tyear = {2020}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Canonical and non-canonical questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Donka F. Farkas.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2020.\n Manuscript, UCSC/Princeton, February 2020\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Canonical$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Farkas:20,\n\tabstract = {The general aim of this paper is to make progress in understanding what is common and what is not across canonical and non-canonical questions. After laying out the theoretical assumptions, I argue that the commonly assumed felicity conditions on canonical questions follow from the semantics and the basic conventional discourse effects of unmarked interrogatives. I further argue that special interrogative forms can be used to signal special conventional discourse effects that bring about the weakening or overriding of these default assumptions. As a case study, the properties of interrogatives in Romanian marked by the morpheme oare are investigated and accounted for in detail. I argue that oare-marked interrogatives exemplify a novel kind of non-canonical question that I dub non-intrusive.},\n\tauthor = {Farkas, Donka F.},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {ongoing},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, UCSC/Princeton, February 2020},\n\ttitle = {Canonical and non-canonical questions},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WU2ZjIwM/questions.pdf},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WU2ZjIwM/}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Algebraic Approach to Inquisitive and DNA-Logics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nick Bezhanishvili, Gianluca Grilletti, & Davide Emilio Quadrellaro.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n . 2020.\n Submitted for publication, April 2020\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Bezhanishvili:20,\n\tabstract = {This article provides an algebraic study of the propositional system InqB of inquisitive logic. We also investigate the wider class of DNA-logics, which are negative variants of intermediate logics, and the corresponding algebraic structures, DNA-varieties. We prove that the lattice of DNA-logics is dually isomorphic to the lattice of DNA-varieties. We characterise maximal and minimal intermediate logics with the same negative variant, and we prove a suitable version of Tarski's and Birkhoff's classic variety theorems. We also introduce finite DNA-varieties and show that these varieties are axiomatised by the analogues of Jankov formulas. Finally, we prove that the lattice of extensions of InqB is dually isomorphic to the ordinal ω + 1 and give an axiomatisation of these logics via Jankov DNA-formulas. This shows that these extensions coincide with the so-called\ninquisitive hierarchy of Ciardelli (2009).},\n\tauthor = {Bezhanishvili, Nick and Grilletti, Gianluca and Quadrellaro, Davide Emilio},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {ongoing},\n\tnote = {Submitted for publication, April 2020},\n\ttitle = {An Algebraic Approach to Inquisitive and DNA-Logics},\n\turl = {https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/n.bezhanishvili/Papers/InqDNA.pdf},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/n.bezhanishvili/Papers/InqDNA.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Denn as a highlighting-sensitive particle.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 44: 323-362. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Denn$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Theiler:21denn,\n\tabstract = {This paper develops an account of the German discourse particle denn that captures the meaning contribution of this particle in polar questions, wh-questions, and certain conditional antecedents in a unified way. It is shown that the behavior of denn exhibits an asymmetry between polar and wh-interrogatives, which can be captured by treating the particle as sensitive to the property highlighted by its containing clause, in the sense of Roelofsen and Farkas (Language 91(2):359--414, 2015). In addition, the paper argues that highlighting-sensitivity should be incorporated in the account of another discourse particle, German {\\"u}berhaupt, and discusses how the proposed account of discourse particle denn may be extended to also cover the use of denn as a causal conjunction.},\n\tauthor = {Nadine Theiler},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10988-019-09290-7},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {discourse particles},\n\tpages = {323-362},\n\ttitle = {Denn as a highlighting-sensitive particle},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-019-09290-7},\n\tvolume = {44},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-019-09290-7},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09290-7}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Relevant Logic of Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Pun ̌cochá ̌r.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Philosophical Logic,1–35. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:20,\n\tabstract = {This paper introduces the inquisitive extension of R, denoted as InqR, which is a relevant logic of questions based on the logic R as the background logic of declaratives. A semantics for InqR is developed, and it is shown that this semantics is, in a precisely defined sense, dual to Routley-Meyer semantics for R. Moreover, InqR is axiomatized and completeness of the axiomatic system is established. The philosophical interpretation of the duality between Routley-Meyer semantics and the semantics for InqR is also discussed.},\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v c}och{\\'a}{\\v r}, V{\\'\\i}t},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10992-019-09541-9},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Philosophical Logic},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {1--35},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {A Relevant Logic of Questions},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-019-09541-9},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-019-09541-9},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09541-9}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Intuitionistic Logic.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wesley Holliday.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Nicola Olivetti, Rineke Verbrugge, Sara Negri, & Gabriel Sandu., editor(s), Advances in Modal Logic (AiML), volume 13, London, 2020. College Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Holliday:20,\n\taddress = {London},\n\tauthor = {Wesley Holliday},\n\tbooktitle = {Advances in Modal Logic (AiML)},\n\teditor = {Nicola Olivetti and Rineke Verbrugge and Sara Negri and Gabriel Sandu},\n\tpublisher = {College Publications},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Intuitionistic Logic},\n\tvolume = {13},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tabstract={Inquisitive logic is a research program seeking to expand the purview of logic beyond declarative sentences to include the logic of questions. To this end, inquisitive propositional logic extends classical propositional logic for declarative sentences with principles governing a new binary connective of inquisitive disjunction, which allows the formation of questions. Recently inquisitive logicians have considered what happens if the logic of declarative sentences is assumed to be intuitionistic rather than classical. In short, what should inquisitive logic be on an intuitionistic base? In this paper, we provide an answer to this question from the perspective of nuclear semantics, an approach to classical and intuitionistic semantics pursued in our previous work. In particular, we show how Beth semantics for intuitionistic logic naturally extends to a semantics for inquisitive intuitionistic logic. In addition, we show how an explicit view of inquisitive intuitionistic logic comes via a translation into propositional lax logic, whose completeness we prove with respect to Beth semantics.},\n\tyear = {2020}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n From inquisitive disjunction to nonveridical equilibrium: Modalized questions in Korean.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Arum Kang, & Suwon Yoon.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics, 58(1): 207-244. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"From$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{KangYoon:20,\n\tabstract = {The goal of the present study is to identify a novel paradigm ofepistemic modal operator derived fromdisjunction. Our main data involves aninquisitive disjunction markernkain Korean, the presence of which enhances aspeaker's epistemic uncertainty and forms amodalized question.We show hownkacontributes the modal effects in question within a theory of nonveridicality.In particular, we propose that the prerequisite ofnkaare non-homogenousnonveridical states that are partitioned in equipoised epistemic spaces becauseof the absence in ranking between them. The distinct notions of disjunction,question, and possibility modals can thus be systematically captured under theframework ofnonveridical  equilibrium. The current analysis offers importantinsights into the relationship between the classes of nonveridical and modalingredients involved in inquisitive disjunction: First, Korean facts importantlyreveal that modalized questions do not form a uniform class with regularquestions, since interrogative semantics alone cannot predict the epistemicuncertainty. Second, languages parameterize as to how they lexicalize thefunction of manipulating modal base. The implication of our findings is thatdisjunction needs to be recognized as a novel device for encoding aspeaker'sweakest perspectiveon epistemic modality.},\n\tauthor = {Kang, Arum and Yoon, Suwon},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1515/ling-2019-0038},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {207-244},\n\ttitle = {From inquisitive disjunction to nonveridical equilibrium: Modalized questions in Korean},\n\turl = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2019-0038/html},\n\tvolume = {58},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2019-0038/html},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0038}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Action models in inquisitive logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thom Gessel.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese,3905–3945. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Action$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Gessel:18,\n\tabstract = {Information exchange can be viewed as a process of asking questions and answering them. While dynamic epistemic logic traditionally focuses on statements, recent developments have been concerned with ways of incorporating questions. One approach, based on the framework of inquisitive semantics, is inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic (𝖨𝖣𝖤𝖫). In this system, agents are represented with issues as well as information. On the dynamic level, it can model actions that raise new issues. Compared to other approaches, a limitation of 𝖨𝖣𝖤𝖫 is that it can only encode public announcements. 𝖨𝖣𝖤𝖫 can be refined to encode private questions, by merging its static basis, inquisitive epistemic logic (𝖨𝖤𝖫), with action model logic (𝖠𝖬𝖫). This can be done in two ways, namely by enriching action models with questions as possible actions or with issues concerning which action takes place. This paper describes the corresponding dynamic logics, which are conservative extensions of both 𝖠𝖬𝖫 and 𝖨𝖤𝖫, and a sound and complete axiomatization is given for both.},\n\tauthor = {van Gessel, Thom},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11229-018-1886-5},\n\tissn = {1573-0964},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {3905--3945},\n\ttitle = {Action models in inquisitive logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-1886-5},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-1886-5},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1886-5}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n This paper might change your mind.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Josh Dever, & Henry Ian Schiller.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Noûs,1-28. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"This$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{DeverSchiller:20,\n\tabstract = {Linguistic intervention in rational decision making is standardly captured in terms of information change. But the standard view gives us no way to model interventions involving expressions that only have an attentional effects on conversational contexts. How are expressions with non-informational content -- like epistemic modals -- used to intervene in rational decision making? We show how to model rational decision change without information change: replace a standard conception of value (on which the value of a set of worlds reduces to values of individual worlds in the set) with one on which the value of a set of worlds is determined by a selection function that picks out a generic member world. We discuss some upshots of this view for theorizing in philosophy and formal semantics.},\n\tauthor = {Josh Dever and Henry Ian Schiller},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/nous.12336},\n\tjournal = {No{\\^u}s},\n\tpages = {1-28},\n\ttitle = {This paper might change your mind},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nous.12336},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nous.12336},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12336}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions and dependency in intuitionistic logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Rosalie Iemhoff, Fan Yang, & others.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 61(1): 75–115. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:20inqi,\n\tabstract = {In recent years, the logic of questions and dependencies has been investigated in the closely related frameworks of inquisitive logic and dependence logic. These investigations have assumed classical logic as the background logic of statements, and added formulas expressing questions and dependencies to this classical core. In this paper, we broaden the scope of these investigations by studying questions and dependency in the context of intuitionistic logic. We propose an intuitionistic team semantics, where teams are embedded within intuitionistic Kripke models. The associated logic is a conservative extension of intuitionistic logic with questions and dependence formulas. We establish a number of results about this logic, including a normal form result, a completeness result, and translations to classical inquisitive logic and modal dependence logic.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Iemhoff, Rosalie and Yang, Fan and others},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1215/00294527-2019-0033},\n\tjournal = {Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {75--115},\n\tpublisher = {University of Notre Dame},\n\ttitle = {Questions and dependency in intuitionistic logic},\n\turl = {https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-61/issue-1/Questions-and-Dependency-in-Intuitionistic-Logic/10.1215/00294527-2019-0033.full},\n\tvolume = {61},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-61/issue-1/Questions-and-Dependency-in-Intuitionistic-Logic/10.1215/00294527-2019-0033.full},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1215/00294527-2019-0033}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Bisimulation.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Martin Otto.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 86: 77-109. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CiardelliOtto:20, \ntitle={Inquisitive Bisimulation}, \nDOI={10.1017/jsl.2020.77}, \njournal={The Journal of Symbolic Logic}, \npublisher={Cambridge University Press}, \nauthor={Ciardelli, Ivano and Otto, Martin}, \nyear={2020}, \nvolume={86},\nissue={1},\npages={77-109},\nkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\nabstract={Inquisitive modal logic, INQML, is a generalisation of standard Kripke-style modal logic. In its epistemic incarnation, it extends standard epistemic logic to capture not just the information that agents have, but also the questions that they are interested in. Technically, INQML fits within the family of logics based on team semantics. From a model-theoretic perspective, it takes us a step in the direction of monadic second-order logic, as inquisitive modal operators involve quantification over sets of worlds. We introduce and investigate the natural notion of bisimulation equivalence in the setting of INQML. We compare the expressiveness of INQML and first-order logic in the context of relational structures with two sorts, one for worlds and one for information states, and characterise inquisitive modal logic as the bisimulation invariant fragment of first-order logic over various natural classes of two-sorted structures.},\nurl={https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/inquisitive-bisimulation/8FD98F613C3DD87C91EDA7ABCFC1D772}\n}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Fatalism and the logic of unconditionals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Justin Bledin.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Noûs, 54(1): 126–161. 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Fatalism$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Bledin:18,\n\tabstract = {In this paper, I consider a variant of the ancient Idle Argument involving so-called ``unconditionals'' with interrogative antecedents. This new Idle Argument provides an ideal setting for probing the logic of these close relatives of if-conditionals, which has been comparatively underexplored. In the course of refuting the argument, I argue that contrary to received wisdom, many unconditionals do not entail their main clauses, yet modus ponens is still unrestrictedly valid for this class of expressions. I make these lessons precise in a formal system drawing on recent work in inquisitive semantics. My larger aim is to challenge standard truth preservation accounts of logic and deductive argumentation.},\n\tauthor = {Justin Bledin},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/nous.12257},\n\tjournal = {No{\\^u}s},\n\tkeywords = {conditionals},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {126--161},\n\ttitle = {Fatalism and the logic of unconditionals},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nous.12257},\n\tvolume = {54},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12257}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Searching for a universal constraint on the denotations of clause-embedding predicates.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, & Wataru Uegaki.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Joseph Rhyne, Kaelyn Lamp, Nicole Dreier, & Chloe Kwon., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 30), pages 542-561, 2020. Linguistics Society of America\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Searching$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 26 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{RoelofsenUegaki:20,\n\tabstract = {We propose a new universal constraint on the relationship between the meaning of a clause-embedding predicate when it takes an interrogative complement and its meaning when it takes a declarative complement. According to this proposal, every clause-embedding predicate V satisfies a constraint that we refer to as P-to-Q Entailment. That is, for any exhaustivity-neutral interrogative complement Q, if there is an answer p to Q such that "x Vs p" is true, then it follows that "x Vs Q" is true as well. We discuss empirical advantages of this proposal over existing proposals and explore potential counterexamples to P-to-Q Entailment.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Uegaki, Wataru},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 30)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v30i0.4834},\n\teditor = {Joseph Rhyne and Kaelyn Lamp and Nicole Dreier and Chloe Kwon},\n\tkeywords = {attitude predicates,cross-linguistic,modality,inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {attitude predicates,cross-linguistic,modality,inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {542-561},\n\tpublisher = {Linguistics Society of America},\n\ttitle = {Searching for a universal constraint on the denotations of clause-embedding predicates},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/30.542},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/30.542},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v30i0.4834}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A dynamic semantics of single and multiple wh-questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jakub Dotla ̌cil, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Joseph Rhyne, Kaelyn Lamp, Nicole Dreier, & Chloe Kwon., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 30), 2020. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{DotlacilRoelofsen:20,\n\tabstract = {We develop a uniform analysis of single-wh and multiple-wh questions couched in dynamic inquisitive semantics. The analysis captures the effects of number marking on which-phrases, and derives both mention-some and mention-all readings as well as an often neglected partial mention-some reading in multiple-wh questions.},\n\tauthor = {Dotla{\\v c}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 30)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Joseph Rhyne and Kaelyn Lamp and Nicole Dreier and Chloe Kwon},\n\tkeywords = {dynamic semantics,inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,dynamic semantics,questions},\n\ttitle = {A dynamic semantics of single and multiple wh-questions},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/30.376},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538/437}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2019\n \n \n (23)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Compositionality in Dynamic Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Max Zeuner.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Term paper, Munich\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Compositionality$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Zeuner:19,\n\tauthor = {Zeuner, Max},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, Munich},\n\ttitle = {Compositionality in Dynamic Inquisitive Semantics},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/07kvivubzyu2vu8/Compositionality%20in%20Dynamic%20Inquisitive%20Semantics%20Max%20Zeuner.pdf?dl=0},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/07kvivubzyu2vu8/Compositionality%20in%20Dynamic%20Inquisitive%20Semantics%20Max%20Zeuner.pdf?dl=0}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Lattices of DNA-Logics and Algebraic Semantics of Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Davide Emilio Quadrellaro.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Lattices$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Quadrellaro:19,\n\tabstract = {This thesis studies algebraic semantics for the inquisitive logic InqB and for the related class of DNA-logics. DNA-logics were previously known in literature as negative variants of intermediate logics and have been studied only in syntactic terms. In this thesis, we show that there is a dual isomorphism between the lattice of DNA-logics and the lattice of suitable classes of Heyting algebras that we call DNA-varieties. We study several properties of DNA-logics and DNA-varieties and we prove a version of Tarski and Birkhoff Theorems for DNA-varieties. A special attention is then paid to introduce a notion of locally finiteness for this setting and to prove two key results concerning this property, i.e. that the DNA-variety of all Heyting algebras is not locally finite and that locally finite DNA-logics can be axiomatised by a version of Jankov formulas. Finally, we apply the general theory of DNA-logics to the case of inquisitive logic. We show that InqB is a DNA-logic and we use the method of Jankov formulas to prove that the sublattice Λ(InqB) of the extensions of InqB is dually isomorphic to ω + 1.},\n\tauthor = {Quadrellaro, Davide Emilio},\n\tkeywords={inquisitive logic},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Lattices of DNA-Logics and Algebraic Semantics of Inquisitive Logic},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1722/1/MoL-2019-25.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1722/1/MoL-2019-25.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Inquisitive Dynamic Epistemic Logic with Factual Change.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n René Mellema.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n MSc Thesis, University of Groningen\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Mellema:19,\n\tauthor = {René Mellema},\n\tnote = {MSc Thesis, University of Groningen},\n\ttitle = {An Inquisitive Dynamic Epistemic Logic with Factual Change},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\turl = {https://fse.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/20776/1/mAI_2019_Rene_Mellema.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Algebraic and topological semantics for inquisitive logic via choice-free duality.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nick Bezhanishvili, Gianluca Grilletti, & Wesley Holliday.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation, pages 35–52, 2019. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Bezhanishvili:19,\n\tauthor = {Bezhanishvili, Nick and Grilletti, Gianluca and Holliday, Wesley},\n\tbooktitle = {International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation},\n\torganization = {Springer},\n\tkeywords={inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {35--52},\n\ttitle = {Algebraic and topological semantics for inquisitive logic via choice-free duality},\n\tabstract={We introduce new algebraic and topological semantics for\ninquisitive logic. The algebraic semantics is based on special Heyting algebras, which we call inquisitive algebras, with propositional valuations\nranging over only the double negation fixpoints of the algebra. We show how inquisitive algebras arise from Boolean algebras: for a given Boolean algebra\nB, we define its inquisitive extension H(B) and prove that H(B) is\nthe unique inquisitive algebra having B as its algebra of double negation fixpoints.\nWe also show that inquisitive algebras determine Medvedev’s logic of\nfinite problems. In addition to the algebraic characterization of H(B),\nwe give a topological characterization of H(B) in terms of the recently\nintroduced choice-free duality for Boolean algebras using so-called upper\nVietoris spaces (UV-spaces). In particular, while a Boolean algebra\nB is realized as the Boolean algebra of compact regular open elements\nof a UV-space dual to B, we show that H(B) is realized as the algebra\nof compact open elements of this space. This connection yields a new\ntopological semantics for inquisitive logic.},\n\tyear = {2019}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Ignorance inferences and roundness effects of modified numerals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Alexandre Cremers, Liz Coppock, Jakub Dotla ̌cil, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Presented at SALT, Los Angeles, May 17, 2019\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Ignorance$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Cremers:19,\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Coppock, Liz and Dotla{\\v c}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at SALT, Los Angeles, May 17, 2019},\n\ttitle = {Ignorance inferences and roundness effects of modified numerals},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GFjOTIwZ/poster.pdf},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GFjOTIwZ/poster.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Completeness for the Classical Antecedent Fragment of Inquisitive First-Order Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gianluca Grilletti.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 30: 725-751. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Completeness$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Grilletti:19completeness,\n\tabstract = {Inquisitive first order logic (InqBQ) is an extension of first order classical logic, introducing questions and studying the logical relations between questions and quantifiers. It is not known if InqBQ is effectively axiomatizable, even though an axiomatization has been found for fragments of the logic. In this paper we define the ClAnt---classical antecedent---fragment, together with an axiomatization and a proof of its strong completeness. This result extends the ones presented in the literature and introduces a new approach to study the axiomatization problem for fragments of the logic.},\n\tauthor = {Grilletti, Gianluca},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Logic, Language and Information},\n\tvolume={30},\n\tpages={725-751},\n\ttitle = {Completeness for the Classical Antecedent Fragment of Inquisitive First-Order Logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10849-021-09341-y},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10849-021-09341-y}\n\t}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Testing formal pragmatics of questions through their ignorance inferences.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Zhuoye Zhao, & Alexandre Cremers.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In D. McHugh J. Schlöder, & F. Roelofsen., editor(s), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 91-100, 2019. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Testing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{ZhaoCremers:19,\n\tabstract = {Questions are well-studied in semantics, including from a psycholinguistics perspective. They also play a key role in pragmatics through questions under discussions, which are known to affect a wide range of phenomena (e.g., focus, implicatures) . The pragmatics of questions themselves however is largely understudied, with very few theoretical proposals and only a handful of experimental studies. Pragmatics studies how speakers choose an utterance over possible competitors, and how listeners can draw complex inferences by reconstructing the speaker's reasoning leading to this choice. While we have a good understanding of the factors at play when a speaker utters a declarative sentence, much less is known about questions. The goal of this paper is to test two proposals extending Grice's Maxims to questions: van Rooij's entropy as a measure of question utility, and Groenendijk and Roelofsen's inquisitive pragmatics. The two theories make opposite predictions regarding the choice between polar and wh-questions in ignorance and partial knowledge situations, and therefore the implicatures they give rise to regarding the questioner's knowledge. The results of two experiments corroborate the predictions of van Rooij's proposal. In passing, we establish that the cornering effect of negative alternative questions (Biezma 2009) is independent from their ignorance requirements.},\n\tauthor = {Zhao, Zhuoye and Cremers, Alexandre},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {J. Schl{\\"o}der, D. McHugh and F. Roelofsen},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive pragmatics},\n\tpages = {91-100},\n\ttitle = {Testing formal pragmatics of questions through their ignorance inferences},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GM1NGI2Z/ZhaoCremers-QuestionPragmatics.pdf},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://archive.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2019/uploaded_files/inlineitem/Cremers_and_Zhao_Testing_formal_pragmatics_of_quest.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n M-fuzzifying basic inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Li-Li Xie, & Xiu-Yun Wu.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,7711-7723. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"M-fuzzifying$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{XieWu:19,\n\tabstract = {The basic system of inquisitive semantics (InqB) established by Groenendijk et al. is a general inquisitive semantic theory which doesn't concern fuzziness. To explain the fuzzy phenomena in natural languages, this paper extends InqB into the framework of M-fuzzifying setting and establishes a basic system of M-fuzzifying inquisitive semantics. To begin with, the notion of M-fuzzifying supporting mapping is defined, where M is a completely distributive lattice with an involution operator and each subset of the universal set of all possible worlds can be regarded as a support of any well-formed formula to some degree. Then the notions of M-fuzzifying entailment order, M-fuzzifying truth mappings, M-fuzzifying informative content mappings and M-fuzzifying inquisitive content mappings are introduced and their properties are discussed. Further, the degrees of assertiveness, informativeness, inquisitiveness and questioning of a well-formed formula are defined, by which the M-fuzzifying assertive projection operator and the M-fuzzifying questioning projection operator are introduced and characterized. Finally, a necessary and sufficient condition is obtained, where a well-formed formula is exactly the disjunction of its unique M-fuzzifying assertive projection and unique M-fuzzifying questioning projection.},\n\tauthor = {Xie, Li-Li and Wu, Xiu-Yun},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3233/JIFS-182500},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {7711-7723},\n\ttitle = {M-fuzzifying basic inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-intelligent-and-fuzzy-systems/ifs182500},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-intelligent-and-fuzzy-systems/ifs182500}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Substructural inquisitive logics.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Punčochář.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Review of Symbolic Logic, 12(2): 296–330. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:19,\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v{c}}och{\\'a}{\\v{r}}, V{\\'\\i}t},\n\tjournal = {The Review of Symbolic Logic},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tpages = {296--330},\n\tpublisher = {Cambridge University Press},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {Substructural inquisitive logics},\n\tabstract={This paper shows that any propositional logic that extends a basic substructural logic BSL (a weak, nondistributive, nonassociative, and noncommutative version of Full Lambek logic with a paraconsistent negation) can be enriched with questions in the style of inquisitive semantics and logic.},\n\tvolume = {12},\n\tyear = {2019}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Ehrenfeucht-Fraı̈ssé Game for Inquisitive First-Order Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gianluca Grilletti, & Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Alexandra Silva, Sam Staton, Peter Sutton, & Carla Umbach., editor(s), Language, Logic, and Computation, pages 166–186, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2019. Springer Berlin Heidelberg\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{GrillettiCiardelli:19,\n\tabstract = {Inquisitive first-order logic, InqBQ, is an extension of classical first-order logic with questions. From a mathematical point of view, formulas in this logic express properties of sets of relational structures. In this paper we describe an Ehrenfeucht-Fra{\\"\\i}ss{\\'e} game for InqBQ and show that it characterizes the distinguishing power of the logic. We exploit this result to show a number of undefinability results: in particular, several variants of the question how many individuals have property P are not expressible in InqBQ, even in restriction to finite models.},\n\taddress = {Berlin, Heidelberg},\n\tauthor = {Grilletti, Gianluca and Ciardelli, Ivano},\n\tbooktitle = {Language, Logic, and Computation},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-662-59565-7_9},\n\teditor = {Silva, Alexandra and Staton, Sam and Sutton, Peter and Umbach, Carla},\n\tisbn = {978-3-662-59565-7},\n\tpages = {166--186},\n\tpublisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},\n\ttitle = {An Ehrenfeucht-Fra{\\"\\i}ss{\\'e} Game for Inquisitive First-Order Logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-59565-7_9},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-59565-7_9},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59565-7_9}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Undefinability in Inquisitive Logic with Tensor.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Fausto Barbero.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Patrick Blackburn, Emiliano Lorini, & Meiyun Guo., editor(s), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, pages 29–42, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2019. Springer Berlin Heidelberg\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Undefinability$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{CiardelliBarbero:19,\n\taddress = {Berlin, Heidelberg},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Barbero, Fausto},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Rationality, and Interaction},\n\teditor = {Blackburn, Patrick and Lorini, Emiliano and Guo, Meiyun},\n\tisbn = {978-3-662-60292-8},\n\tpages = {29--42},\n\tpublisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},\n\ttitle = {Undefinability in Inquisitive Logic with Tensor},\n\tabstract={Logics based on team semantics, such as inquisitive logic and dependence logic, are not closed under uniform substitution. This leads to an interesting separation between expressive power and definability: it may be that an operator O can be added to a language without a gain in expressive power, yet O is not definable in that language. For instance, even though propositional inquisitive logic and propositional dependence logic have the same expressive power, inquisitive disjunction and implication are not definable in propositional dependence logic. A question that has been open for some time in this area is whether the tensor disjunction used in propositional dependence logic is definable in inquisitive logic. We settle this question in the negative. In fact, we show that extending the logical repertoire of inquisitive logic by means of tensor disjunction leads to an independent set of connectives; that is, no connective in the resulting logic is definable in terms of the others.},\n\turl={https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_3},\n\tkeywords={inquisitive logic},\n\tyear = {2019}}\n\t\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Disjunction and Existence Properties in Inquisitive First-Order Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gianluca Grilletti.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Studia Logica, 107(6): 1199–1234. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Disjunction$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Grilletti:19,\n\tabstract = {Classical first-order logic 𝙵𝙾 is commonly used to study logical connections between statements, that is sentences that in every context have an associated truth-value. Inquisitive first-order logic 𝙸𝚗𝚚𝙱𝚀 is a conservative extension of 𝙵𝙾 which captures not only connections between statements, but also between questions. In this paper we prove the disjunction and existence properties for 𝙸𝚗𝚚𝙱𝚀 relative to inquisitive disjunction  and inquisitive existential quantifier ∃̄. Moreover we extend these results to several families of theories, among which the one in the language of 𝙵𝙾. To this end, we initiate a model-theoretic approach to the study of 𝙸𝚗𝚚𝙱𝚀. In particular, we develop a toolkit of basic constructions in order to transform and combine models of 𝙸𝚗𝚚𝙱𝚀.},\n\tauthor = {Grilletti, Gianluca},\n\tda = {2019/12/01},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11225-018-9835-3},\n\tid = {Grilletti2019},\n\tisbn = {1572-8730},\n\tjournal = {Studia Logica},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tpages = {1199--1234},\n\ttitle = {Disjunction and Existence Properties in Inquisitive First-Order Logic},\n\tty = {JOUR},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11225-018-9835-3},\n\tvolume = {107},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11225-018-9835-3},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-018-9835-3}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Reducing contrastive knowledge.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Michael Cohen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Erkenntnis,1–19. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Cohen:19,\n\tauthor = {Cohen, Michael},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10670-019-00169-4},\n\tjournal = {Erkenntnis},\n\tpages = {1--19},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Reducing contrastive knowledge},\n\tabstract={According to one form of epistemic contrastivism, due to Jonathan Schaffer, knowledge is not a binary relation between an agent and a proposition, but a ternary relation between an agent, a proposition, and a context-basing question. In a slogan: to know is to know the answer to a question. I argue, first, that Schaffer-style epistemic contrastivism can be semantically represented in inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic, a recent implementation of inquisitive semantics in the framework of dynamic epistemic logic; second, that within inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic, the contrastive ternary knowledge operator is reducible to the standard binary one. The reduction shows, I argue, that Schaffer’s argument in favor of contrastivism is compatible with a binary picture of knowledge. This undercuts the force of the argument in favor of contrastivism.},\n\tkeywords={epistemology},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-019-00169-4}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Coordinating questions: The scope puzzle.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Morwenna Hoeks, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Katherine Blake, Forrest Davis, Kaelyn Lamp, & Joseph Rhyne., editor(s), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 29, pages 562-581, 2019. Linguistics Society of America\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Coordinating$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 38 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{HoeksRoelofsen:19,\n\tauthor = {Morwenna Hoeks and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 29},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v29i0.4632},\n\teditor = {Katherine Blake and Forrest Davis and Kaelyn Lamp and Joseph Rhyne},\n\tkeywords = {questions,exhaustivity,inquisitive semantics,disjunction,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {562-581},\n\tpublisher = {Linguistics Society of America},\n\ttitle = {Coordinating questions: The scope puzzle},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/29.562},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/29.562},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4632}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Interacting alternatives: Referential indeterminacy and questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, & Jakub Dotlacil.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2019.\n Presented at Rutgers University, November 2019\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Interacting$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 15 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{DotlacilRoelofsen:19rutgers,\n\tauthor = {Floris Roelofsen and Jakub Dotlacil},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,dynamic semantics,questions,anaphora,intervention effects,theoretical linguistics,indefinites,ongoing},\n\tnote = {Presented at Rutgers University, November 2019},\n\ttitle = {Interacting alternatives: Referential indeterminacy and questions},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GNhZDUxO/slides.pdf},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GNhZDUxO/slides.pdf}}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Polarity particles revisited.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Donka F Farkas, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Semantics and Pragmatics, 12(15). 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Polarity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 34 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{FarkasRoelofsen:19,\n\tabstract = {Claus et al. (2017) present novel experimental evidence concerning polarity particle responses in German, and discuss the challenges these findings raise for three approaches to such responses, namely the saliency approach of Krifka (20130, the feature model of Roelofsen and Farkas (2015), and the ellipsis approaches of Kramer and Rawlins (2012), and Holmberg (2016). The authors then sketch a way to account for the data within the feature model, as well as a revised version of the saliency account.\n\nThe first goal of this paper is to work out in full detail an account of the new German data in the feature model. In the process, we will clarify and better articulate those aspects of the feature model that are responsible for how preference patterns are to be explained. Our second goal is to deepen the comparison between this model and the saliency approach by taking a wider cross-linguistic perspective.},\n\tauthor = {Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/sp.12.15},\n\tjournal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},\n\tkeywords = {answer particles,anaphora,theoretical linguistics,cross-linguistic},\n\tnumber = {15},\n\ttitle = {Polarity particles revisited},\n\turl = {https://semprag.org/article/view/sp.12.15},\n\tvolume = {12},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semprag.org/article/view/sp.12.15},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.15}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Semantic theories of questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press, 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Semantic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 46 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Roelofsen:19OER,\n\tabstract = {This survey article discusses two basic issues that semantic theories of questions face. The first is how to conceptualize and formally represent the semantic content of questions. This issue arises in particular because the standard truth-conditional notion of meaning, which has been fruitful in the analysis of declarative statements, is not applicable to questions. This is because questions are not naturally construed as being true or false. Instead, it has been proposed that the semantic content of a question must be characterized in terms of its answerhood or resolution conditions. This article surveys a number of theories which develop this basic idea in different ways, focusing on so-called proposition-set theories (alternative semantics, partition semantics, and inquisitive semantics).\n\nThe second issue that will be considered here concerns questions that are embedded within larger sentences. Within this domain, one important puzzle is why certain predicates can take both declarative and interrogative complements (e.g., Bill knows that Mary called / Bill knows who called), while others take only declarative complements (e.g., Bill thinks that Mary called / *Bill thinks who called) or only interrogative complements (e.g., Bill wonders who called / *Bill wonders that Mary called). We compare two general approaches that have been pursued in the literature. One assumes that declarative and interrogative complements differ in semantic type. On this approach, the fact that predicates like think do not take interrogative complements can be accounted for by assuming that such complements do not have the semantic type that think selects for. The other approach treats the two kinds of complement as having the same semantic type, and seeks to connect the selectional restrictions of predicates like think to other semantic properties (e.g., the fact that think is neg-raising).},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.504},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,modality,attitude predicates,survey},\n\tpublisher = {Oxford University Press},\n\ttitle = {Semantic theories of questions},\n\turl = {https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-504},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tc5NjlhY/article.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Picky predicates: Why believe doesn't like interrogative complements, and other puzzles.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler, Floris Roelofsen, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Picky$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 18 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Theiler:19nals,\n\tabstract = {It is a long-standing puzzle why predicates like believe embed declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., Bill believes that/*whether Mary left) and why predicates like wonder embed interrogative but not declarative complements (e.g., Bill wonders whether/*that Mary left). This paper shows how the selectional restrictions of a range of predicates (neg-raising predicates like believe, truth-evaluating predicates like be true, inquisitive predicates like wonder, and predicates of dependency like depend on) can be derived from semantic assumptions that can be independently motivated.},\n\tauthor = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\ttitle = {{Picky predicates: Why believe doesn't like interrogative complements, and other puzzles}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9}}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Dynamic inquisitive semantics: anaphora and questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jakub Dotla ̌cil, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23, pages 365-382, 2019. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Dynamic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{DotlacilRoelofsen:19sub,\n\tabstract = {This paper develops a dynamic inquisitive semantics and illustrates its potential to capture interactions between anaphora and questions.},\n\tauthor = {Dotla{\\v c}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.18148/sub/2019.v23i1.538},\n\tkeywords = {anaphora,dynamic semantics,inquisitive semantics,philosophical logic,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,dynamic semantics,questions,anaphora,philosophical logic},\n\tpages = {365-382},\n\ttitle = {{Dynamic inquisitive semantics: anaphora and questions}},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23i1.538}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Distributive ignorance inferences with wonder and believe.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Alexandre Cremers, Floris Roelofsen, & Wataru Uegaki.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Semantics and Pragmatics, 12(5). 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Distributive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CremersRoelofsenUegaki:18,\n\tabstract = {A sentence like Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the vase implies that Mary still consider all disjuncts possible. This inference has been referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by two verbs, wonder and believe, with different types of complements and different types of quantificational subjects.\n\nThe results of these experiments show that the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by the two verbs pattern very much alike. We argue that the data are best explained by an account that involves a strengthening mechanism which is sensitive to the syntactic structure of the complement of the verbs involved and optionally applies locally, as part of the semantic composition process.},\n\tauthor = {Cremers, Alexandre and Roelofsen, Floris and Uegaki, Wataru},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/sp.12.5},\n\tjournal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,questions,ignorance,experimental linguistics,exhaustivity,implicatures},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\ttitle = {Distributive ignorance inferences with wonder and believe},\n\turl = {https://semprag.org/article/view/sp.12.5},\n\tvolume = {12},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semprag.org/article/view/sp.12.5},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.5}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Surprise for Lauri Karttunen.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Cleo Condoravdi, & Tracy Holloway King., editor(s), Tokens of Meaning: Papers in Honor of Lauri Karttunen. CSLI Publications, 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Surprise$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 23 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Roelofsen:19surprise,\n\tabstract = {This paper is written in honor of Lauri Karttunen's seminal contributions to formal semantics, in particular his work on discourse referents (Karttunen, 1969), presuppositions (Karttunen, 1973, 1974) and questions (Karttunen, 1977). The present paper is connected to all these lines of work, suggesting that a long-standing issue concerning question embedding verbs like surprise, raised in Karttunen (1977), can be resolved by assuming that such verbs involve a presupposition that is sensitive to the discourse referents introduced by their complement.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Tokens of Meaning: Papers in Honor of Lauri Karttunen},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Cleo Condoravdi and Tracy Holloway King},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,modality,presupposition,highlighting},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpublisher = {CSLI Publications},\n\ttitle = {{Surprise for {Lauri Karttunen}}},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mI4NTFjO/paper.pdf},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mI4NTFjO/paper.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The *whether puzzle.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, Michele Herbstritt, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Klaus Heusinger, Malte Zimmermann, & Edgar Onea., editor(s), Questions in Discourse, pages 172–197. Brill, 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 25 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Roelofsen:19qid,\n\tabstract = {This paper offers an account of the fact that certain verbs license wh-questions as their complement but not whether-questions. For instance, it is felicitous to say It is surprising who Bill had invited but not to say It is surprising whether Bill had invited his wife. We refer to this contrast as the *whether puzzle. We propose an account which crucially rests on the assumption that the relevant kind of verbs are sensitive to the semantic objects that their complement clause brings into salience, rather than just its truth/resolution conditions. It has been argued in previous work that the semantic objects that matrix questions bring into salience are important to understand the role of such questions in discourse. The present paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to argue that this aspect of meaning is also crucial for understanding the role of embedded questions in grammar.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Herbstritt, Michele and Aloni, Maria},\n\tbooktitle = {Questions in Discourse},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1163/9789004378308_005},\n\teditor = {Klaus von Heusinger and Malte Zimmermann and Edgar Onea},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,modality,highlighting},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {172--197},\n\tpublisher = {Brill},\n\ttitle = {{The *whether puzzle}},\n\turl = {https://brill.com/view/book/9789004378308/BP000004.xml},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://brill.com/view/book/9789004378308/BP000004.xml},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378308_005}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Two alternatives for disjunction: an inquisitive reconciliation.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Klaus Heusinger, Malte Zimmermann, & Edgar Onea., editor(s), Questions in Discourse, pages 251–274. Brill, 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Two$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Roelofsen:19disjunction,\n\tabstract = {There are two prominent treatments of disjunction in formal semantics. Traditionally, disjunction is taken to express an operator that applies to any two elements A and B of a Boolean algebra and yields their join. In particular, if A and B are propositions, then disjunction delivers their union, A ∪ B. Another, more recent proposal is to treat disjunction as expressing an operator that can apply to any two objects of the same semantic type, and yields the set consisting of these two objects. In particular, if disjunction applies to two propositions A and B, it delivers a set of propositional alternatives, {A, B}. Each of the two approaches has certain merits that the other one lacks. Thus, it would be desirable to reconcile the two, combining their respective strengths. This paper shows that this is indeed possible, if we adopt a notion of meaning that does not just take truth-conditional, informative content into consideration, but also inquisitive content.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Questions in Discourse},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1163/9789004378322_009},\n\teditor = {Klaus von Heusinger and Malte Zimmermann and Edgar Onea},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,disjunction,alternative semantics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {251--274},\n\tpublisher = {Brill},\n\ttitle = {{Two alternatives for disjunction: an inquisitive reconciliation}},\n\turl = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004378322/BP000008.xml},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004378322/BP000008.xml},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_009}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2018\n \n \n (19)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n CRISP: a semantics for focus-sensitive particles in questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Marvin Schmitt.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2018.\n University of Amsterdam, MSc thesis\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"CRISP:$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Schmitt:18,\n\tabstract = {Focus particles like only, too, even, etc. are well studied expressions in formal semantics. They received a lot of attention from different view points, e.g. presupposition theory and the study of scalar implicatures. However, these particles did not receive as much attention when occurring in questions (with the exception from focus intervention effects). Concentrating on too we present interesting data points on too in alternative questions, plain polar questions, and who-questions, showing that too is infelicitous in some questions, but not all. We restrict ourselves thereby to questions in matrix form. The explanation of these data would be a first step towards a general account of the distribution of too in questions. \nIn order to explain the data points, the thesis will develop a compositional inquisitive semantics with focus and presuppositions: CRISP. This is motivated both conceptually and technically, since the few accessible frameworks for such a study are either technically restricted, or conceptually ill-suited. We will show that CRISP can account for the data points.},\n\tauthor = {Marvin Schmitt},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {University of Amsterdam, MSc thesis},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {CRISP: a semantics for focus-sensitive particles in questions},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1635/1/MoL-2018-21.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1635/1/MoL-2018-21.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Factual conditionals and hypothetical commitments.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jonathan Pesetsky.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Factual$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Pesetsky:18,\n\tabstract = {A very general intuition about conditionals is that they ask us to consider their consequents in light of their antecedents. Different theories cash out this intuition in different ways, but one common assumption is that an agent parsing a conditional must consider only the ways in which the antecedent affects the information and issues present in discourse. In this thesis, I argue that one must also consider the conventional discourse effects brought about by its antecedent. \nMy central argument comes from the contrast between `if so' and `if yes'. While the former can occur felicitously as a response either to a question or to an assertion, the latter can only occur in response to a question. This restriction cannot arise from constraints on informational or inquisitive content, since `so' and `yes' have the same content when they are anaphoric to the same proposition. Rather, it must arise from the fact that `yes' commits its speaker to its anaphoric antecedent on the basis of their private inquisitive-evidentiary state (i.e. it creates a self-sourced commitment), while `so' creates a commitment based exclusively on testimony (i.e. a dependent commitment). Therefore, this contrast motivates a treatment of conditionals which is sensitive to these kinds of discourse-level distinctions. \nTo explain this data, I propose a stack-based analysis of conditionals in which an `if so' conditional creates a temporary hypothetical context where the speaker has a dependent commitment, while `if yes' creates a hypothetical context where the speaker has a self-sourced commitment. I show that this analysis can help us make sense of factual conditionals, an otherwise mysterious class of conditionals whose antecedents echo a previous utterance.},\n\tauthor = {Pesetsky, Jonathan},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {conditionals},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Factual conditionals and hypothetical commitments},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1629/1/MoL-2018-15.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1629/1/MoL-2018-15.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Logical Triviality and Grammar.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hana Möller Kalpak.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2018.\n University of Amsterdam, MSc thesis\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{MollerKalpak:18,\n\tabstract = {In this thesis, I de\u001bne the notion of inquisitive logical triviality, and investigate its connection to grammaticality in natural language. Inquisitive logical triviality is a property characterizing sentences which are either contradictory, or tautologous and non-inquisitive, purely in virtue of their logical vocabulary, and the presuppositions that this vocabulary triggers. I propose that inquisitive logical triviality is a source of systematic unacceptability of sentences, to the e\u001dect that sentences exhibiting this form of triviality are ungrammatical. I argue that this assumption allows us to explain various empirical puzzles involving inde\u001bnite and interrogative pronouns. First, it is shown to allow an account of previously unnoticed patterns of (un)grammaticality of constructions in which the exclusive particle only or an it-cleft associates with an inde\u001bnite pronoun or determiner phrase. Second, it is shown to allow a semantic account of the system of question formation in Yucatec Maya, a language with little-tono interrogative-speci\u001bc morphosyntax. Third, it is shown to allow an account for the cross-linguistic ability of focus to disambiguate quexistentials; words that can function both as inde\u001bnite and as interrogative pronouns.},\n\tauthor = {M{\\"o}ller Kalpak, Hana},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {questions},\n\tnote = {University of Amsterdam, MSc thesis},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Logical Triviality and Grammar},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1633/1/MoL-2018-19.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1633/1/MoL-2018-19.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Coordinating questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Morwenna Hoeks.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Coordinating$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Hoeks:18,\n\tabstract = {This thesis explores how a well-founded and uniform compositional account can be given of coordinated questions. First, the empirical picture of question coordination is explored by making a direct comparison between conjunctive, disjunctive, and polar questions. Some surprising observations are discussed, which show that conjunctive questions always correspond to conjunctions of polar questions (PolQs), while disjunctive questions can never be analyzed as disjunctions of PolQs. The proposed account allows us to express several different readings of disjunctive questions, thereby deriving the differences between those readings from the interplay between their intonation, discourse effects, and underlying syntactic structure. In particular, it is argued that the contribution of the question operator should be split up into two components: a component that introduces a presupposition and a component that deals with the at issue question meaning. The way these two components interact is taken to be the crucial difference between PolQs and AltQs. The difference between AltQs and conjunctive questions is explained by making reference to their effects on discourse.},\n\tauthor = {Morwenna Hoeks},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {questions},\n\tschool = {ILLC, University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Coordinating questions},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1644/1/MoL-2018-30.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1644/1/MoL-2018-30.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On selectional restrictions of clause-embedding predicates.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n Presented at the First Modal Universals Workshop in Leiden, December 2018\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen18:moduni,\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the First Modal Universals Workshop in Leiden, December 2018},\n\ttitle = {On selectional restrictions of clause-embedding predicates},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jQxOTBjZ/slides.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jQxOTBjZ/slides.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions as information types.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 195: 321-365. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:18qait,\n\tabstract = {This paper argues that questions have an important role to to play in logic, both semantically and proof-theoretically. Semantically, we show that by generalizing the classical notion of entailment to questions, we can capture not only the standard relation of logical consequence, which holds between pieces of information, but also the relation of logical dependency, which holds between information types. Proof-theoretically, we show that questions may be used in inferences as placeholders for arbitrary information of a given type; by manipulating such placeholders, we may construct formal proofs of dependencies. Finally, we show that such proofs have a specific kind of constructive content: they do not just witness the existence of a certain dependency, but actually encode a method for transforming information of the types described by the assumptions into information of the type described by the conclusion.},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1221-y},\n\tissue = {1},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {321-365},\n\ttitle = {Questions as information types},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1221-y},\n\tvolume = {195},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1221-y},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1221-y}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Intonation and sentence type conventions: Two types of rising declaratives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sunwoo Jeong.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 35(2): 305-356. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intonation$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Jeong:18,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents an experimental study that provides evidence for the existence of two types of rising declaratives in English which differ systematically in their forms and their functions. The two are labelled assertive rising declaratives and inquisitive rising declaratives, respectively. Guided by the experimental results, the paper develops a semantic analysis of them. Having as backdrop an extended Lewisian model of discourse involving a conversational scoreboard, the analysis associates assertive and inquisitive rising declaratives with distinct sets of context-changing conventions that bring about fundamentally different updates to core elements of the context. In the process, it highlights their respective partial overlaps with the conventions for two other sentence types, falling declaratives and polar interrogatives. The analysis fully captures the experimental results presented in the paper and reconciles disparate, seemingly contradictory observations about English rising declaratives noted in previous work.},\n\tauthor = {Sunwoo Jeong},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/semant/ffy001},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {questions},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tpages = {305-356},\n\ttitle = {Intonation and sentence type conventions: Two types of rising declaratives},\n\turl = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/35/2/305/4925551},\n\tvolume = {35},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/35/2/305/4925551},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/ffy001}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Alexandre Cremers.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Plurality$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Cremers:18,\n\tabstract = {Questions embedded under responsive predicates and definite descriptions both give rise to a variety of phenomena which can be grouped under the term plurality effects: quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects. This similarity has not gone unnoticed, and many proposals have taken inspiration in theories of definite plurals to account for these effects with embedded questions (Dayal in Locality in WH quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996; Lahiri in Questions and answers in embedded contexts, Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002; a.o.). Recently these phenomena have received less attention, as the field has focused on the so-called intermediate exhaustive reading of embedded questions instead, after Spector (Exhaustive interpretations: what to say and what not to say, Presentation at LSA Workshop: `Context and Content', 2005) called into question the traditional dichotomy between weak and strong exhaustive readings. As a result, the intermediate exhaustive reading has been accounted for at the expense of empirical coverage in other areas. In this paper, I propose a modular theory which derives the currently much discussed exhaustive readings without giving up the rich semantics necessary to account for plurality effects. My account of quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects builds on recent work on these phenomena in the nominal domain by adopting a categorial approach to embedded questions, while the strong and intermediate exhaustive readings are implemented using an independent strengthening mechanism suggested in Klinedinst and Rothschild (Semant Pragmat 4(2):1--23, 2011). The resulting theory not only recovers important results on plurality effects; it offers new, simple solutions for some puzzles presented in George (Question embedding and the semantics of answers, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 2011; Thought J Philos 2(2):166--177, 2013) and Paill{\\'e} and Schwarz (in: Stockwell (ed) Proceedings of WCCFL 36, vol 36, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, 2018), naturally derives readings that had been postulated in previous literature (Preuss in Issues in the semantics of questions with quantifiers, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 2001), makes correct predictions in many unexplored cases, and is compatible with recent results in psycholinguistics. In the last sections I justify my assumptions and show how possible limitations I inherit from the theories I build on can be accommodated under standard assumptions.},\n\tauthor = {Alexandre Cremers},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\ttitle = {Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11050-018-9145-3},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11050-018-9145-3},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n Questions embedded under responsive predicates and definite descriptions both give rise to a variety of phenomena which can be grouped under the term plurality effects: quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects. This similarity has not gone unnoticed, and many proposals have taken inspiration in theories of definite plurals to account for these effects with embedded questions (Dayal in Locality in WH quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996; Lahiri in Questions and answers in embedded contexts, Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002; a.o.). Recently these phenomena have received less attention, as the field has focused on the so-called intermediate exhaustive reading of embedded questions instead, after Spector (Exhaustive interpretations: what to say and what not to say, Presentation at LSA Workshop: `Context and Content', 2005) called into question the traditional dichotomy between weak and strong exhaustive readings. As a result, the intermediate exhaustive reading has been accounted for at the expense of empirical coverage in other areas. In this paper, I propose a modular theory which derives the currently much discussed exhaustive readings without giving up the rich semantics necessary to account for plurality effects. My account of quantificational variability, cumulativity, and homogeneity effects builds on recent work on these phenomena in the nominal domain by adopting a categorial approach to embedded questions, while the strong and intermediate exhaustive readings are implemented using an independent strengthening mechanism suggested in Klinedinst and Rothschild (Semant Pragmat 4(2):1–23, 2011). The resulting theory not only recovers important results on plurality effects; it offers new, simple solutions for some puzzles presented in George (Question embedding and the semantics of answers, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 2011; Thought J Philos 2(2):166–177, 2013) and Paillé and Schwarz (in: Stockwell (ed) Proceedings of WCCFL 36, vol 36, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, 2018), naturally derives readings that had been postulated in previous literature (Preuss in Issues in the semantics of questions with quantifiers, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 2001), makes correct predictions in many unexplored cases, and is compatible with recent results in psycholinguistics. In the last sections I justify my assumptions and show how possible limitations I inherit from the theories I build on can be accommodated under standard assumptions.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Linmin Zhang, & Lucas Champollion.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(6): 577-621. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Two$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:18counterfactuals,\n\tabstract = {Based on a crowdsourced truth value judgment experiment, we provide empirical evidence challenging two classical views in semantics, and we develop a novel account of counterfactuals that combines ideas from inquisitive semantics and causal reasoning. First, we show that two truth-conditionally equivalent clauses can make different semantic contributions when embedded in a counterfactual antecedent. Assuming compositionality, this means that the meaning of these clauses is not fully determined by their truth conditions. This finding has a clear explanation in inquisitive semantics: truth-conditionally equivalent clauses may be associated with different propositional alternatives, each of which counts as a separate counterfactual assumption. Second, we show that our results contradict the common idea that the interpretation of a counterfactual involves minimizing change with respect to the actual state of affairs. We propose to replace the idea of minimal change by a distinction between foreground and background for a given counterfactual assumption: the background is held fixed in the counterfactual situation, while the foreground can be varied without any minimality constraint.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Zhang, Linmin and Champollion, Lucas},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4},\n\tissn = {1573-0549},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {conditionals},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tpages = {577-621},\n\ttitle = {Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4},\n\tvolume = {41},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Dependence Statements Are Strict Conditionals.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Guram Bezhanishvili, Giovanna D'Agostino, George Metcalfe, & Thomas Studer., editor(s), Advances in Modal Logic (AIML), pages 123-142, London, 2018. College Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Dependence$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:18aiml,\n\taddress = {London},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tbooktitle = {Advances in Modal Logic (AIML)},\n\teditor = {Bezhanishvili, Guram and Giovanna D'Agostino and George Metcalfe and Thomas Studer},\n\tpages = {123-142},\n\tpublisher = {College Publications},\n\ttitle = {Dependence Statements Are Strict Conditionals},\n\tabstract={In this paper I discuss dependence statements like “whether p determines whether q”.\nI propose to analyze such statements as involving a generalized strict conditional\noperator applied to two questions—a determining question and a determined one.\nThe dependence statement is true or false at a world w according to whether, relative\nto the set of successors of w, every answer to the former yields an answer to the latter.\nThis motivates an investigation of strict conditionals in the context of inquisitive logic.\nA sound and complete axiomatization of the resulting logic is established, both for\nthe class of all Kripke frames, and for various notable frame classes.},\n\turl={http://www.ivanociardelli.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/aiml18-final.pdf},\n\tkeywords={inquisitive logic, dependence, conditionals},\n\tyear = {2018}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Oxford University Press, 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 32 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Ciardelli:18book,\n\tabstract = {This book presents a new logical framework to capture the meaning of sentences in conversation. The traditional approach equates meaning with truth-conditions: to know the meaning of a sentence is to know under which circumstances it is true. The reason for this is that linguistic and philosophical investigations are usually carried out in a logical framework that was originally designed to characterize valid argumentation. However, argumentation is neither the sole, nor the primary function of language. One task that language more widely and ordinarily fulfils is to enable the exchange of information between conversational participants. In the framework outlined in this volume, inquisitive semantics, information exchange is seen as a process of raising and resolving issues. Inquisitive semantics provides a new formal notion of meaning, which makes it possible to model various concepts that are crucial for the analysis of linguistic information exchange in a more refined and more principled way than has been possible in previous frameworks. Importantly, it also allows an integrated treatment of statements and questions.\n\nThe first part of the book presents the framework in detail, while the second demonstrates its benefits in the semantic analysis of questions, coordination, modals, conditionals, and intonation. The book will be of interest to researchers and students from advanced undergraduate level upwards in the fields of semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, and logic.\n\nThis is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics,monograph},\n\tpublisher = {Oxford University Press},\n\ttitle = {{Inquisitive Semantics}},\n\turl = {http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780198814788.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780198814788.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Inquisitive Perspective on Modals and Quantifiers.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Annual Review of Linguistics, 4: 129–149. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:18,\n\tabstract = {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.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626},\n\tjournal = {Annual Review of Linguistics},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,modality,quantification,questions,theoretical linguistics,survey},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,quantification,questions},\n\tpages = {129--149},\n\ttitle = {{An Inquisitive Perspective on Modals and Quantifiers}},\n\turl = {http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QJ7NerczQ6Yaj9rGbGQe/full/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626},\n\tvolume = {4},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QJ7NerczQ6Yaj9rGbGQe/full/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Charles Cross, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Edward Zalta., editor(s), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 11 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{CrossRoelofsen:18,\n\tabstract = {The philosophy of language since Frege has emphasized propositions and declarative sentences, but it is clear that questions and interrogative sentences are just as important. Scientific investigation and explanation proceed in part through the posing and answering of questions, and human-computer interaction is often structured in terms of queries and answers. After going over some preliminaries we will focus on three lines of work on questions: one located at the intersection of philosophy of language and formal semantics, focusing on the semantics of what Belnap and Steel (1976) call elementary questions; a second located at the intersection of philosophy of language and philosophy of science, focusing on why-questions and the notion of explanation; and a third located at the intersection of philosophy of language and epistemology, focusing on embedded or indirect questions.},\n\tauthor = {Cross, Charles and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Zalta, Edward},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics,survey},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions},\n\tpublisher = {Stanford University},\n\ttitle = {{Questions}},\n\turl = {http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/questions},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/questions}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler, Floris Roelofsen, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 35(3): 409–466. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 13 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Theiler:18jos,\n\tabstract = {This paper proposes a semantics for declarative and interrogative complements and for so-called responsive verbs, like know and forget, which embed both kinds of complements. Following Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984), we pursue a uniform account in the sense that we take both kinds of complements to be of the same semantic type and we assume a single lexical entry for each responsive verb. This approach avoids a number of problems for non-uniform theories, such as the reductive theories of Karttunen (1977), Heim (1994), Lahiri (2002), Spector & Egr{\\'e} (2015), among others, and the twin relations theory of George (2011).\n\nOn the other hand, our account also addresses the main limitation of Groenendijk & Stokhof's (1984) proposal, which is that it is primarily designed to derive strongly exhaustive readings for interrogative complements. Our account is more flexible in that it straightforwardly derives non-exhaustive and intermediate exhaustive readings as well.},\n\tauthor = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffy003},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics,exhaustivity},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,modality,attitude predicates},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {409--466},\n\ttitle = {{A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements}},\n\turl = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/35/3/409/5047430?guestAccessKey=66f52429-873c-4a42-a316-13c042570a52},\n\tvolume = {35},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/35/3/409/5047430?guestAccessKey=66f52429-873c-4a42-a316-13c042570a52},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy003}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n NPIs in questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2018.\n NYU Linguistics Colloquium\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"NPIs$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:18nyu,\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,npi,questions,theoretical linguistics,ongoing},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,npi,questions},\n\tnote = {NYU Linguistics Colloquium},\n\ttitle = {{NPIs in questions}},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY0MzU0N/handout.pdf},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY0MzU0N/handout.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Do modals take propositions or sets of propositions? Evidence from Japanese darou.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wataru Uegaki, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Sireemas Maspong, Brynhildur Stefansdottir, Katherine Blake, & Forrest Davis., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28), pages 809-829, 2018. Linguistics Society of America\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Do$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{UegakiRoelofsen:18,\n\tabstract = {The Japanese modal particle darou can take either a declarative or an interrogative prejacent (Hara 2006; Hara & Davis 2013). We point out, however, that its interrogative-embedding use cannot be reduced to its declarative-embedding use. This is problematic under the standard assumption that modal operators always apply to propositions, but not under more recent proposals which take modal op- erators to apply to sets of propositions. We develop a detailed account of darou, capturing its non-reductive nature as well as its puzzling interaction with intonation (Hara 2015).},\n\tauthor = {Uegaki, Wataru and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v28i0.4427},\n\teditor = {Sireemas Maspong and Brynhildur Stefansdottir and Katherine Blake and Forrest Davis},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,questions,attitude predicates},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,questions,attitude predicates},\n\tpages = {809-829},\n\tpublisher = {Linguistics Society of America},\n\ttitle = {Do modals take propositions or sets of propositions? Evidence from Japanese darou},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.809},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.809},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4427}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Polarity sensitivity of question embedding: experimental evidence.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thom Gessel, Alexandre Cremers, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Sireemas Maspong, Brynhildur Stefansdottir, Katherine Blake, & Forrest Davis., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28), pages 217–232, 2018. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Polarity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Gessel:18salt,\n\tabstract = {Attitude predicates can be classified by the kinds of complements they can embed: declaratives, interrogatives or both. However, several authors have claimed that predicates like be certain can only embed interrogatives in specific environments. According to Mayr, these are exactly the environments that license negative polarity items (NPIs). In his analysis, both NPIs and embedded interrogatives are licensed by the same semantic strengthening procedure. If this is right, one would expect a correlation between acceptability of be certain whether and NPIs. The analysis also predicts a contrast between antecedents vs. consequents of conditionals and restrictors vs. scopes of universal quantifiers. This paper tests these predictions experimentally through an acceptability judgment task. We find that judgments for be certain whether do not correlate with judgments on NPIs, which suggests that be certain whether and NPIs are in fact licensed by different mechanisms.},\n\tauthor = {van Gessel, Thom and Cremers, Alexandre and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v28i0.4424},\n\teditor = {Sireemas Maspong and Brynhildur Stefansdottir and Katherine Blake and Forrest Davis},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,experimental linguistics,npi,negation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {217--232},\n\ttitle = {{Polarity sensitivity of question embedding: experimental evidence}},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.217},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.217},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4424}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Implicatures of modified numerals: quality or quantity?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Liz Coppock, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern, & Hannah Rohde., editor(s), Sinn und Bedeutung 21, pages 283–300, 2018. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Implicatures$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli2018,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents a theory of modified numerals that derives a three-way distinction in the implicature profile between superlative modifiers, comparative modifiers, and bare numerals. In contrast to the recent proposal by Schwarz (2016a), and drawing on elements from Coppock and Brochhagen's (2013) inquisitive analysis, the proposal decouples ignorance implicatures from upper-bounding implicatures, and thereby captures an important difference between more than and at least, which differ in their ignorance implicatures but both lack an upper-bounding implicature. At the same time, it accounts for the context-sensitivity in the ignorance implicatures of modified numerals found by Westera and Brasoveanu (2014), and addresses a problem with Coppock and Brochhagen (2013) pointed out by Schwarz (2016b). The key feature of the proposal is the fact that ignorance implicatures may arise in two different ways, namely, both from the Maxim of Quantity and from the Maxim of Quality.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Coppock, Liz and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 21},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Truswell, Robert and Cummins, Chris and Heycock, Caroline and Rabern, Brian and Rohde, Hannah},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,numerals,ignorance,implicatures},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {283--300},\n\ttitle = {{Implicatures of modified numerals: quality or quantity?}},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/138},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/138}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The distributive ignorance puzzle.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, & Wataru Uegaki.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern, & Hannah Rohde., editor(s), Sinn und Bedeutung 21, pages 999-1016, 2018. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{RoelofsenUegaki:16,\n\tabstract = {We observe that verbs like wonder do not just imply that their subject does not know the answer to the embedded question, but a stronger form of ignorance, which we call distributive ignorance. This is not predicted by existing work on the semantics of wonder, and we argue that it cannot be straightforwardly derived as a pragmatic inference either. We consider two possible semantic accounts, and conclude in favor of one on which the lexical semantics of wonder involves exhaustification w.r.t. structural alternatives as well as sub-domain alternatives of its complement.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Uegaki, Wataru},\n\tbooktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 21},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Truswell, Robert and Cummins, Chris and Heycock, Caroline and Rabern, Brian and Rohde, Hannah},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,ignorance,questions,modality,attitude predicates,exhaustivity,implicatures},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {999-1016},\n\ttitle = {{The distributive ignorance puzzle}},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/180},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/180}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2017\n \n \n (14)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Labelled Sequent Calculus for Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jinsheng Chen, & Minghui Ma.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Alexandru Baltag, Jeremy Seligman, & Tomoyuki Yamada., editor(s), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, pages 526–540, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017. Springer Berlin Heidelberg\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@InProceedings{ChenMa:17,\nauthor="Chen, Jinsheng\nand Ma, Minghui",\neditor="Baltag, Alexandru\nand Seligman, Jeremy\nand Yamada, Tomoyuki",\ntitle="Labelled Sequent Calculus for Inquisitive Logic",\nbooktitle="Logic, Rationality, and Interaction",\nyear="2017",\nkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\npublisher="Springer Berlin Heidelberg",\naddress="Berlin, Heidelberg",\npages="526--540",\nabstract={A contraction-free and cut-free labelled sequent calculus\nGInqL for inquisitive logic is established. Labels are defined by a settheoretic syntax. The completeness of GInqL is shown by the equivalence\nbetween the Hilbert-style axiomatic system and sequent system.}\n}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Exhaustivity and intonation: a unified theory.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2017.\n A video of a talk which explains some of the main content of the thesis is available online: https://amupod.univ-amu.fr/video/2503-seminaire-de-matthijs-westera-intonational-compliance-marking-a-theory-of-english-intonational-meaning/\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Exhaustivity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Westera:17,\n\tabstract = {This dissertation presents a precise, unified and explanatory theory of human conversation, centered on two broad phenomena: exhaustivity implications and intonational meaning. In a nutshell: (i) speakers have two types of communicative intentions, namely information sharing and attention sharing, (ii) these types of intentions ideally comply with a certain set of rationality criteria, or maxims, (iii) speakers of English and related languages use intonation, in particular socalled trailing tones and boundary tones, to indicate whether such compliance is achieved, and (iv) exhaustivity implications arise when this holds, at least, for the attention-sharing intention. \nThe research presented here goes against a number of widespread assumptions in the field. The result is a perspective on conversation that enables new solutions to a broad range of well-known puzzles surrounding exhaustivity and intonation. Among these are the ``symmetry problem'', the ``epistemic step'' without a competence assumption, the role of informationally redundant disjuncts, the bias expressed by rising declaratives, the range of uses of rise-fall-rise intonation, the effects of different intonation contours in lists, and differences between questions with rising and falling intonation.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {A video of a talk which explains some of the main content of the thesis is available online: https://amupod.univ-amu.fr/video/2503-seminaire-de-matthijs-westera-intonational-compliance-marking-a-theory-of-english-intonational-meaning/},\n\tschool = {Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Exhaustivity and intonation: a unified theory},\n\turl = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera%202017%20-%20PhD%20thesis%20-%20Exhaustivity%20and%20intonation.pdf},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera%202017%20-%20PhD%20thesis%20-%20Exhaustivity%20and%20intonation.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An inquisitive perspective on hyperintensionality.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n . 2017.\n Presented at the Inquisitive Semantics Seminar, 8 December 2017, Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Roelofsen:17,\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {ongoing},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Inquisitive Semantics Seminar, 8 December 2017, Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {An inquisitive perspective on hyperintensionality},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3bhlmq0gf7knpu/hyperintensionality-inquisitive.pdf?dl=0},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3bhlmq0gf7knpu/hyperintensionality-inquisitive.pdf?dl=0}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An attention-based explanation for some exhaustivity operators.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Westera:17sub,\n\tabstract = {A well-known challenge for accounts of exhaustivity implications is the granularity problem: that adding a non-weakest disjunct to an utterance (e.g., ``or both'') may prevent exhaustivity implications. Recent approaches to this problem apply exhaustivity operators either globally, i.e., to the disjunction as a whole, or locally, i.e., to each disjunct separately. This paper seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the operators employed in the globalist strand, which, contrary to globalists' aims, have not thus far been given any sort of pragmatic motivation. To that end this paper demonstrates that these operators can be derived, wholly or in part, from a pragmatic theory: Attentional Pragmatics (Westera, 2017). The theory centers on the assumption that speakers should not only assert all relevant propositions they hold true, but also draw attention to all relevant propositions they consider possible. This assumption, suitably formalized, overcomes the granularity problem. The current paper formally derives an exhaustivity operator from Attentional Pragmatics and proves that it is in important respects conservative with regard to existing operators.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21},\n\ttitle = {An attention-based explanation for some exhaustivity operators},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/200},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera%202017%20-%20SuB%20exhaustivity%20paper.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wataru Uegaki, & Yasutada Sudo.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2017.\n Amsterdam Colloquium 2017\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{UegakiSudo:17,\n\tabstract = {Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements, (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder ) are only compatible with interrogative complements, and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has recently been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it is proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar analysis for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope. In so doing we also aim at explaining the fact that their veridical counterparts such as be happy are responsive.},\n\tauthor = {Uegaki, Wataru and Yasutada Sudo},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {attitude predicates},\n\tnote = {Amsterdam Colloquium 2017},\n\ttitle = {The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Predicates of relevance and theories of question embedding.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Patrick D. Elliott, Nathan Klinedinst, Yasutada Sudo, & Wataru Uegaki.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 34(3): 547–554. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Predicates$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Elliott:17,\n\tabstract = {Lahiri (2002) classifies question embedding predicates into two major types, rogative and responsive predicates. Rogative predicates like wonder are only compatible with interrogative complements, while responsive predicates like know are also compatible with declarative complements. There are two main theories of responsive predicates: The question-to-proposition reduction approach holds that responsive predicates semantically always select for propositions and that both declarative and interrogative complements to them denote propositions (Heim 1994; Dayal 1996; Lahiri 2002; Spector & Egr{\\'e} 2015). The proposition-to-question reduction approach (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984; Theiler et al. 2015; Uegaki 2015) assumes that responsive predicates semantically always select for question denotations and declarative complements denote resolved questions. We argue that Predicates of Relevance (PoRs) favour the latter approach.},\n\tauthor = {Patrick D. Elliott and Nathan Klinedinst and Yasutada Sudo and Wataru Uegaki},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffx008},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {questions},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {547--554},\n\ttitle = {Predicates of relevance and theories of question embedding},\n\turl = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/3784336/Predicates-of-Relevance-and-Theories-of-Question},\n\tvolume = {34},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/3784336/Predicates-of-Relevance-and-Theories-of-Question},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffx008}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Bisimulation in inquisitive modal logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Martin Otto.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Jerôme Lang., editor(s), Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK) 16, 2017. EPTCS\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Bisimulation$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{CiardelliOtto:17,\n\tabstract = {Inquisitive modal logic, InqML, is a generalisation of standard Kripke-style modal logic. In its epistemic incarnation, it extends standard epistemic logic to capture not just the information that agents have, but also the questions that they are interested in. Technically, InqML fits within the family of logics based on team semantics. From a model-theoretic perspective, it takes us a step in the direction of monadic second-order logic, as inquisitive modal operators involve quantification over sets of worlds. We introduce and investigate the natural notion of bisimulation equivalence in the setting of InqML. We compare the expressiveness of InqML and first-order logic, and characterise inquisitive modal logic as the bisimulation invariant fragments of first-order logic over various classes of two-sorted relational structures. These results crucially require non-classical methods in studying bisimulations and first-order expressiveness over non-elementary classes.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Martin Otto},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tbooktitle = {{Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK) 16}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.4204/EPTCS.251.11},\n\teditor = {Jer{\\^o}me Lang},\n\tpublisher = {EPTCS},\n\ttitle = {Bisimulation in inquisitive modal logic},\n\turl = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08742},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {10.4204/EPTCS.251.11}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Dynamic Logic of Stating and Asking: A Study of Inquisitive Dynamic Modalities.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Alexandru Baltag, Jeremy Seligman, & Tomoyuki Yamada., editor(s), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, pages 240–255, 2017. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:17lori,\n\tabstract = {Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic (IDEL) extends public announcement logic incorporating ideas from inquisitive semantics. In IDEL, the standard public announcement action can be extended to a more general public utterance action, which may involve a statement or a question. While uttering a statement has the effect of a standard announcement, uttering a question typically leads to new issues being raised. In this paper, we investigate the logic of this general public utterance action. We find striking commonalities, and some differences, with public announcement logic. We show that dynamic modalities admit a set of reduction axioms, which allow us to turn any formula of IDEL into an equivalent formula of static inquisitive epistemic logic. This leads us to establish several complete axiomatizations of IDEL, corresponding to known axiomatizations of public announcement logic.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano},\n\tbooktitle = {{Logic, Rationality, and Interaction}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_17},\n\teditor = {Baltag, Alexandru and Seligman, Jeremy and Yamada, Tomoyuki},\n\tpages = {240--255},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {The Dynamic Logic of Stating and Asking: A Study of Inquisitive Dynamic Modalities},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_17},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_17},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_17}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions meaning = resolution conditions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Logic and Logical Philosophy, 26: 383-416. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:17resolution,\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.12775/LLP.2017.017},\n\tjournal = {Logic and Logical Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {questions},\n\tpages = {383-416},\n\ttitle = {Questions meaning = resolution conditions},\n\turl = {https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/view/LLP.2017.017/12233},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/view/LLP.2017.017/12233},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.017}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On questions and presuppositions in typed inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lucas Champollion, Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2017.\n Presented at the 2nd workshop on Inquisitiveness Below and Beyond the Sentence Boundary (InqBnB2), December 2017\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 13 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Champollion:17,\n\tauthor = {Champollion, Lucas and Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,presupposition,compositionality,handout},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the 2nd workshop on Inquisitiveness Below and Beyond the Sentence Boundary (InqBnB2), December 2017},\n\ttitle = {{On questions and presuppositions in typed inquisitive semantics}},\n\turl = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/2017_amsterdam_handout.pdf},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/2017_amsterdam_handout.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n What's wrong with believing whether?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler, Floris Roelofsen, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Dan Burgdorf, Jacob Collard, Sireemas Maspong, & Brynhildur Stefansdottir., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27), pages 248–265, 2017. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"What's$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Theiler:17salt,\n\tabstract = {It is a long-standing puzzle why verbs like believe and think take declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., *Bill believes whether Mary left), while closely related verbs like know and be certain take both kinds of complements. We show that this contrast can be derived from the fact that believe and think, unlike know and be certain, are neg-raising verbs.},\n\tauthor = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v27i0.4125},\n\teditor = {Dan Burgdorf and Jacob Collard and Sireemas Maspong and Brynhildur Stefansdottir},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,modality,attitude predicates,neg-raising,triviality},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {248--265},\n\ttitle = {{What's wrong with believing whether?}},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/27.248},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/27.248},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4125}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Hurford's constraint, the semantics of disjunctions, and the nature of alternatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 25(3): 199–222. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Hurford's$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:17hurford,\n\tabstract = {This paper contributes to two recent lines of work on disjunction: on the one hand, work on so-called Hurford disjunctions, i.e., disjunctions where one disjunct entails another, and on the other hand, work in alternative and inquisitive semantics where disjunction has been argued to generate multiple propositional alternatives. We point out that Hurford effects are found not only in disjunctive statements, but also in disjunctive questions. These cases are not covered by the standard accounts of Hurford phenomena, which assume a truth-conditional treatment of disjunction. We show that inquisitive semantics facilitates a unified explanation of Hurford phenomena in statements and questions. We also argue that Hurford effects provide an empirical handle on the subtle differences between inquisitive semantics and alternative semantics, providing insight into the notion of alternatives and the notion of meaning adopted in these two frameworks.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,disjunction,alternative semantics,questions,exhaustivity},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {199--222},\n\ttitle = {{Hurford's constraint, the semantics of disjunctions, and the nature of alternatives}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y},\n\tvolume = {25},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Donka F Farkas, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Semantics, 34(2): 237–289. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Division$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 23 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{FarkasRoelofsen:17,\n\tabstract = {This article presents an account of the semantic content and conventional discourse effects of a range of sentence types in English, namely falling declaratives, polar interrogatives and certain kinds of rising declaratives and tag interrogatives. The account aims to divide the labor between compositional semantics and conventions of use in a principled way. We argue that falling declaratives and polar interrogatives are unmarked sentence types. On our account, differences in their conventional discourse effects follow from independently motivated semantic differences combined with a single convention of use, which applies uniformly to both sentence types. As a result, the Fregean `illocutionary force operators' Assertion and Question become unnecessary. In contrast, we argue that rising declaratives and tag interrogatives are marked sentence types. On our account, their conventional discourse effects consist of the effects that are dictated by the basic convention of use that is common to all sentence types considered here, augmented with special effects that are systematically connected to their formal properties. Thus, a central feature of our approach is that it maintains a parallelism between unmarked and marked sentence types on the one hand, and basic and complex discourse effects on the other.},\n\tauthor = {Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1093/jos/ffw012},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,discourse commitments,questions,tag questions,rising declaratives,intonation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tpages = {237--289},\n\ttitle = {{Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives}},\n\turl = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/34/2/237/2932198},\n\tvolume = {34},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/34/2/237/2932198},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Composing alternatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Floris Roelofsen, & Nadine Theiler.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(1): 1–36. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Composing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:17,\n\tabstract = {There is a prominent line of work in natural language semantics, rooted in the work of Hamblin, in which the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a single proposition, but rather a set of propositions---a set of alternatives. This allows for a more fine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a wide range of linguistic phenomena. However, this approach also faces a number of problems. We focus here on two of these, in our view the most fundamental ones. The first has to do with how meanings are composed, i.e., with the type-theoretic operations of function application and abstraction; the second has to do with how meanings are compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile what we take to be the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic framework rooted in the work of Montague in such a way that both the explanatory utility of the former and the solid formal foundations of the latter are preserved. Our proposal builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics, and it also contributes to the further development of this framework by specifying how the inquisitive meaning of a sentence may be built up compositionally.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris and Theiler, Nadine},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,compositionality,questions,alternative semantics,philosophical logic},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {1--36},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {{Composing alternatives}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10988-016-9195-2},\n\tvolume = {40},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10988-016-9195-2},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2016\n \n \n (15)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Structural completeness in propositional logics of dependence.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Rosalie Iemhoff, & Fan Yang.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Archive for Mathematical Logic, 55(7): 955–975. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Iemhoff:16,\n  title={Structural completeness in propositional logics of dependence},\n  author={Iemhoff, Rosalie and Yang, Fan},\n  journal={Archive for Mathematical Logic},\n  volume={55},\n  number={7},\n  pages={955--975},\n  year={2016},\n  publisher={Springer},\n  keywords = {inquisitive logic},\n  abstract={In this paper we prove that three of the main propositional logics of dependence (including propositional dependence logic and inquisitive logic), none of which is structural, are structurally complete with respect to a class of substitutions under which the logics are closed. We obtain an analogous result with respect to stable substitutions, for the negative variants of some well-known intermediate logics, which are intermediate theories that are closely related to inquisitive logic.}\n  }\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Conditional-Doxastic Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ben Sparkes.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2016.\n MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Sparkes:16,\n\tabstract = {This thesis develops inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic, obtained by enriching classical multi-agent plausibility models with issues for each agent. The aim of these models is to allow for a finer approach to modelling inquiry. \nIssues capture informative and interrogative content, and so by associating an issue to an agent we are able to capture both their information state and their inquisitive state, while a plausibility map on worlds captures their doxastic state. Moreover, inquisitive plausibility models allow for conditionalisation on both informative and interrogative content. \nTwo conditional-doxastic modalities are introduced and axiomatised; a considers modality unique to inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic, which conditionalises on issues with respect to both an agent's doxastic and inquisitive state, and a generalisation of (conditional) belief, which conditionalises solely on an agent's doxastic state. \nWe show that inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic encodes the same assumptions concerning conditionalisation and conditional-doxastic logic. And, just as conditionaldoxastic logic may be taken as the static counterpart to a dynamic logic of belief revision, inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic can be taken as the static counterpart to a dynamic logic of belief revision within an enriched setting that includes formal resources to model interrogatives. \nInquisitive conditional-doxastic logic is shown to be sound and complete with respect to inquisitive plausibility models, and it is shown that both (conditional) belief and knowledge modalities can be defined in terms of the considers modality. However, we also show that the entertains modality of inquisitive epistemic logic cannot be defined by the considers modality. Therefore, as the basic inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic is axiomatised solely by the considers modality over the base inquisitive semantics it cannot be used to reason about an agent's inquisitive state independently of their doxastic state. \nFor this reason, we also axiomatise inquisitive plausibility logic and show it is sound and complete with respect to the same class of inquisitive plausibility models. This logic introduces modalities which restrict the issue associated to each agent to the worlds considered at least as plausible as the current world or state of evaluation, and those strictly less plausible. The entertains modality of inquisitive epistemic logic is taken as basic in the axiomatisation of inquisitive plausibility logic, and we show the considers modality of basic inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic is definable. Therefore, inquisitive plausibility logic allows for a full study of the interaction between epistemic and conditional-doxastic modalities within the framework of inquisitive semantics.},\n\tauthor = {Ben Sparkes},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Conditional-Doxastic Logic},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/987/1/MoL-2016-15.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/987/1/MoL-2016-15.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n This thesis develops inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic, obtained by enriching classical multi-agent plausibility models with issues for each agent. The aim of these models is to allow for a finer approach to modelling inquiry. Issues capture informative and interrogative content, and so by associating an issue to an agent we are able to capture both their information state and their inquisitive state, while a plausibility map on worlds captures their doxastic state. Moreover, inquisitive plausibility models allow for conditionalisation on both informative and interrogative content. Two conditional-doxastic modalities are introduced and axiomatised; a considers modality unique to inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic, which conditionalises on issues with respect to both an agent's doxastic and inquisitive state, and a generalisation of (conditional) belief, which conditionalises solely on an agent's doxastic state. We show that inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic encodes the same assumptions concerning conditionalisation and conditional-doxastic logic. And, just as conditionaldoxastic logic may be taken as the static counterpart to a dynamic logic of belief revision, inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic can be taken as the static counterpart to a dynamic logic of belief revision within an enriched setting that includes formal resources to model interrogatives. Inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic is shown to be sound and complete with respect to inquisitive plausibility models, and it is shown that both (conditional) belief and knowledge modalities can be defined in terms of the considers modality. However, we also show that the entertains modality of inquisitive epistemic logic cannot be defined by the considers modality. Therefore, as the basic inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic is axiomatised solely by the considers modality over the base inquisitive semantics it cannot be used to reason about an agent's inquisitive state independently of their doxastic state. For this reason, we also axiomatise inquisitive plausibility logic and show it is sound and complete with respect to the same class of inquisitive plausibility models. This logic introduces modalities which restrict the issue associated to each agent to the worlds considered at least as plausible as the current world or state of evaluation, and those strictly less plausible. The entertains modality of inquisitive epistemic logic is taken as basic in the axiomatisation of inquisitive plausibility logic, and we show the considers modality of basic inquisitive conditional-doxastic logic is definable. Therefore, inquisitive plausibility logic allows for a full study of the interaction between epistemic and conditional-doxastic modalities within the framework of inquisitive semantics.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Action models in inquisitive logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thom Gessel.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Action$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Gessel:16,\n\tabstract = {In Dynamic Epistemic Logic, action models are used to encode situations in which agents are uncertain about information being exchanged. These models show how publicly or privately announced statements can bring about change in knowledge. In real communication, questions also play a big part. Asking a question can raise an issue, which typically triggers the recipient to resolve it. Therefore, adding questions and issues to action models makes them more suitable as models of communication.\nIn this thesis, we merge the ideas of Inquisitive Epistemic Logic (IEL) and Action Model Logic (AML) in three different ways. This results in three systems, which can encode the exchange of statements and questions and compute their effects on knowledge and issues. Each of these systems can be regarded as a conservative extension of both AML and IEL, and is provided with a sound and complete axiomatization.},\n\tauthor = {Thom van Gessel},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Action models in inquisitive logic},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/984/1/MoL-2016-12.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/984/1/MoL-2016-12.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions in logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Ciardelli:16,\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tschool = {Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Questions in logic},\n\turl = {https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2016-01.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2016-01.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Choice-offering imperatives in inquisitive and truth-maker semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Presented at `Imperatives: worlds and beyond', Hamburg University, June 2016\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Choice-offering$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{CiardelliAloni:16,\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli and Maria Aloni},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {imperatives},\n\tnote = {Presented at `Imperatives: worlds and beyond', Hamburg University, June 2016},\n\ttitle = {Choice-offering imperatives in inquisitive and truth-maker semantics},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/gansrzpvaok3o60/Ciardelli-Aloni-2016-imperatives-Hamburg.pdf?dl=0},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/gansrzpvaok3o60/Ciardelli-Aloni-2016-imperatives-Hamburg.pdf?dl=0}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Algebras of Information States.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Punčochář.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Logic and Computation, 27: 1643–1675. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:16algebras,\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v{c}}och{\\'a}{\\v{r}}, V{\\'\\i}t},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Logic and Computation},\n\tpages = {1643–1675},\n\tvolume={27},\n\tissue ={5},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpublisher = {Oxford University Press},\n\ttitle = {Algebras of Information States},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tabstract={In this article, a non-standard informational semantics for superintuitionistic modal logics is introduced and studied. It is based on algebraic structures that are interpreted as algebras of information states. The proposed semantics combines into one framework various features of standard relational and algebraic semantics. Especially, the connection to the algebraic semantics is explored in detail. The framework can be viewed as a generalization of inquisitive semantics that enables us to add inquisitive disjunction to any superintuitionistic modal propositional logic.}\n\t}\n\n\t\n\t\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A generalization of inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Pun ̌cochá ̌r.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(4): 399–428. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:16generalization,\n\tabstract = {This paper introduces a generalized version of inquisitive semantics, denoted as GIS, and concentrates especially on the role of disjunction in this general framework. Two alternative semantic conditions for disjunction are compared: the first one corresponds to the so-called tensor operator of dependence logic, and the second one is the standard condition for inquisitive disjunction. It is shown that GIS is intimately related to intuitionistic logic and its Kripke semantics. Using this framework, it is shown that the main results concerning inquisitive semantics, especially the axiomatization of inquisitive logic, can be viewed as particular cases of more general phenomena. In this connection, a class of non-standard superintuitionistic logics is introduced and studied. These logics share many interesting features with inquisitive logic, which is the strongest logic of this class.},\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v c}och{\\'a}{\\v r}, V{\\'\\i}t},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10992-015-9379-1},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Philosophical Logic},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tpages = {399--428},\n\ttitle = {A generalization of inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-015-9379-1},\n\tvolume = {45},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-015-9379-1},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-015-9379-1}}\n\t\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Superlative modifiers as modified superlatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Elizabeth Coppock.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, volume 26, pages 471–488, 2016. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Superlative$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Coppock:16salt,\n\tabstract = {The superlative modifiers at least and at most are quite famous, but their cousins at best, at the latest, at the highest, etc., are less well-known. This paper is devoted to the entire family. New data is presented illustrating the productivity of the pattern, identifying a generalization delimiting it, and showing that the cousins, too, have the pragmatic effects that have attracted so much attention to at least and at most. To capture the productivity, I present a new decomposition of at least into recombinable parts. Most notable is the at-component (silent in some languages), which takes advantage of the comparison class argument of the superlative to produce the set of possibilities involved in the ignorance implicatures that superlative modifiers are known for. A side-effect is a new view on gradable predicates, accounting for uses like 88 degrees is too hot.},\n\tauthor = {Coppock, Elizabeth},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v26i0.3822},\n\tkeywords = {numerals},\n\tpages = {471--488},\n\ttitle = {Superlative modifiers as modified superlatives},\n\turl = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.471},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.471},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3822}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard, & Dan Burgdorf., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26, Ithaca, NY, 2016. LSA and CLC Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Lifting$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:16salt,\n\tabstract = {This paper describes how any theory which assigns propositions to conditional sentences can be lifted to the setting of inquisitive semantics, where antecedents and consequents may be associated with multiple propositions. We show that the lifted account improves on the original account in two ways: first, it leads to a better analysis of disjunctive antecedents, which are treated as introducing multiple assumptions; second, it extends the original account to cover two further classes of conditional constructions, namely, unconditionals and conditional questions.},\n\taddress = {Ithaca, NY},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano},\n\tbooktitle = {{Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v26i0.3811},\n\teditor = {Moroney, Mary and Little, Carol-Rose and Collard, Jacob and Burgdorf, Dan},\n\tissn = {2163-5951},\n\tkeywords = {conditionals},\n\tpublisher = {LSA and CLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.732},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.732},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3811}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Dependency as question entailment.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Samson Abramsky, Juha Kontinen, Jouko Väänänen, & Heribert Vollmer., editor(s), Dependence Logic: theory and applications, pages 129–181. Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Dependency$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Ciardelli:16dependency,\n\tabstract = {In the past few years, a tight connection has emerged between logics of dependency and logics of questions. The aim of this paper is to show that this connection stems from a fundamental relation existing between dependency and questions. Once we expand our view on logic by bringing questions into the picture, dependency emerges as a facet of the fundamental logical notion of entailment, namely entailment among questions. Besides providing an insightful conceptual picture, this perspective yields a general and well-behaved way of dealing with dependency in logical systems.},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tbooktitle = {Dependence Logic: theory and applications},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-319-31803-5_8},\n\teditor = {Samson Abramsky and Juha Kontinen and Jouko V{\\"a}{\\"a}n{\\"a}nen and Heribert Vollmer},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {129--181},\n\tpublisher = {Springer International Publishing Switzerland},\n\ttitle = {Dependency as question entailment},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31803-5_8},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31803-5_8},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31803-5_8}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Breaking de Morgan's law in counterfactual antecedents.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lucas Champollion, Ivano Ciardelli, & Linmin Zhang.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard, & Dan Burgdorf., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26, Ithaca, NY, 2016. LSA and CLC Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Breaking$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Champollion:16salt,\n\tabstract = {The main goal of this paper is to investigate the relation between the meaning of a sentence and its truth conditions. We report on a comprehension experiment on counterfactual conditionals, based on a context in which a light is controlled by two switches. Our main finding is that the truth-conditionally equivalent clauses (i) switch A or switch B is down and (ii) switch A and switch B are not both up make different semantic contributions when embedded in a conditional antecedent. Assuming compositionality, this means that (i) and (ii) differ in meaning, which implies that the meaning of a sentential clause cannot be identified with its truth conditions. We show that our data have a clear explanation in inquisitive semantics: in a conditional antecedent, (i) introduces two distinct assumptions, while (ii) introduces only one. Independently of the complications stemming from disjunctive antecedents, our results also challenge analyses of counterfactuals in terms of minimal change from the actual state of affairs: we show that such analyses cannot account for our findings, regardless of what changes are considered minimal.},\n\taddress = {Ithaca, NY},\n\tauthor = {Champollion, Lucas and Ivano Ciardelli and Linmin Zhang},\n\tbooktitle = {{Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v26i0.3800},\n\teditor = {Moroney, Mary and Little, Carol-Rose and Collard, Jacob and Burgdorf, Dan},\n\tissn = {2163-5951},\n\tpublisher = {LSA and CLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {Breaking de Morgan's law in counterfactual antecedents},\n\turl = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.304},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.304},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3800}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Highlighting in discourse and grammar.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Presented at the XPrag workshop on Questions, Answers, and Negation in Berlin, January 2016; ROSE linguistics seminar, Utrecht, June 2016; Göttingen linguistics seminar, June 2016.\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Highlighting$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:16highlighting,\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,highlighting,attitude predicates,modality,anaphora,handout, ongoing},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the XPrag workshop on Questions, Answers, and Negation in Berlin, January 2016; ROSE linguistics seminar, Utrecht, June 2016; G{\\"o}ttingen linguistics seminar, June 2016.},\n\ttitle = {{Highlighting in discourse and grammar}},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WQ0OWViM/highlighting.pdf},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WQ0OWViM/highlighting.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Information, issues, and live possibilities: might in conflicts, free choice, and questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2016.\n Presented at the 2016 Workshop on Situations, Information, and Semantic Content in Munchen.\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Information,$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 48 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:16might,\n\tannote = {Presented at Situations, Information, and Semantic Content, Munich},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,free choice,philosophical logic,attention},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the 2016 Workshop on Situations, Information, and Semantic Content in Munchen.},\n\ttitle = {{Information, issues, and live possibilities: might in conflicts, free choice, and questions}},\n\turl = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zI2YjI4M/handout.pdf},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zI2YjI4M/handout.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Truthful resolutions: a new perspective on false-answer sensitivity.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler, Floris Roelofsen, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard, & Dan Burgdorf., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26), Ithaca, NY, 2016. LSA and CLC Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Truthful$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Theiler:16salt,\n\tabstract = {Responsive verbs like know embed both declarative and interrogative complements. Standard accounts of such verbs are reductive: they assume that whether an individual stands in a knowledge-wh relation to a question is determined by whether she stands in a knowledge-that relation to some answer to the question. George (2013) observed that knowledge-wh, however, not only depends on knowledge-that but also on false belief---a fact that reductive accounts can't capture.\n\nWe develop an account that is not reductive but uniform: it assumes a single entry for interrogative-embedding and declarative-embedding uses of a responsive verb. The key insight that allows us to capture the false-belief dependency of knowledge-wh is that verbs like know are sensitive to both true and false answers to the embedded question. Formally, this is achieved through a novel, fine-grained way of representing the meaning of a clausal complement in terms of so-called truthful resolutions. The resulting analysis gives us a unifying perspective, under which false-answer sensitivity comes out as a general characteristic common to all levels of exhaustivity.},\n\taddress = {Ithaca, NY},\n\tauthor = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v26i0.3791},\n\teditor = {Moroney, Mary and Little, Carol-Rose and Collard, Jacob and Burgdorf, Dan},\n\tissn = {2163-5951},\n\tkeywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpublisher = {LSA and CLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {{Truthful resolutions: a new perspective on false-answer sensitivity}},\n\turl = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.122},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/26.122/3632},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3791}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Alternatives in Montague Grammar.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Eva Csipak, & Hedde Zeijlstra., editor(s), Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 20), pages 161–178, Goettingen, Germany, 2016. \n The handout version of the paper (https://www.dropbox.com/s/p1yirmoi41iv736/sub-2014-composing-alternatives-with-gq-appendix.pdf) contains three appendices which, due to space limitations, could not be included in the paper.\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Alternatives$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{CiardelliRoelofsen:16sub,\n\tabstract = {Hamblin (1973) proposed an extension of the basic type-theoretic framework used in formal\nsemantics, rooted in Montague (1970, 1973). In Hamblin's framework, which has come to\nbe referred to as alternative semantics, the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a single\nproposition, but rather a set of propositions---a set of alternatives. This allows for a more\nfine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a wide range of linguistic\nphenomena. However, it also faces a number of problems. We focus here on two of these, in\nour view the most fundamental ones. The first has to do with how meanings are composed,\ni.e., with the type-theoretic operations of function application and abstraction; the second has\nto do with how meanings are compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile\nwhat we take to be the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic\nframework rooted in Montague's work, in such a way that the solid formal foundations of the\nlatter are preserved and the observed problems for alternative semantics are overcome. Our\nproposal builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli et al., 2013),\nand it also further advances this line of work, specifying how the inquisitive meaning of a\nsentence, as well as the set of alternatives that it introduces, may be built up compositionally.},\n\taddress = {Goettingen, Germany},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 20)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Csipak, Eva and Zeijlstra, Hedde},\n\thandout = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/p1yirmoi41iv736/sub-2014-composing-alternatives-with-gq-appendix.pdf},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,alternative semantics,compositionality,questions},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {The handout version of the paper (https://www.dropbox.com/s/p1yirmoi41iv736/sub-2014-composing-alternatives-with-gq-appendix.pdf) contains three appendices which, due to space limitations, could not be included in the paper.},\n\tpages = {161--178},\n\ttitle = {{Alternatives in {Montague} Grammar}},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/227},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/227}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2015\n \n \n (15)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Can questions be directly disjoined?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Anna Szabolcsi.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Presented at the Chicago Linguistics Society conference (CLS 51)\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Can$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Szabolcsi:15cls,\n\tauthor = {Anna Szabolcsi},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Chicago Linguistics Society conference (CLS 51)},\n\ttitle = {Can questions be directly disjoined?},\n\turl = {https://philarchive.org/archive/SZACQB},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://philarchive.org/archive/SZACQB}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Implicit causality and inquisitivity.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jennifer Spenader.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Manuscript, University of Groningen; Invited talk at InqBnB2, December 2015\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Spenader:15,\n\tauthor = {Jennifer Spenader},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, University of Groningen; Invited talk at InqBnB2, December 2015},\n\ttitle = {Implicit causality and inquisitivity},\n\tyear = {2015}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n How the deontic issue in the miners' puzzle depends on an epistemic issue.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher, & Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Presented at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe, September 2015; Estonian-Finnish Logic Meeting, November 2015\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"How$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{AherGroenendijk:15spe,\n\tauthor = {Aher, Martin and Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at Semantics and Philosophy in Europe, September 2015; Estonian-Finnish Logic Meeting, November 2015},\n\ttitle = {How the deontic issue in the miners' puzzle depends on an epistemic issue},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jVjODU3M/Aher_Groenendijk_SPE8_slides.pdf},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jVjODU3M/Aher_Groenendijk_SPE8_slides.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inferential erotetic logic meets inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Andrzej Wiśniewski, & Dorota Leszczyńska-Jasion.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 192(6): 1585-1608. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inferential$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{WisniewskiJasion:15,\n\tabstract = {Inferential erotetic logic (IEL) and inquisitive semantics (INQ) give accounts of questions and model various aspects of questioning. In this paper we concentrate upon connections between inquisitiveness, being the core concept of INQ, and question raising, characterized in IEL by means of the concepts of question evocation and erotetic implication. We consider the basic system InqB of INQ, remain at the propositional level and show, inter alia, that: (1) a disjunction of all the direct answers to an evoked question is always inquisitive; (2) a formula is inquisitive if, and only if it evokes a yes--no question whose affirmative answer expresses a possibility for the formula; (3) inquisitive formulas evoke questions whose direct answers express all the possibilities for the formulas, and (4) each question erotetically implies a question whose direct answers express the possibilities for the direct answers to the implying question.},\n\tauthor = {Wi{\\'s}niewski, Andrzej and Dorota Leszczy{\\'n}ska-Jasion},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11229-013-0355-4},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {Logic of questions; Inferential erotetic logic; Inquisitive semantics},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tpages = {1585-1608},\n\ttitle = {Inferential erotetic logic meets inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-013-0355-4},\n\tvolume = {192},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-013-0355-4},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0355-4}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n What do quantifier particles do?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Anna Szabolcsi.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(2): 159-204. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"What$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Szabolcsi:15,\n\tabstract = {In many languages, the same particles that form quantifier words also serve as connectives, additive and scalar particles, question markers, roots of existential verbs, and so on. Do these have a unified semantics, or do they merely bear a family resemblance? Are they aided by silent operators in their varied roles―if yes, what operators? I dub the particles ``quantifier particles'' and refer to them generically with capitalized versions of the Japanese morphemes. I argue that both MO and KA can be assigned a stable semantics across their various roles. The specific analysis I offer is motivated by the fact that MO and KA often combine with just one argument; I propose that this is their characteristic behavior. Their role is to impose semantic requirements that are satisfied when the immediately larger context is interpreted as the meet/join of their host's semantic contribution with something else. They do not perform meet/join themselves. The obligatory vs. optional appearance of the particles depends on whether the meet/join interpretations arise by default in the given constellation. I explicate the proposal using the toolkit of basic Inquisitive Semantics.},\n\tauthor = {Anna Szabolcsi},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {quantification},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tpages = {159-204},\n\ttitle = {What do quantifier particles do?},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z},\n\tvolume = {38},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Weak negation in inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Pun ̌cochá ̌r.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 24(3): 323–355. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Weak$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:15weaknegation,\n\tabstract = {This paper introduces and explores a conservative extension of inquisitive logic. In particular, weak negation is added to the standard propositional language of inquisitive semantics, and it is shown that, although we lose some general semantic properties of the original framework, such an enrichment enables us to model some previously inexpressible speech acts such as weak denial and `might'-assertions. As a result, a new modal logic emerges. For this logic, a Fitch-style system of natural deduction is formulated. The main result of this paper is a theorem establishing the completeness of the system with respect to inquisitive semantics with weak negation. At the conclusion of the paper, the possibility of extending the framework to the level of first order logic is briefly discussed.},\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v c}och{\\'a}{\\v r}, V{\\'\\i}t},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10849-015-9219-2},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Logic, Language, and Information},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {323--355},\n\ttitle = {Weak negation in inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10849-015-9219-2},\n\tvolume = {24},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10849-015-9219-2},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-015-9219-2}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The semantics and pragmatics of directional numeral modifiers.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Dominique Blok.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25), 2015. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Blok:15,\n\tabstract = {Directional prepositions that can be used as numeral modifiers (directional numeral modifiers or DNMs) are different from other numeral modifiers that set an upper bound in that they set a non-cancellable lower bound, their upper bound is cancellable, they are incompatible with the numeral at the bottom of the scale they quantify over, they are not downward monotone and do not license NPIs, and they interact differently with evaluative adverbs. This paper argues that the cause of all these differences is that DNMs assert a lower bound and implicate an upper bound, and that all class B numeral modifiers require quantification over a range of values. Crosslinguistic data support these claims.},\n\tauthor = {Dominique Blok},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 25)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v25i0.3055},\n\tkeywords = {numerals},\n\ttitle = {The semantics and pragmatics of directional numeral modifiers},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/25.471},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/25.471},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3055}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Deontic and epistemic modals in suppositional [inquisitive] semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher, & Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Eva Csipak, & Hedde Zeijlstra., editor(s), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, pages 2-19, 2015. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Deontic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{AherGroenendijk:15,\n\tabstract = {In Groenendijk and Roelofsen (2015) a suppositional semantics for implication is proposed within the general framework of inquisitive semantics. Our aim is to extend this semantic approach to epistemic and deontic modals, but, for the purposes of this short paper, we bracketed off inquisitive aspects of meaning. To illustrate the semantics we discuss a semantic solution to a Jackson  inspired puzzle which involves the interaction of implication and both types of modals. },\n\tauthor = {Aher, Martin and Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.18148/sub/2015.v19i0.218},\n\teditor = {Eva Csipak and Hedde Zeijlstra},\n\tpages = {2-19},\n\ttitle = {Deontic and epistemic modals in suppositional [inquisitive] semantics},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/218},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/218},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2015.v19i0.218}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Logics of Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Yacin Hamami, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 192(6): 1581-1584. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Logics$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{HamamiRoelofsen:15,\n\tauthor = {Hamami, Yacin and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {questions,philosophical logic,inquisitive semantics,survey},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tpages = {1581-1584},\n\ttitle = {Logics of Questions},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y},\n\tvolume = {192},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Towards a suppositional inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Martin Aher, Daniel Hole, Emil Je ̌rábek, & Clemens Kupke., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Computation: 10th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2013), Revised Selected Papers, pages 137–156, 2015. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Towards$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{GroenendijkRoelofsen:15suppositional,\n\tabstract = {One of the primary usages of language is to exchange information. This can be done directly, as in Will Susan sing? No, she won't, but it is also often done in a less direct way, as in If Pete plays the piano, will Susan sing? No, if Pete plays the piano, Susan won't sing. In the latter type of exchange, both participants make a certain supposition, and exchange information under the assumption that this supposition holds. This paper develops a semantic framework for the analysis of this kind of information exchange. Building on earlier work in inquisitive semantics, it introduces a notion of meaning that captures informative, inquisitive, and suppositional content, and discusses how such meanings may be assigned in a natural way to sentences in a propositional language. The focus is on conditionals, which are the only kind of sentences in a propositional language that introduce non-trivial suppositional content.},\n\tauthor = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Computation: 10th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2013), Revised Selected Papers},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46906-4_9},\n\teditor = {Aher, Martin and Hole, Daniel and Je{\\v r}{\\'a}bek, Emil and Kupke, Clemens},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,conditionals},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {137--156},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {{Towards a suppositional inquisitive semantics}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-662-46906-4_9},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-662-46906-4_9},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46906-4_9}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The semantics of declarative and interrogative lists.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Manuscript, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2015/2017\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 16 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:15lists,\n\tabstract = {This manuscript was written in the Spring/Summer of 2015. In September 2017 some references were updated and the appendices, which mainly contained `notes to self', were deleted. No other edits were made. The paper is still far from finished, but should be readable in its current form and might be interesting for people working on the topics that it addresses.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,disjunction,presupposition,compositionality,intonation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2015/2017},\n\ttitle = {{The semantics of declarative and interrogative lists}},\n\turl = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jdiNjljO/paper.pdf},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jdiNjljO/paper.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 192(6): 1643–1687. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:15idel,\n\tabstract = {Information exchange can be seen as a dynamic process of raising and resolving issues. The goal of this paper is to provide a logical framework to model and reason about this process. We develop an inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic (IDEL), which enriches the standard framework of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL), incorporating insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics. At a static level, IDEL does not only allow us to model the information available to a set of agents, like standard epistemic logic, but also the issues that the agents entertain. At a dynamic level, IDEL does not only allow us to model the effects of communicative actions that provide new information, like standard DEL, but also the effects of actions that raise new issues. Thus, IDEL provides the fundamental tools needed to analyze information exchange as a dynamic process of raising and resolving issues.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11229-014-0404-7},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,philosophical logic,dynamic semantics,modality,attitude predicates},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tpages = {1643--1687},\n\ttitle = {{Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic}},\n\turl = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-014-0404-7},\n\tvolume = {192},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-014-0404-7},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0404-7}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 192(6): 1689–1728. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 13 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:15inqd,\n\tabstract = {In many natural languages, there are clear syntactic and/or intonational differences between declarative sentences, which are primarily used to provide information, and interrogative sentences, which are primarily used to request information. Most logical frameworks restrict their attention to the former. Those that are concerned with both usually assume a logical language that makes a clear syntactic distinction between declaratives and interrogatives, and usually assign different types of semantic values to these two types of sentences. A different approach has been taken in recent work on inquisitive semantics. This approach does not take the basic syntactic distinction between declaratives and interrogatives as its starting point, but rather a new notion of meaning that captures both informative and inquisitive content in an integrated way. The standard way to treat the logical connectives in this approach is to associate them with the basic algebraic operations on these new types of meanings. For instance, conjunction and disjunction are treated as meet and join operators, just as in classical logic. This gives rise to a hybrid system, where sentences can be both informative and inquisitive at the same time, and there is no clearcut division between declaratives and interrogatives. It may seem that these two general approaches in the existing literature are quite incompatible. The main aim of this paper is to show that this is not the case. We develop an inquisitive semantics for a logical language that has a clearcut division between declaratives and interrogatives. We show that this language coincides in expressive power with the hybrid language that is standardly assumed in inquisitive semantics, we establish a sound and complete axiomatization for the associated logic, and we consider a natural enrichment of the system with presuppositional interrogatives.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,philosophical logic,inquisitive logic},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tpages = {1689--1728},\n\ttitle = {{On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0352-7},\n\tvolume = {192},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0352-7},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Some questions in typed inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lucas Champollion, Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2015.\n Presented at the 2015 Workshop on Questions in Logic and Semantics in Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Some$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Champollion:15somequestions,\n\tabstract = {This talk lays out a compositional account of wh-questions in typed inquisitive semantics (Theiler, 2014; Ciardelli and Roelofsen, 2015). Relevant issues include multiple wh-questions, the interaction between wh-items and disjunction, and de dicto readings of which-questions.},\n\tauthor = {Champollion, Lucas and Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,compositionality},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the 2015 Workshop on Questions in Logic and Semantics in Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {{Some questions in typed inquisitive semantics}},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss1okikgo0j81id/Chapollion-etal-2015.pdf},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/questions-inqsem.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, & Donka F Farkas.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Language, 91(2): 359–414. 2015.\n To get a quick impression of some of the main ideas developed in this paper, here is a handout from a Colloquium at the UMass Linguistics department, February 22, 2013: https://www.dropbox.com/s/030tria6fmvfs2f/umass-colloquium-handout.pdf .\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Polarity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{RoelofsenFarkas:15,\n\tabstract = {This article provides an account of the distribution and interpretation of POLARITY PARTICLES in responses, starting with yes and no in English, and then extending the coverage to their crosslinguistic kin. Polarity particles are used in responses to both declarative and interrogative sentences, and thus provide a window onto the semantics and discourse effects of such sentences. We argue that understanding the distribution and interpretation of polarity particles requires a characterization of declaratives and interrogatives that captures a series of challenging similarities and differences across these two sentence types. To meet this challenge we combine and extend insights from inquisitive semantics, dynamic semantics, and commitment-based models of discourse. We then provide a full account of the English data that leads to a typology of polarity particles and a series of crosslinguistic predictions. These predictions are checked against data from Romanian, Hungarian, French, and German, languages that contrast with English in that they have ternary polarity particle systems, and contrast with one another in further subtle ways.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Farkas, Donka F},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1353/lan.2015.0017},\n\tjournal = {Language},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,highlighting,disjunction,negation,answer particles,anaphora},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {To get a quick impression of some of the main ideas developed in this paper, here is a handout from a Colloquium at the UMass Linguistics department, February 22, 2013: https://www.dropbox.com/s/030tria6fmvfs2f/umass-colloquium-handout.pdf .},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tpages = {359--414},\n\ttitle = {{Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions}},\n\turl = {https://muse.jhu.edu/article/583510},\n\tvolume = {91},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://muse.jhu.edu/article/583510},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2014\n \n \n (16)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Disjunctive Counterfactuals in Alternative and Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sarah Hiller.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Disjunctive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Hiller:14,\n\tauthor = {Hiller, Sarah},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Disjunctive Counterfactuals in Alternative and Inquisitive Semantics},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpxd5r01ijomzgd/project-report-Sarah-Hiller.pdf?dl=0},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpxd5r01ijomzgd/project-report-Sarah-Hiller.pdf?dl=0}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A multitude of answers: Embedded questions in typed inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2014.\n University of Amsterdam, MSc thesis\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Theiler:14,\n\tabstract = {This thesis develops a semantic account of question embedding. The compositional framework in which this account is formulated is based on inquisitive semantics: it is shown how the inquisitive conception of sentence meaning can be implemented on a type-theoretical level. The resulting framework is motivated on technical and conceptual grounds. \nThe empirical picture of question embedding is explored, and the different readings exhibited by embedded questions are organised along a set of interpretive features. This determines the desiderata for the subsequent formal implementation. A grammar fragment is devised, which can capture the semantics of interrogative and declarative clauses embedded under responsive verbs: interrogative-embedding and declarative-embedding uses of responsive verbs receive a uniform treatment. The proposed account allows to express several different readings of sentences with embedded questions, deriving the differences between those readings from the interplay between the embedding predicates and various elements in the semantics of the embedded clauses.},\n\tauthor = {Nadine Theiler},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {University of Amsterdam, MSc thesis},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {A multitude of answers: Embedded questions in typed inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/925/1/MoL-2014-07.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/925/1/MoL-2014-07.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Why can't we be surprised whether it rains in Amsterdam? A semantics for factive verbs and embedded questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Michele Herbstritt.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2014.\n MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam, supervised by Maria Aloni and Floris Roelofsen\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Why$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Herbstritt:14,\n\tabstract = {This thesis is about the semantics of embedded questions and question-embedding verbs. In particular, we focus on so-called responsive verbs, i.e. verbs that can embed both declarative and interrogative complements (Lahiri, 2002). Among these verbs, the classes of emotive factives (such as surprise) and epistemic factives (such as realise) have been extensively studied in the literature, as the verbs belonging to these classes exhibit interesting properties that pose a challenge to the classic semantic approaches to embedded questions. In particular, we focus on the so-called whether-puzzle, i.e. the fact that these verbs fail to embed polar and alternative questions, while they can felicitously embed wh-questions. In the first chapter of the thesis we lay out the theoretical background and the empirical scope of the thesis. In particular, we briefly recall the classic approaches to (embedded) questions by Hamblin (1973), Karttunen (1977) and Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984) and we extensively summarise a body of recent works concerning the semantics and pragmatics of surprise and realise. In the second chapter we present a novel approach to the semantics of responsive verbs and the complements they embed, focusing on know, surprise and realise and showing how to account for the whether-puzzle. Our account crucially relies on the adoption of an additional dimension of sentential meaning aimed to capture the anaphoric potential of a sentence, which is introduced and independently motivated in the first part of the chapter, following the work by Roelofsen and Farkas (forthcoming). In the second part, we develop a semantic system in which the meaning of a complement is spelled out in terms of its semantic content and its anaphoric potential and we introduce our lexical entries for surprise and realise, showing how the interplay between these entries and the semantic analysis of complements can solve the whether-puzzle.},\n\tauthor = {Michele Herbstritt},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {MSc thesis, University of Amsterdam, supervised by Maria Aloni and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {{Why can't we be surprised whether it rains in Amsterdam? A semantics for factive verbs and embedded questions}},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/931/1/MoL-2014-13.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/931/1/MoL-2014-13.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Embedded interrogatives: the case of false answers.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, Nadine Theiler, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Presented at the Sixth Questions in Discourse Workshop, Gottingen, September 2014\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Embedded$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{RoelofsenTheilerAloni:14,\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Theiler, Nadine and Aloni, Maria},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Sixth Questions in Discourse Workshop, Gottingen, September 2014},\n\ttitle = {Embedded interrogatives: the case of false answers},\n\turl = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WYwYWMzY/embedded-interrogatives-qid-handout.pdf},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WYwYWMzY/embedded-interrogatives-qid-handout.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A new twist to the miner's puzzle.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Presented at the Semantics and Philosophy colloquium in Europe, Berlin, June 2014\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Aher:14,\n\tauthor = {Aher, Martin},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Semantics and Philosophy colloquium in Europe, Berlin, June 2014},\n\ttitle = {A new twist to the miner's puzzle},\n\turl = {https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYXJ0aW5haGVyfGd4Ojc3N2IzYTQ3MDc1Zjc5MWQ},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtYXJ0aW5haGVyfGd4Ojc3N2IzYTQ3MDc1Zjc5MWQ}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Support and Sets of Situations.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Andrzej Wiśniewski.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23: 383-396. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Support$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Wisniewski:14jlli,\n\tabstract = {An alternative conceptual setting of the basic system of inquisitive semantics is presented. A situational interpretation of the proposed formalism is discussed.},\n\tauthor = {Andrzej Wi{\\'s}niewski},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10849-013-9185-5},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Logic, Language and Information},\n\tpages = {383-396},\n\ttitle = {Support and Sets of Situations},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10849-013-9185-5},\n\tvolume = {23},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10849-013-9185-5},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-013-9185-5}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Ignorance in context: The interaction of modified numerals and QUDs.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera, & Adrian Brasoveanu.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), volume 24, pages 414–431, 2014. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Ignorance$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{WesteraBrasoveanu:14,\n\tabstract = {We argue for a purely pragmatic account of the ignorance inferences associated with superlative but not comparative modifiers (at least vs. more than). Ignorance inferences for both modifiers are triggered when the question under discussion (QUD) requires an exact answer, but when these modifiers are used out of the blue the QUD is implicitly reconstructed based on the way these modifiers are typically used, and on the fact that "at least n", but not "more than n", mentions and does not exclude the lower bound "exactly n". The paper presents new experimental evidence for the context-sensitivity of ignorance inferences, and also for the hypothesis that the higher processing cost reported in the literature for superlative modifiers is context-dependent in the exact same way.},\n\tauthor = {Westera, Matthijs and Brasoveanu, Adrian},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v24i0.2436},\n\tpages = {414--431},\n\ttitle = {{Ignorance in context: The interaction of modified numerals and QUDs}},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/24.414},\n\tvolume = {24},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/SALT24_paper.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n What `if'?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n William Starr.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Philosophers' Imprint, 14(10): 1-27. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"What$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Starr:14,\n\tauthor = {William Starr},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Philosophers' Imprint},\n\tnumber = {10},\n\tpages = {1-27},\n\ttitle = {What `if'?},\n\turl = {http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0014.010},\n\tvolume = {14},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0014.010}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquiry in conversation: Towards a modelling in inquisitive pragmatics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Yacin Hamami.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Logique et Analyse, 228: 637–661. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquiry$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Hamami:14,\n\tabstract = {Conversation is one of the main contexts in which we are conducting inquiries. Yet, little attention has been paid so far in pragmatics or epistemology to the process of inquiry in conversation. In this paper, we propose to trigger such an investigation through the development of a formal modelling based on inquisitive pragmatics --- a framework offering a semantic representation of questions and answers, along with an analysis of the pragmatic principles that govern questioning and answering moves in conversations geared towards information exchange. Our starting observation is that an interrogative inquiry in a conversation takes the form of a finite sequence of questioning and answering steps, and appears thereby as an inherently temporal process. The central notion of interrogative protocol introduced in this paper precisely aims to capture the temporal dimension of inquiry. Interrogative protocols are defined as branching-time tree structures encoding all the possible sequences of questioning and answering steps --- i.e., all the possible inquiry paths --- that can subsequently occur in a starting conversational situation in accordance with the principles of inquisitive pragmatics. They provide us with a formal environment to define and investigate the epistemological notions of interrogative inquiry and interrogative consequence in conversational contexts. One of the main interests of the resulting framework is to enable a formal investigation of central epistemological issues relative to interrogative inquiry under the form of computational problems. We frame three key inquiry problems along this line, and we then propose an algorithmic procedure for solving them in the restricted case where the inquirer has at her disposal a finite number of questions in her inquiry. We conclude by relating our approach to Wi{\\'s}niewski's Erotetic Search Scenarios and Hintikka's Interrogative Model of Inquiry.},\n\tauthor = {Yacin Hamami},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Logique et Analyse},\n\tpages = {637--661},\n\ttitle = {{Inquiry in conversation: Towards a modelling in inquisitive pragmatics}},\n\turl = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/44085306},\n\tvolume = {228},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/44085306}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Interrogative dependencies and the constructive content of inquisitive proofs.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Ulrich Kohlenbach, Pablo Barceló, & Ruy Queiroz., editor(s), Logic, Language, Information and Computation - 21st International Workshop, WoLLIC 2014, of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 109-123, 2014. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Interrogative$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:14wollic,\n\tabstract = {This paper shows how dichotomous inquisitive semantics gives rise to a general notion of entailment that unifies standard declarative entailment with answerhood and interrogative dependency, the relation holding when an answer to a question determines an answer to another. We investigate the associated logic, presenting a new completeness proof based on an explicit canonical model construction. On the way to this proof, we establish a new result, the resolution theorem, which shows that inquisitive proofs have a natural computational interpretation. We conclude arguing that, as a logic of dependencies, inquisitive logic has certain theoretical and practical advantages over related systems.},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, Information and Computation - 21st International Workshop, WoLLIC 2014},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-662-44145-9_8},\n\teditor = {Ulrich Kohlenbach and Pablo Barcel{\\'o} and Ruy de Queiroz},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {109-123},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\tseries = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},\n\ttitle = {Interrogative dependencies and the constructive content of inquisitive proofs},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-44145-9_8},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-44145-9_8},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44145-9_8}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Modalities in the realm of questions: axiomatizing inquisitive epistemic logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Rajeev Goré, Barteld Kooi, & Agi Kurucz., editor(s), Advances in Modal Logic (AIML), pages 94-113, London, 2014. College Publications\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Modalities$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:14aiml,\n\tabstract = {Building on ideas from inquisitive semantics, the recently proposed framework of inquisitive epistemic logic (IEL) provides the tools to model and reason about scenarios in which agents do not only have information, but also entertain issues. This framework has been shown to allow for a generalization to issues of important notions, such as common knowledge and public announcements, and it has been argued to form a suitable basis for the analysis of information exchange as an interactive process of raising and resolving issues. From an abstract point of view, the system is interesting, in that it implies extending the logical operations, including the modalities, beyond the truth-conditional realm, in such a way that they can embed not only standard declarative formulas, but also interrogatives. The present paper investigates the logic of IEL, building up to a completeness result. It is shown that the standard logical features of the logical constants extend smoothly beyond the truth-conditional realm, except for double negation, which is the hallmark of truth-conditionality. In particular, while the modalities of IEL operate in a crucially richer semantic space than Kripke modalities do, they retain entirely standard logical features.},\n\taddress = {London},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tbooktitle = {Advances in Modal Logic (AIML)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Rajeev Gor{\\'e} and Barteld Kooi and Agi Kurucz},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tpages = {94-113},\n\tpublisher = {College Publications},\n\ttitle = {Modalities in the realm of questions: axiomatizing inquisitive epistemic logic},\n\turl = {http://www.aiml.net/volumes/volume10/Ciardelli.pdf},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.aiml.net/volumes/volume10/Ciardelli.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Scott AnderBois.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Language, 90(4): 887–926. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Anderbois:14,\n\tabstract = {Since Merchant 2001, it has been widely agreed that the licensing condition on sluicing is at least partially semantic in nature. This article argues that the semantics this condition operates on must include not only truth conditions, but also the ISSUES introduced by existential quantification and disjunction. In the account presented here, the special role these elements play in antecedents for sluicing derives from the deep semantic connections between these elements and questions. In addition to accounting for well-known facts about sluicing in a natural way, this article also analyzes novel facts such as the interaction of sluicing with appositives and double negation, and handles recalcitrant cases such as disjunctive antecedents. The account can readily be extended to so-called `sprouting' cases where the crucial material in the antecedent is an implicit argument or is missing altogether.},\n\tauthor = {AnderBois, Scott},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1353/lan.2014.0110},\n\tjournal = {Language},\n\tkeywords = {sluicing},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tpages = {887--926},\n\ttitle = {The semantics of sluicing: Beyond truth conditions},\n\turl = {https://muse.jhu.edu/article/563571},\n\tvolume = {90},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://muse.jhu.edu/article/563571},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0110}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Information, issues, and attention.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Daniel Gutzmann, Jan Köpping, & Cécile Meier., editor(s), Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation, pages 128–166. Brill, 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Information,$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Ciardelli:14attention,\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1163/9789004279377_007},\n\teditor = {Gutzmann, Daniel and K{\\"o}pping, Jan and Meier, C{\\'e}cile},\n\tkeywords = {attention,inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,free choice},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {128--166},\n\tpublisher = {Brill},\n\ttitle = {{Information, issues, and attention}},\n\turl = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004279377/B9789004279377_007.xml},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004279377/B9789004279377_007.xml},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_007}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Indefinites in comparatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maria Aloni, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 22: 145–167. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Indefinites$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{AloniRoelofsen:14nals,\n\tabstract = {The goal of this paper is to explain the meaning and distribution of indefinites in comparatives, focusing on English some and any and German irgend-indefinites. We consider three competing theories of comparatives in combination with an alternative semantics of some and any, and a novel account of stressed irgend-indefinites. One of the resulting accounts, based on Heim's analysis of comparatives, predicts all the relevant differences in quantificational force, and explains why free choice indefinites are licensed in comparatives.},\n\tauthor = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {alternative semantics,comparatives,free choice,indefinites,inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {145--167},\n\ttitle = {{Indefinites in comparatives}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Issues in epistemic change.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2014.\n Presented at the European Epistemology Network, July 2014\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Issues$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{CiardelliRoelofsen:14eenm,\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,belief revision,slides},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the European Epistemology Network, July 2014},\n\ttitle = {{Issues in epistemic change}},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/cq7p4y11xii4h5v/epistemology-2014-slides.pdf},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/cq7p4y11xii4h5v/epistemology-2014-slides.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Question tags and sentential negativity.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Adrian Brasoveanu, Karen Clercq, Donka F Farkas, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Lingua, 145: 173–193. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Question$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{BrasoveanuClercqFarkasRoelofsen:14,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents an experiment that is designed to quantify the negativity of sentences with different types of negative operators (n-words like never and downward entailing operators like rarely) in different syntactic positions (adverb, subject, and direct object). In the experiment, participants were provided with a minimal context, then asked to choose one tag-question out of two; one of questions had a positive tag and the other had a negative tag. Clearly positive sentences (i.e., sentences without any negative operators) and clearly negative sentences (i.e., sentences with overt sentential negation and no other relevant operators present) were used as controls. The relative frequency of positive and negative tags was then taken as a measure of the sentential negativity of each experimental item. Our main finding is that sentential negativity is a graded notion, sensitive to both semantic and syntactic factors. With respect to semantics, we find that n-words contribute more negativity than downward entailing operators, confirming the logical distinction between anti-additivity and downward entailment identified in the previous semantic literature on NPI licensing. With respect to syntactic position, we find that negative items in subject or adverbial position contribute more negativity than negative items in direct object position.},\n\tauthor = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and de Clercq, Karen and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.008},\n\tjournal = {Lingua},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,experimental linguistics,negation,indefinites,ellipsis,tag questions},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {173--193},\n\ttitle = {{Question tags and sentential negativity}},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384114000709},\n\tvolume = {145},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.008}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2013\n \n \n (24)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive semantics goes type theory.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Nadine Theiler.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Theiler:13,\n\tauthor = {Nadine Theiler},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive semantics goes type theory},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7y1djyo2o1t8f3/Nadine-Theiler-research-project-final-report.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7y1djyo2o1t8f3/Nadine-Theiler-research-project-final-report.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Compliance and Maximality in Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Michele Herbstritt.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Term Paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Compliance$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Herbstritt:13,\n\tauthor = {Michele Herbstritt},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term Paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Compliance and Maximality in Inquisitive Semantics},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5rc2nmxtszaryz/M_HERBSTRITT_project_final.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5rc2nmxtszaryz/M_HERBSTRITT_project_final.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Modals in Legal Discourse.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, University of Osnabrück, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Modals$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Aher:13diss,\n\tauthor = {Martin Aher},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tschool = {University of Osnabr{\\"u}ck},\n\ttitle = {Modals in Legal Discourse},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1hqxv93s4ihv02/dissertation-martin-aher.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/f1hqxv93s4ihv02/dissertation-martin-aher.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Contrastive topic: a compositional account in terms of non-cooperativity.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Presented at the Questions in Discourse Workshop, December 2013, Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Contrastive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Westera:13,\n\tauthor = {Westera, Matthijs},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Questions in Discourse Workshop, December 2013, Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Contrastive topic: a compositional account in terms of non-cooperativity},\n\turl = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera%202013%20-%20QID%20compositional%20CT%20slides.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera%202013%20-%20QID%20compositional%20CT%20slides.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Toch and toch? in Dutch: an inquisitive semantic-pragmatic analysis.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Presented at the Questions in Discourse Workshop, December 2013, Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Groenendijk:13,\n\tauthor = {Groenendijk, Jeroen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Questions in Discourse Workshop, December 2013, Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Toch and toch? in Dutch: an inquisitive semantic-pragmatic analysis},\n\tyear = {2013}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Searching for directions: epistemic and deontic modals in InqS.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher, & Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Presented at the Tenth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (TbiLLC), September 26, 2013\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Searching$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{AherGroenendijk:13,\n\tauthor = {Aher, Martin and Groenendijk, Jeroen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Tenth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (TbiLLC), September 26, 2013},\n\ttitle = {Searching for directions: epistemic and deontic modals in InqS},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/ditj49gobx00qqh/SfD_Tbilisi_2013_postfinal.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/ditj49gobx00qqh/SfD_Tbilisi_2013_postfinal.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Where the air is thin but the view so much clearer.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, & Floris Roelofsen., editor(s), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, pages 300-316. ILLC Publications, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Where$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Westera:13festschrift,\n\tabstract = {Thirty years after Groenendijk and Stokhof's (1984) dissertation, the exhaustive interpretation of answers is still one of the central topics in semantics and pragmatics. Groenendijk and Stokhof identified three main problems for a pragmatic account of exhaustivity, which to this date remain largely open. In the present paper I show how these can be resolved by adopting a richer notion of meaning, and taking into account its pragmatic thrust. The resulting theory may be the only one to this date that explains exhaustivity, from start to end, as a genuine case of Gricean conversational implicature.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tbooktitle = {{The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Michael Franke and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive pragmatics},\n\tpages = {300-316},\n\tpublisher = {ILLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {Where the air is thin but the view so much clearer},\n\turl = {http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/37_Westera.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/37_Westera.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n `Attention, I'm violating a maxim!' A unifying account of the final rise.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial), 2013. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"`Attention,$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Westera:13semdial,\n\tabstract = {Declarative sentences that end with a rising pitch in English (among other languages) have many uses. I single out several prominent uses that the literature so far has treated mostly independently. I present a compositional, unifying analysis, where the final rising pitch marks the violation of a conversational maxim, and its steepness indicates the speaker's emotional activation. Existing theories are reproduced from these basic assumptions. I believe it contributes to a solid theoretical foundation for future work on the semantics and pragmatics of intonation.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\ttitle = {{`Attention, I'm violating a maxim!' A unifying account of the final rise}},\n\turl = {http://semdial.org/anthology/Z13-Westera_semdial_0019.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/3j5nnlat0k18gd6/Westera%202013%20-%20attention%20final%20rise%20SemDial%20final.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Exhaustivity through the maxim of Relation.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS 10), 2013. \n This work has been presented at several occasions. Here are the slides from the Semantics/Pragmatics Colloquium at the Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, November 18, 2013: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b49swb2xjg5hapy/Westera%202013%20-%20Nijmegen%20slides.pdf . A complete list of presentations and slideshows is available here: http://staff.science.uva.nl/ westera/publications.shtml .\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Exhaustivity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Westera:13lenls,\n\tabstract = {I show that the exhaustive interpretation of answers can be explained as a conversational implicature through the Maxim of Relation, dealing with the problematic epistemic step (Sauerland, 2004). I assume a fairly standard Maxim of Relation, that captures the same intuition as Roberts' (1996) contextual entailment. I show that if a richer notion of meaning is adopted, in particular that of attentive semantics (Roelofsen, 2011), this Maxim of Relation automatically becomes strong enough to enable exhaustivity implicatures. The results suggest that pragmatic reasoning is sensitive not only to the information an utterance provides, but also to the possibilities it draws attention to. Foremost, it shows that exhaustivity implicatures can be genuine conversational implicatures.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS 10)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive pragmatics},\n\tnote = {This work has been presented at several occasions. Here are the slides from the Semantics/Pragmatics Colloquium at the Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, November 18, 2013: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b49swb2xjg5hapy/Westera%202013%20-%20Nijmegen%20slides.pdf . A complete list of presentations and slideshows is available here: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~westera/publications.shtml .},\n\ttitle = {Exhaustivity through the maxim of {Relation}},\n\turl = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/Westera%202013%20-%20exhaustivity%20LENLS%20final.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/g466a4u653mkdgs/Westera%202013%20-%20exhaustivity%20LENLS%20final.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Attentive pragmatics: an account of exhaustivity and the final rise.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Proceedings of the ESSLLI student session. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Attentive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Westera:13attentive,\n\tabstract = {I present a unifying solution to two well-known empirical puzzles: (i) how to account for the exhaustive interpretation of answers, and (ii) how to account for the semantics of the final rise in American English. It relies on the hypotheses that pragmatic reasoning is sensitive to the possibilities that a sentence draws attention to and that the final rise conveys the speaker's uncertain cooperativity. The take-home message is that the Gricean approach to exhaustivity is viable, provided that we enrich the underlying semantics with attentive content.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Proceedings of the ESSLLI student session},\n\ttitle = {Attentive pragmatics: an account of exhaustivity and the final rise},\n\turl = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/2013-08%20-%20Westera%20-%20attentive%20pragmatics%20esslli.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://mwestera.humanities.uva.nl/downloads/2013-08%20-%20Westera%20-%20attentive%20pragmatics%20esslli.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Diagnosing Truth, Interactive Sincerity, and Depictive Sincerity.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Elizabeth Coppock, & Thomas Brochhagen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23, pages 358–375, 2013. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Diagnosing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{CoppockBrochhagen:13salt,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents two experimental findings pertaining to the semantics and pragmatics of superlative modifiers ("at least", "at most"). First, in a scenario with N objects of a given type, speakers consistently judge it true that there are 'at least N' and 'at most N' objects of that type. This supports the debated position that the ignorance conveyed by superlative modifiers is an implicature, not an entailment, and contrasts with results obtained using an inference-judgment paradigm, suggesting that truth-value judgment tasks are impervious to certain pragmatic infelicities that inference-judgment tasks are sensitive to. The second finding is not predicted by any previous theory: In a scenario with N objects, it is not consistently judged true that there are 'at most N + 1' objects, even though it is consistently judged true that there are 'at least N -- 1' objects. To explain this, we propose a novel pragmatic principle requiring that the scenario depicted by a sentence must be considered possible by the speaker (the Maxim of Depictive Sincerity). Put together, the two findings show that truth-value judgment tasks are impervious to some aspects of pragmatics, but not all.},\n\tauthor = {Elizabeth Coppock and Thomas Brochhagen},\n\tbooktitle = {{Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT)} 23},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v23i0.2662},\n\tkeywords = {numerals},\n\tpages = {358--375},\n\ttitle = {Diagnosing Truth, Interactive Sincerity, and Depictive Sincerity},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2662},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2662},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2662}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Elizabeth Coppock, & Thomas Brochhagen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(3): 1–57. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Raising$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CoppockBrochhagen:13,\n\tabstract = {We argue that the superlative modifiers at least and at most quantify over a scale of answers to the current question under discussion (and in this sense, resolve issues), and that they draw attention to the individual possibilities along the scale (and in this sense, raise issues for discussion). The point of departure is a simple analysis on which at least denotes what only presupposes, and at most denotes what only contributes as its ordinary atissue content. This analysis captures the truth conditions, focus-sensitivity, and distribution of superlative modifiers but leaves some pragmatic facts unexplained. We enrich the simple account with unrestricted inquisitive semantics in order to explain the fact that superlative modifiers give rise to ignorance implicatures while comparative modifiers like more and less do not, the fact that superlative modifiers do not give rise to scalar implicatures, and two puzzles concerning the interaction between superlative modifiers and deontic modals. We argue that this proposal provides the most empirically successful published account of superlative modifiers to date.},\n\tauthor = {Elizabeth Coppock and Thomas Brochhagen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/sp.6.3},\n\tjournal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},\n\tkeywords = {numerals},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {1--57},\n\ttitle = {Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers},\n\turl = {https://semprag.org/article/view/sp.6.3},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semprag.org/article/view/sp.6.3},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.3}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A logical account of free-choice imperatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maria Aloni, & Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, & Floris Roelofsen., editor(s), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, pages 1-17. ILLC Publications, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{AloniCiardelli:13,\n\tabstract = {Since Ross's observation that the instruction ``Post this letter'' does not entail ``Post this\nletter or burn it'', imperatives have constituted a challenge for the logician. Building on ideas\nfrom inquisitive semantics, we propose an account in which imperatives are regarded as\npartial specifications of a set of options. We show that this account avoids Ross's paradox\nand gives rise to a sensible notion of imperative entailment.},\n\tauthor = {Maria Aloni and Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tbooktitle = {The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Michael Franke and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tkeywords = {imperatives},\n\tpages = {1-17},\n\tpublisher = {ILLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {A logical account of free-choice imperatives},\n\turl = {http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/01_AloniCiardelli.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/01_AloniCiardelli.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Deontic contexts and the interpretation of disjunction in legal discourse.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue canadienne de linguistique, 58(1): 13–42. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Deontic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Aher:13,\n\tabstract = {This study investigates the interpretation of or in legal texts, focusing on two puzzles: ``inclusive/exclusive'' or and ``free choice permission''. The study first examines various examples of or in American court cases described by Solan and the ``and/or'' rule that he describes. It then turns to occurrences of or in a different legal domain, that of the World Trade Organization, giving a brief introduction to the WTO dispute mechanism and its principles of interpretation before examining these occurrences of or. The study then introduces the inquisitive semantics framework as a way to account for these occurrences, offering an analysis of the inclusive/exclusive or and free choice or puzzles and of the interaction of or with obligation, permission, and negation more generally.},\n\tauthor = {Aher, Martin},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S0008413100002504},\n\tjournal = {The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue canadienne de linguistique},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {13--42},\n\ttitle = {Deontic contexts and the interpretation of disjunction in legal discourse},\n\turl = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-linguistics-revue-canadienne-de-linguistique/article/abs/deontic-contexts-and-the-interpretation-of-disjunction-in-legal-discourse/BD235B19275EB4EFF3AF079B72750DD2},\n\tvolume = {58},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-linguistics-revue-canadienne-de-linguistique/article/abs/deontic-contexts-and-the-interpretation-of-disjunction-in-legal-discourse/BD235B19275EB4EFF3AF079B72750DD2},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100002504}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of p, whether p, and might p: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, & Floris Roelofsen.,\n editors.\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n ILLC Publications, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@book{Aloni:13,\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Michael Franke and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tkeywords = {edited collection},\n\tpublisher = {ILLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of p, whether p, and might p: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman},\n\turl = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kathryn Pruitt, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistic Inquiry, 44(4): 632–650. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{PruittRoelofsen:13,\n\tabstract = {Alternative questions differ prosodically from identically worded disjunctive yes/no questions in their accentual characteristics and their final pitch contour. Alternative questions are canonically pronounced with a final fall and with pitch accents on all disjuncts, while disjunctive yes/no questions are canonically pronounced with a final rise and generally without pitch accents on every disjunct. This article presents an experiment investigating the importance of these prosodic features in disambiguation. The experiment shows that the final contour is the most informative prosodic feature. Accentual characteristics also play a significant role, but, contrary to what is often assumed in the literature, cannot force an alternative question interpretation or a yes/no question interpretation on their own. Several theories of disjunctive questions are discussed in the light of these experimental results.},\n\tauthor = {Pruitt, Kathryn and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1162/LING_a_00141},\n\tjournal = {Linguistic Inquiry},\n\tkeywords = {experimental linguistics,disjunction,questions,intonation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tpages = {632--650},\n\ttitle = {{The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions}},\n\turl = {https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/44/4/632/551/The-Interpretation-of-Prosody-in-Disjunctive},\n\tvolume = {44},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/44/4/632/551/The-Interpretation-of-Prosody-in-Disjunctive},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00141}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A bare bone semantics for attentive might.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, & Floris Roelofsen., editor(s), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, pages 190–215. ILLC Publications, 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Roelofsen:13festschrift,\n\tabstract = {This paper introduces a semantic framework in which the meaning of a sentence embodies\nboth its informative and its attentive content. This framework allows for an improved\nimplementation of the analysis of might proposed in Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen\n(2009), which in turn builds on an idea from Groenendijk, Stokhof, and Veltman (1996).\nThe analysis sheds new light on the way in which might interacts with conjunction, disjunction, and negation, which is puzzling for the standard modal account of might, as well\nas its treatment in update semantics. \nThis paper is dedicated to Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, on the occasion of their upcoming retirement, with deepest respect and gratitude.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Aloni, Maria and Franke, Michael and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tkeywords = {attention,theoretical linguistics,might,modality,free choice,disjunction},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {190--215},\n\tpublisher = {ILLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {{A bare bone semantics for attentive might}},\n\turl = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/25_Roelofsen.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/25_Roelofsen.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Towards a logic of information exchange: an inquisitive witness semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In G Bezhanishvili, V Marra, S Löbner, & F Richter., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Computation: revised selected papers from the Ninth International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation, pages 51–72, 2013. Springer\n The conference (http://www.illc.uva.nl/Tbilisi/Tbilisi2011/) was held in Kutaisi, Georgia, in September 2011. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at the Prague workshop on Logics of Questions (http://logika.flu.cas.cz/redaction.php?action=showRedaction&id_categoryNode=1941), and at a workshop on the role of Questions in Discourse and Epistemology at the Center for Formal Epistemology, Carnegie Mellon University (http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/cfe/question-fest.html).\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Towards$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:13tbilisi,\n\tabstract = {Traditionally, the meaning of a sentence is identified with its truth conditions. This approach is driven by the age-old attention that philosophy has devoted to the study of argumentation. In terms of truth conditions one defines entailment, the crucial notion that rules the soundness of an argument: a sentence ϕ is said to entail another sentence ψ in case the truth conditions for ϕ are at least as stringent as the truth conditions for ψ.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Computation: revised selected papers from the Ninth International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36976-6_6},\n\teditor = {Bezhanishvili, G and Marra, V and L{\\"o}bner, S and Richter, F},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {The conference (http://www.illc.uva.nl/Tbilisi/Tbilisi2011/) was held in Kutaisi, Georgia, in September 2011. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at the Prague workshop on Logics of Questions (http://logika.flu.cas.cz/redaction.php?action=showRedaction&id_categoryNode=1941), and at a workshop on the role of Questions in Discourse and Epistemology at the Center for Formal Epistemology, Carnegie Mellon University (http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/cfe/question-fest.html).},\n\tpages = {51--72},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {{Towards a logic of information exchange: an inquisitive witness semantics}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-36976-6_6},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36976-6_6}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9): 459–476. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Ciardelli:13compass,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents a notion of meaning that captures both informative and inquisitive content, which forms the cornerstone of inquisitive semantics. The new notion of meaning is explained and motivated in detail, and compared to previous inquisitive notions of meaning.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/lnc3.12037},\n\tjournal = {Language and Linguistics Compass},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,survey},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {9},\n\tpages = {459--476},\n\ttitle = {{Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning}},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lnc3.12037},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lnc3.12037},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12037}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Positive and negative polar questions in discourse.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, Noortje Venhuizen, & Galit Weidmann Sassoon.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer, & Gregoire Winterstein., editor(s), Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 17), pages 455–472, 2013. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Positive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 7 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:13sub,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents a number of experiments assessing the felicity of positive and\nnegative polar questions in various types of discourse contexts.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Venhuizen, Noortje and {Weidmann Sassoon}, Galit},\n\tbooktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 17)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Chemla, Emmanuel and Homer, Vincent and Winterstein, Gregoire},\n\tkeywords = {theoretical linguistics,questions,experimental linguistics,bias,negation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {455--472},\n\ttitle = {{Positive and negative polar questions in discourse}},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/RoelofsenVenhuizenSassoon.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/RoelofsenVenhuizenSassoon.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Scales of negativity.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Adrian Brasoveanu, Donka F Farkas, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Presented at the University of California, January 18, 2013; Johns Hopkins University, February 13, 2013\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Scales$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{BrasoveanuFarkasRoelofsen:13,\n\tauthor = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {experimental linguistics,negation,answer particles,tag questions},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the University of California, January 18, 2013; Johns Hopkins University, February 13, 2013},\n\ttitle = {{Scales of negativity}},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/9256h7tf7whvoqw/scales_of_negativity_Jan2013.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://tinyurl.com/dxhuvfh}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Synthese, 190(1): 79–102. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Algebraic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Roelofsen:13,\n\tabstract = {In classical logic, the proposition expressed by a sentence is construed as a set of possible worlds, capturing the informative content of the sentence. However, sentences in natural language are not only used to provide information, but also to request information. Thus, natural language semantics requires a logical framework whose notion of meaning does not only embody informative content, but also inquisitive content. This paper develops the algebraic foundations for such a framework. We argue that propositions, in order to embody both informative and inquisitive content in a satisfactory way, should be defined as non-empty, downward closed sets of possibilities, where each possibility in turn is a set of possible worlds. We define a natural entailment order over such propositions, capturing when one proposition is at least as informative and inquisitive as another, and we show that this entailment order gives rise to a complete Heyting algebra, with meet, join, and relative pseudo-complement operators. Just as in classical logic, these semantic operators are then associated with the logical constants in a first-order language. We explore the logical properties of the resulting system and discuss its significance for natural language semantics. We show that the system essentially coincides with the simplest and most well-understood existing implementation of inquisitive semantics, and that its treatment of disjunction and existentials also concurs with recent work in alternative semantics. Thus, our algebraic considerations do not lead to a wholly new treatment of the logical constants, but rather provide more solid foundations for some of the existing proposals.},\n\tannote = {To get a quick impression of the main result established in this paper, here is a handout from a Colloquium at the IMS in Stuttgart, November 2013: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxb2yujbowol2pm/stuttgart-2013-handout.pdf},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4},\n\tjournal = {Synthese},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,alternative semantics,algebraic semantics,philosophical logic,questions},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {79--102},\n\ttitle = {{Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0282-4},\n\tvolume = {190},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0282-4},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n N-words and sentential negation: Evidence from polarity particles and VP ellipsis.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Adrian Brasoveanu, Donka F Farkas, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(7): 1–33. 2013.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"N-words$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Brasoveanu:13,\n\tabstract = {A prominent treatment of n-words such as nobody and never is as indefinite expressions occurring in the scope of a covert sentential negation operator. This paper presents three experiments using two novel strategies based on polarity particles and VP ellipsis to test the predictions of this treatment of n-words. The first experiment tests a particular prediction of recent accounts of polarity particles with respect to agreeing responses to negative assertions. The other two extend the inquiry to cases involving n-words.\n},\n\tauthor = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/sp.6.7},\n\tjournal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},\n\tkeywords = {theoretical linguistics,negation,ellipsis,answer particles,indefinites,experimental linguistics},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {7},\n\tpages = {1--33},\n\ttitle = {{N-words and sentential negation: Evidence from polarity particles and {VP} ellipsis}},\n\turl = {http://semprag.org/article/view/sp.6.7},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semprag.org/article/view/sp.6.7},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.7}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An inquisitive perspective on meaning: the case of disjunction.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2013.\n Presented at: Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, February 13, 2013; Rochester Linguistics Colloquium, February 20, 2013; UMass Linguistics Colloquium, February 21, 2013; Questions in Discourse workshop, Berlin, March 11, 2013 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/stegagiaxnsq8x9/berlin-qid-2013-handout.pdf); UCL Linguistics Colloquium, April 9, 2013; Stuttgart IMS Colloquium, November 18, 2013 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxb2yujbowol2pm/stuttgart-2013-handout.pdf); KNAW Colloquium, Amsterdam, March 5, 2014 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmqg9zh7p3bqerx/dependence-logic-workshop-handout.pdf); Understanding Questions Workshop, Leiden, March 28, 2014 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3igjurap8xe71t/understanding-questions-workshop-handout.pdf)\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:13colloquium,\n\tannote = {Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, February 2013},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,disjunction,questions,slides},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at: Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, February 13, 2013; Rochester Linguistics Colloquium, February 20, 2013; UMass Linguistics Colloquium, February 21, 2013; Questions in Discourse workshop, Berlin, March 11, 2013 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/stegagiaxnsq8x9/berlin-qid-2013-handout.pdf); UCL Linguistics Colloquium, April 9, 2013; Stuttgart IMS Colloquium, November 18, 2013 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxb2yujbowol2pm/stuttgart-2013-handout.pdf); KNAW Colloquium, Amsterdam, March 5, 2014 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmqg9zh7p3bqerx/dependence-logic-workshop-handout.pdf); Understanding Questions Workshop, Leiden, March 28, 2014 (handout: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3igjurap8xe71t/understanding-questions-workshop-handout.pdf)},\n\ttitle = {{An inquisitive perspective on meaning: the case of disjunction}},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxb2yujbowol2pm/stuttgart-2013-handout.pdf},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxb2yujbowol2pm/stuttgart-2013-handout.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2012\n \n \n (12)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive semantics and the paradoxes of material implication.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pawel Lojko.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2012.\n Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Lojko:12,\n\tabstract = {The Paradoxes of Material Implication concern entailments which are valid according to Classical Propositional Logic but which contradict universal linguistic intuitions. These contradictions constitute one of the best-known objections to the classical truth-functional account of indicative conditionals. \nIn this thesis we give an Inquisitive Semantic account of the Paradoxes of Material Implication. We focus on the sixteen paradoxical inferences that can be found in the literature. We formalize, motivate and discuss two inquisitive systems: Basic Inquisitive Semantics and Radical Inquisitive Semantics. Further, we compare the Basic Inquisitive Semantic and the Radical Inquisitive Semantic account of the Paradoxes of Material Implication with the accounts given by Lewis' Strict Conditional Logic S2, Stalnaker's Conditional Logic C2, Update Semantics and Relevance Logic B. We also discuss the extent to which the inquisitive account of implication reflects the philosophical underpinnings of different non-classical accounts. \nWe demonstrate that Radical Inquisitive Semantics is the only system that allows us to account for all of the Paradoxes of Material Implication. We conclude that the account given by Inquisitive Semantics is better than the classical account and has certain advantages over other systems. Finally, we also suggest and discuss several possibilities for further research.},\n\tauthor = {Pawel Lojko},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {{M}aster Thesis, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive semantics and the paradoxes of material implication},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/871/1/MoL-2012-05.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/871/1/MoL-2012-05.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Alternative Disjunctions in Egyptian Arabic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lauren Winans.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2012.\n UCLA MA thesis, pre-final draft\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Alternative$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Winans:12,\n\tabstract = {Languages such as Chinese (Li and Thomson (1981)), Finnish (Haspelmath (2007)), Basque (Saltarelli (1988)), and Malagasy (Keenan, p.c.), among others, have been described as having two disjunctive lexical items where one, the interrogative disjunction is restricted to questions and the other, the standard disjunction occurs in all clause types. In this paper, I look at two such items in Egyptian Arabic---wallaa and aw---that conform to Haspelmath's descriptions of interrogative and standard disjunctions, respectively. Using Inquisitive Semantics (Ciardelli et al. (2012), Groenendijk and Roelofsen (2009), Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2011), inter alia), the differences between wallaa and aw can be captured as a difference in inquisitiveness. While this analysis accounts for the observed data in Egyptian Arabic, it also explains why the cross-linguistic data patterns as it does.},\n\tauthor = {Lauren Winans},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {UCLA MA thesis, pre-final draft},\n\ttitle = {{Alternative Disjunctions in Egyptian Arabic}},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/theses/Winans2012_MAthesis-draft.pdf},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/theses/Winans2012_MAthesis-draft.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Sequent calculus for a hierarchy of first-order inquisitive logics.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Katsuhiko Sano.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2012.\n Russia-Japan Workshop on First-order Intermediate Logics, 4th October 2012, Hakusan, Japan\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Sano:12sequent,\n\tauthor = {Sano, Katsuhiko},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Russia-Japan Workshop on First-order Intermediate Logics, 4th October 2012, Hakusan, Japan},\n\ttitle = {Sequent calculus for a hierarchy of first-order inquisitive logics},\n\tyear = {2012}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Impossibility Theorem in Radical Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Katsuhiko Sano.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2012.\n Presented at as Workshop on Relating Particles to Evidence and Inference, 14th July 2012, Goettingen, Germany. Current version, January 2014, submitted for publication\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Sano:12,\n\tabstract = {In (non-radical) inquisitive semantics, intuitionistic Kripke model captures how our group knowledge increases through a conversation, and also allows us to derive the inquisitive meaning of a sentence from the classical meaning. In radical inquisitive semantics by Groenendijk and Roelofsen (2009), positive and negative ways of reacting a proposal are captured by positive and negative inquisitive meanings of a sentence, respectively. Both inquisitive meanings are inductively defined without employing a Kripke semantics. This paper demonstrates that, in principle, it is impossible to provide any natural Kripke semantics with radical inquisitive semantics.},\n\tauthor = {Katsuhiko Sano},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented at as Workshop on Relating Particles to Evidence and Inference, 14th July 2012, Goettingen, Germany. Current version, January 2014, submitted for publication},\n\ttitle = {An Impossibility Theorem in Radical Inquisitive Semantics},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/zme50bx4pdoa7am/Katsuhiko-impossibility-revised-2014.pdf},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/zme50bx4pdoa7am/Katsuhiko-impossibility-revised-2014.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An Inquisitive Formalization of Interrogative Inquiry.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Yacin Hamami.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2012.\n Paper presented at the IMI workshop in Paris, January 30-31, 2012\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Hamami:12,\n\tabstract = {Interrogative inquiry refers to the process of knowledge-seeking by questioning. In this paper, we investigate the process of interrogative inquiry in the context of conversations. To this end, we develop a formalization of interrogative inquiry based on inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. This is motivated by the capacity of inquisitive semantics to provide a semantic account of questions and answers in natural language, and the capacity of inquisitive pragmatics to provide a pragmatic account of the behavior of questions and answers in conversations.\n\nThe paper begins with a presentation of the modelling of questions and answers in the inquisitive framework. Then, after a brief comparison of the inquisitive account of questions with Hintikka's treatment of questions in the Interrogative Model of Inquiry (IMI), we discuss and define the notion of interrogative rule which aims to characterize the question-answer steps that one can make in an interrogative inquiry. We then put the interrogative rule into a temporal perspective, by introducing the notion of interrogative protocol, which aims to govern interrogative inquiry as a temporal process. The notion of interrogative protocol enables us to reach formal definitions of the notion of interrogative inquiry and the associated logical notion of interrogative consequence, that we illustrate with some concrete examples. Our framework thus defined allows then for a formal logical and computational study of the process of interrogative inquiry. On the logical side, we relate the notion of interrogative consequence with the ones of distributed information and yes-no question. On the computational side, we shape the bases of a computational investigation of interrogative inquiry in our framework, and we present first computational results. From this computational perspective, we propose to revisit the so-called strategic aspects of inquiry, one of the main themes of Hintikka's IMI, from an algorithmic point of view. We end this paper with some concluding remarks and suggestions for further works.},\n\tauthor = {Hamami, Yacin},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Paper presented at the IMI workshop in Paris, January 30-31, 2012},\n\tslides = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/slides/Hamami2012_IMI.pdf},\n\ttitle = {An Inquisitive Formalization of Interrogative Inquiry},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Hamami2012_IMI.pdf},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Hamami2012_IMI.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n Interrogative inquiry refers to the process of knowledge-seeking by questioning. In this paper, we investigate the process of interrogative inquiry in the context of conversations. To this end, we develop a formalization of interrogative inquiry based on inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. This is motivated by the capacity of inquisitive semantics to provide a semantic account of questions and answers in natural language, and the capacity of inquisitive pragmatics to provide a pragmatic account of the behavior of questions and answers in conversations. The paper begins with a presentation of the modelling of questions and answers in the inquisitive framework. Then, after a brief comparison of the inquisitive account of questions with Hintikka's treatment of questions in the Interrogative Model of Inquiry (IMI), we discuss and define the notion of interrogative rule which aims to characterize the question-answer steps that one can make in an interrogative inquiry. We then put the interrogative rule into a temporal perspective, by introducing the notion of interrogative protocol, which aims to govern interrogative inquiry as a temporal process. The notion of interrogative protocol enables us to reach formal definitions of the notion of interrogative inquiry and the associated logical notion of interrogative consequence, that we illustrate with some concrete examples. Our framework thus defined allows then for a formal logical and computational study of the process of interrogative inquiry. On the logical side, we relate the notion of interrogative consequence with the ones of distributed information and yes-no question. On the computational side, we shape the bases of a computational investigation of interrogative inquiry in our framework, and we present first computational results. From this computational perspective, we propose to revisit the so-called strategic aspects of inquiry, one of the main themes of Hintikka's IMI, from an algorithmic point of view. We end this paper with some concluding remarks and suggestions for further works.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Meanings as proposals: a new semantic foundation for a Gricean pragmatics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Jonathan Ginzburg, & Staffan Larsson., editor(s), Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial), pages 40-50, 2012. Université de Paris-Diderot\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Meanings$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Westera:12semdial,\n\tabstract = {A disjunction may pragmatically imply that only one of the disjuncts is true. The traditional Gricean account of this exhaustivity implicature is not without problems. Nevertheless, we think that not the Gricean picture itself, but the underlying conception of meanings as chunks of information may be unfit. Starting instead from a conception of meanings as proposals, within the framework of inquisitive semantics, we develop, algebraically characterise and conceptually motivate a formal semantics and pragmatics, the latter still Gricean in spirit. Among the difficulties we discuss and resolve are the problem of characterising relevant alternatives, the problem of embedded implicatures and the unwanted negation problem. The analysis is extended to a pragmatic account of mention-some questions.},\n\tauthor = {Matthijs Westera},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Sarah Brown-Schmidt and Jonathan Ginzburg and Staffan Larsson},\n\tpages = {40-50},\n\tpublisher = {Universit{\\'e} de Paris-Diderot},\n\ttitle = {Meanings as proposals: a new semantic foundation for a {Gricean} pragmatics},\n\turl = {http://semdial.org/anthology/Z12-Westera_semdial_0008.pdf},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://semdial.org/anthology/Z12-Westera_semdial_0008.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive knowledge attribution and the Gettier problem.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wataru Uegaki.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidmann-Sassoon, Katrin Schulz, & Matthijs Westera., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Meaning. Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 52–61, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Uegaki:12,\n\tabstract = {A disjunctive belief cannot be described as knowledge if the subject does not justifiably believe a true disjunct, even if the whole disjunctive belief is true and justified (Gettier 1963). This phenomenon is problematic if the verb know semantically operates on a (classical) proposition, as standardly assumed. In this paper, I offer a solution to this problem using Inquisitive Semantics, arguing that know operates on the set of alternative possibilities expressed by its complement. It will also be shown that the proposed semantics for know provides a novel account of its compatibility with both declarative and interrogative complements.},\n\taddress = {Berlin Heidelberg},\n\tauthor = {Wataru Uegaki},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Meaning. Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_6},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Vadim Kimmelman and Floris Roelofsen and Galit Weidmann-Sassoon and Katrin Schulz and Matthijs Westera},\n\tpages = {52--61},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive knowledge attribution and the {Gettier} problem},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_6},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_6},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_6}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Some modifications of Carnap's modal logic.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Vı́t Punčochář.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Studia Logica, 100(3): 517–543. 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Puncochar:12,\n\tauthor = {Pun{\\v{c}}och{\\'a}{\\v{r}}, V{\\'\\i}t},\n\tjournal = {Studia Logica},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {517--543},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Some modifications of Carnap's modal logic},\n\tabstract={In this paper, Carnap’s modal logic C is reconstructed. It is shown that the Carnapian approach enables us to create some epistemic logics in a relatively straight-forward way. These epistemic modifications of C are axiomatized and one of them is compared with intuitionistic logic. At the end of the paper, some connections between this epistemic logic and Medvedev’s logic of finite problems and inquisitive semantics are shortly discussed.},\n\tvolume = {100},\n\tyear = {2012}}\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Where Question, Conditionals and Topics Converge.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Edgar Onea, & Markus Steinbach.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidmann-Sassoon, Katrin Schulz, & Matthijs Westera., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Meaning. Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 42–51, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Where$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{OneaSteinbach:12,\n\tabstract = {One puzzling fact about German is that yes-no questions that surface as verb-first structures can be interpreted as conditionals in a topic position. We provide an analysis using the basic idea of inquisitive semantics that questions and assertions can be treated on a par as denoting sets of possibilities. The key assumption is that in topic position, questions can be interpreted as conditionals if and only if they contain exactly one highlighted alternative possibility. The analysis correctly predicts the distribution of wh-questions and the distribution of so called irrelevance-conditionals containing auch (`too') as well.},\n\taddress = {Berlin Heidelberg},\n\tauthor = {Edgar Onea and Markus Steinbach},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Meaning. Selected papers from the 18th {Amsterdam} Colloquium},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_5},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Vadim Kimmelman and Floris Roelofsen and Galit Weidmann-Sassoon and Katrin Schulz and Matthijs Westera},\n\tkeywords = {conditionals},\n\tpages = {42--51},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Where Question, Conditionals and Topics Converge},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31482-7_5},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31482-7_5},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_5}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Focus and uninformativity in Yukatek Maya questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Scott AnderBois.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 20: 349–390. 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Focus$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Anderbois:12nals,\n\tabstract = {Crosslinguistically, questions frequently make crucial use of morphosyntactic elements which also occur outside of questions. Chief among these are focus, disjunctions, and wh-words with indefinite semantics. This paper provides a compositional account of the semantics of wh-, alternative, and polar questions in Yucatec Maya (YM), which are composed primarily of these elements. Key to the account is a theory of disjunctions and indefinites (extending work by others) which recognizes the inherently inquisitive nature of these elements. While disjunctions and indefinites are inquisitive, they differ from questions since they are also truth-conditionally informative. Compositionally, then, the role of focus in YM questions is to presuppose the informative component of an indefinite wh-word or disjunction, rendering the inquisitive component the question's only new contribution to the discourse. In addition to deriving question denotations compositionally, the account also captures a potentially surprising fact: focused disjunctions in YM can function as either questions or assertions, depending solely on the discourse context.},\n\tauthor = {Scott AnderBois},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3},\n\tissue = {4},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {questions},\n\tpages = {349--390},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Focus and uninformativity in {Yukatek Maya} questions},\n\turl = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/43550308},\n\tvolume = {20},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/43550308},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Free choice in deontic inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin Aher.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidmann-Sassoon, Katrin Schulz, & Matthijs Westera., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Meaning. Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 22–31, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Free$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Aher:12,\n\tabstract = {We will propose a novel solution to the free choice puzzle. The approach is driven by empirical data from legal discourse and does not suffer from the same problems as implicature-based accounts. Following Anderson's violation-based deontic logic, we will demonstrate that a support-based radical inquisitive semantics will correctly model both the free choice effect and the standard disjunctive behaviour when disjunctive permission is embedded under negation. An inquisitive semantics also models the case when disjunctive permission is continued with ``but I do not know which'' which coerces an ignorance reading. We also demonstrate that a principled approach to negation provides a monotonic but restricted definition of entailment, which solves the problem of strengthening with a conjunct that is used as a counterargument against violation-based accounts.},\n\taddress = {Berlin Heidelberg},\n\tauthor = {Martin Aher},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Meaning. Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Vadim Kimmelman and Floris Roelofsen and Galit Weidmann-Sassoon and Katrin Schulz and Matthijs Westera},\n\tpages = {22--31},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {Free choice in deontic inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31482-7_3},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31482-7_3},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Polarity particles and the anatomy of n-words.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Adrian Brasoveanu, Donka F Farkas, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya, & Rick Nouwen., editor(s), Sinn und Bedeutung 16, pages 99–112, 2012. MITWPL\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Polarity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{BrasoveanuFarkasRoelofsen:12,\n\tauthor = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 16},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {{Aguilar Guevara}, Ana and Chernilovskaya, Anna and Nouwen, Rick},\n\tkeywords = {theoretical linguistics,experimental linguistics,anaphora,answer particles,indefinites,negation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {99--112},\n\tpublisher = {MITWPL},\n\ttitle = {{Polarity particles and the anatomy of n-words}},\n\turl = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/413},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/413}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2011\n \n \n (14)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Existential inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Morgan Mameni, & Matthijs Westera.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Existential$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{MameniWestera:11,\n\tauthor = {Morgan Mameni and Matthijs Westera},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Existential inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/MameniWestera2011_existentialInqS.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/MameniWestera2011_existentialInqS.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Foundational problems for attentive content.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bruno Jacinto.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Foundational$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Jacinto:11,\n\tauthor = {Jacinto, Bruno},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Foundational problems for attentive content},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Jacinto2011_foundations-attentiveness.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Jacinto2011_foundations-attentiveness.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Negation in Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Noortje Venhuizen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Negation$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Venhuizen:11,\n\tabstract = {In this research, we focus on different types of polar questions, in particular the difference between positive polar questions and negative polar questions with high and low negation. We propose a theoretical framework and empirically test some of the predictions of the framework, focusing on the differences in contexts in which different polar question types are licensed. A context is taken to be a combination of speaker belief and contextual evidence. It is shown that positive polar questions and the different types of negative polar questions indeed differ from each other in terms of the contexts in which they occur. Accordingly, the results are formalized in the framework of inquisitive semantics, resulting in an analysis where polar questions coincide with respect to their informative and inquisitive content, but differ from each other in terms of highlighted possibilities and felicity conditions.},\n\tauthor = {Venhuizen, Noortje},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Negation in Questions},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/851/1/MoL-2011-06.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/851/1/MoL-2011-06.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Issues and alternatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Scott AnderBois.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, University of California Santa Cruz, 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Issues$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Anderbois:11,\n\tabstract = {The central topic this dissertation is the semantic relationship between disjunctions, indefinites, and other instances of existential quantification on the one hand and questions on the other. I argue that the former have more in common with the latter than is generally acknowledged and, in particular, that their compositional semantics includes not only truth-conditional information, but also an issue-raising or inquisitive capacity. For example, a simple assertion like ``Someone left.'' not only proposes to rule out the possibility that no one left, it also presents the issue of `Who left?' as a possible direction for future discussion. \n\nThis dissertation presents several empirical arguments for this inquisitive capacity and for particular interactions with other elements in the sentence. The most direct argument comes from novel fieldwork on wh- and alternative questions in Yucatec Maya (an indigenous language of Mexico), which consist of focused disjunctions and focused indefinite wh-words respectively. I argue that both patterns can be accounted for under a semantics where disjunctions and indefinite wh-words --- across all their uses --- make a contribution that is both inquisitive and potentially informative. The (contextually restricted) presupposition of focus is responsible for isolating this inquisitive capacity in questions, thus distinguishing them from assertions. \n\nThis Yucatec Maya-based semantics for disjunctions and indefinites sheds light on several puzzles regarding these elements more generally, and in particular, in English. The first of these is the ellipsis process known as Sluicing, which I analyze as the anaphoric retrieval of an issue introduced by prior inquisitive elements. Second, I provide an analysis of subtle differences between positive, negative, and alternative polar questions with or not, which makes use of a more structured `two-tiered' semantics for issues. Finally, I provide a semantic/pragmatic account of polar questions with preposed negation in which (double) negation plays the pivotal semantic role, suppressing inquisitive content within the question itself, thereby providing added emphasis on the truth-conditional information of the proposition itself (i.e. Verum Focus).},\n\tauthor = {Scott {AnderBois}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tschool = {University of California Santa Cruz},\n\ttitle = {Issues and alternatives},\n\turl = {https://research.clps.brown.edu/anderbois/PDFs/AnderBois_Diss_Web.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://research.clps.brown.edu/anderbois/PDFs/AnderBois_Diss_Web.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n The central topic this dissertation is the semantic relationship between disjunctions, indefinites, and other instances of existential quantification on the one hand and questions on the other. I argue that the former have more in common with the latter than is generally acknowledged and, in particular, that their compositional semantics includes not only truth-conditional information, but also an issue-raising or inquisitive capacity. For example, a simple assertion like ``Someone left.'' not only proposes to rule out the possibility that no one left, it also presents the issue of `Who left?' as a possible direction for future discussion. This dissertation presents several empirical arguments for this inquisitive capacity and for particular interactions with other elements in the sentence. The most direct argument comes from novel fieldwork on wh- and alternative questions in Yucatec Maya (an indigenous language of Mexico), which consist of focused disjunctions and focused indefinite wh-words respectively. I argue that both patterns can be accounted for under a semantics where disjunctions and indefinite wh-words — across all their uses — make a contribution that is both inquisitive and potentially informative. The (contextually restricted) presupposition of focus is responsible for isolating this inquisitive capacity in questions, thus distinguishing them from assertions. This Yucatec Maya-based semantics for disjunctions and indefinites sheds light on several puzzles regarding these elements more generally, and in particular, in English. The first of these is the ellipsis process known as Sluicing, which I analyze as the anaphoric retrieval of an issue introduced by prior inquisitive elements. Second, I provide an analysis of subtle differences between positive, negative, and alternative polar questions with or not, which makes use of a more structured `two-tiered' semantics for issues. Finally, I provide a semantic/pragmatic account of polar questions with preposed negation in which (double) negation plays the pivotal semantic role, suppressing inquisitive content within the question itself, thereby providing added emphasis on the truth-conditional information of the proposition itself (i.e. Verum Focus).\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Information and attention; Working paper presenting a system in which meaning embodies informative and attentive (but no inquisitive) content.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Manuscript, ILLC University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Information$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:11attention,\n\tabstract = {This paper introduces a semantic framework in which the meaning of a sentence embodies both informative and attentive content. This framework allows for an improved implementation of the analysis of attentive might first presented in Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen (2009). This analysis sheds new light on the way in which might interacts with conjunction and disjunction, which is puzzling for the standard modal account of might, as well as the treatment of might in update semantics.},\n\tauthor = {Floris Roelofsen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {{M}anuscript, ILLC University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Information and attention; Working paper presenting a system in which meaning embodies informative and attentive (but no inquisitive) content},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Roelofsen2011_information-and-attention.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Roelofsen2011_information-and-attention.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Manuscript, ILLC University of Amsterdam; Presented at the 22nd workshop on Games, Logic, Language, and Computation in Amsterdam, December 1, 2011. This work has been continued in collaboration with Ivano Ciardelli. The current paper is available on this website under the title inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"An$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Roelofsen:11idel,\n\tabstract = {This paper develops a logic that combines the main features of dynamic epistemic logic with those of inquisitive semantics. We argue that this merge helps both traditions a step further. From the viewpoint of dynamic epistemic logic, the main benefit lies in the fact that inquisitiveness does not only enter the picture at the level of speech acts, but already at the level of semantic content, which means in particular that it becomes possible to deal with embedded questions. From the viewpoint of inquisitive semantics, the main vantage point is that we inherit from dynamic epistemic logic a perspicuous way of representing the epistemic states of the conversational participants, and a way to specify explicitly how utterances and other speech acts affect these epistemic states.},\n\tauthor = {Floris Roelofsen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {{M}anuscript, ILLC University of Amsterdam; Presented at the 22nd workshop on Games, Logic, Language, and Computation in Amsterdam, December 1, 2011. This work has been continued in collaboration with Ivano Ciardelli. The current paper is available on this website under the title inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic},\n\ttitle = {An inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Roelofsen2011_IDEL.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Roelofsen2011_IDEL.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Prosody and interpretation of disjunctive questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kathryn Pruitt, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Handout for a seminar in Goettingen, April 11, 2011\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Prosody$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{PruittRoelofsen:2011,\n\tauthor = {Pruitt, Kathryn and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Handout for a seminar in Goettingen, April 11, 2011},\n\ttitle = {Prosody and interpretation of disjunctive questions},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/PruittRoelofsen2011_Goettingen-disjunctive.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/PruittRoelofsen2011_Goettingen-disjunctive.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics with the logic of interrogation.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Presented during a colloquium at Ohio State University, November 7, 2011\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Groenendijk:11,\n\tauthor = {Groenendijk, Jeroen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Presented during a colloquium at Ohio State University, November 7, 2011},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics with the logic of interrogation},\n\tyear = {2011}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n First-order inquisitive pair logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Katsuhiko Sano.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the Fourth Indian Conference on Logic and its Applications, 2011. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"First-order$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Sano:11,\n\tabstract = {We introduce two different calculi for a first-order extension of inquisitive pair semantics (Groenendijk 2008): Hilbert-style calculus and Tree-sequent calculus. These are first-order generalizations of (Mascarenhas 2009) and (Sano 2009), respectively. First, we show the strong completeness of our Hilbert-style calculus via canonical models. Second, we establish the completeness and soundness of our Tree-sequent calculus. As a corollary of the results, we semantically establish that our Tree-sequent calculus enjoys a cut-elimination theorem.},\n\tauthor = {Katsuhiko Sano},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the Fourth Indian Conference on Logic and its Applications},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_13},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\ttitle = {First-order inquisitive pair logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-18026-2_13},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-18026-2_13},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18026-2_13}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Erotetic languages and the inquisitive hierarchy.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In A Festschrift for Martin Stokhof. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Erotetic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Groenendijk:11festschrift,\n\tabstract = {We start out postulating a notion of an erotetic language as a language that covers both informative and inquisitive semantic content. Next we postulate the concept of a classical erotetic language, where it is required that informative and inquisitive content are divided over two distinct syntactic categories: indicatives and interrogatives. From the general notion of an erotetic language we derive the fundamental logical-semantical concepts of inquisitive semantics, and sketch the contours of such a semantics for propositional erotetic languages. Then we first fill in the semantic details to arrive at a general inquisitive semantics for propositional erotetic languages. Next we restrict the syntax of the language in such a way that it becomes a classical erotetic language. The syntactic restrictions make this classical language semantically essentially poorer than the general one, though it is still richer than classical partition semantics, and can cope with conditional questions. The notion of the inquisitive hierarchy mentioned in the title of the paper plays a crucial role in explaining the difference. However, we go on to show that, while sticking to a classical erotetic language, the semantic restrictions can be lifted by generalizing interrogative formation from an operation on single sentences to one on sets of sentences. As a result, like non-classical general inquisitive semantics, classical inquisitive semantics can cope with alternative questions, and the general and the extended classical language turn out to be basically equivalent in expressiveness. They only differ in that in the classical case we sometimes need two sentences to express what in a general erotetic language can be expressed by a single sentence. For all systems under discussion, we show that they are conservative extensions of classical logic.},\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tbooktitle = {A Festschrift for Martin Stokhof},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\ttitle = {Erotetic languages and the inquisitive hierarchy},\n\turl = {https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.374081},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.374081}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Algebraic foundations for inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Hans Ditmarsch, Jerome Lang, & Ju Shier., editor(s), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, pages 233–243, 2011. Springer-Verlag\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Algebraic$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:11,\n\tabstract = {In classical logic, the proposition expressed by a sentence is construed as a set of possible worlds, capturing the informative content of the sentence. However, sentences in natural language are not only used to provide information, but also to request information. Thus, natural language semantics requires a logical framework whose notion of meaning does not only embody informative content, but also inquisitive content. This paper develops the algebraic foundations for such a framework. We argue that propositions, in order to embody both informative and inquisitive content in a satisfactory way, should be defined as non-empty, downward closed sets of possibilities, where each possibility in turn is a set of possible worlds. We define a natural entailment order over such propositions, capturing when one proposition is at least as informative and inquisitive as another, and we show that this entailment order gives rise to a complete Heyting algebra, with meet, join, and relative pseudo-complement operators. Just as in classical logic, these semantic operators are then associated with the logical constants in a first-order language. We explore the logical properties of the resulting system and discuss its significance for natural language semantics. We show that the system essentially coincides with the simplest and most well-understood existing implementation of inquisitive semantics, and that its treatment of disjunction and existentials also concurs with recent work in alternative semantics. Thus, our algebraic considerations do not lead to a wholly new treatment of the logical constants, but rather provide more solid foundations for some of the existing proposals.},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_17},\n\teditor = {van Ditmarsch, Hans and Lang, Jerome and Shier, Ju},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,algebraic semantics,alternative semantics,questions},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {233--243},\n\tpublisher = {Springer-Verlag},\n\ttitle = {{Algebraic foundations for inquisitive semantics}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_17}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Interpreting concealed questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maria Aloni, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(5): 443–478. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Interpreting$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{AloniRoelofsen:11,\n\tabstract = {Concealed questions are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions (e.g., John knows the capital of Italy ≈ John knows what the capital of Italy is). This paper offers a novel account of the interpretation of concealed questions, which assumes that an entity-denoting expression α may be type-shifted into an expression ?z.P(α), where P is a contextually determined property, and z ranges over a contextually determined domain of individual concepts. Different resolutions of P and the domain of z yield a wide range of concealed question interpretations, some of which were not noted previously. On the other hand, principled constraints on the resolution process prevent overgeneration.},\n\tauthor = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {concealed questions,quantification,conceptual covers,questions,theoretical linguistics, conceptual covers, ellipsis},\n\tmendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tpages = {443--478},\n\ttitle = {{Interpreting concealed questions}},\n\turl = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/j50564732g8v3707/},\n\tvolume = {34},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/j50564732g8v3707/},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(1): 55–94. 2011.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:11jpl,\n\tabstract = {This paper investigates a generalized version of inquisitive semantics. A complete axiomatization of the associated logic is established, the connection with intuitionistic logic and several intermediate logics is explored, and the generalized version of inquisitive semantics is argued to have certain advantages over the system that was originally proposed by Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009).},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Philosophical Logic},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,philosophical logic,inquisitive logic},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {55--94},\n\ttitle = {{Inquisitive logic}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6},\n\tvolume = {40},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Disjunctive questions: prosody, syntax, and semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kathryn Pruitt, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2011.\n Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen.\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Disjunctive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 9 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{PruittRoelofsen:11,\n\tauthor = {Pruitt, Kathryn and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,disjunction,intonation,highlighting,answer particles},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universit{\\"a}t G{\\"o}ttingen.},\n\ttitle = {{Disjunctive questions: prosody, syntax, and semantics}},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/PruittRoelofsen2011_Goettingen-disjunctive.pdf},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/PruittRoelofsen2011_Goettingen-disjunctive.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2010\n \n \n (6)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Compliance and non-compliant strategies.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2010.\n Manuscript, University of Amsterdam; Response to comments by Dustin Tucker (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wq1yip0tbrlr8ly/dustin-tuckers-comments.pdf?dl=0) on the Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics paper (https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2009_ISP-Stanford.pdf).\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Compliance$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{GroenendijkRoelofsen:10strategies,\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk and Floris Roelofsen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, University of Amsterdam; Response to comments by Dustin Tucker (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wq1yip0tbrlr8ly/dustin-tuckers-comments.pdf?dl=0) on the Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics paper (https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2009_ISP-Stanford.pdf).},\n\ttitle = {Compliance and non-compliant strategies},\n\turl = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/b0cgccgy1nszihk/Comments%20Dustin%20October%202010.pdf?dl=0},\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n On the semantics and pragmatics of yes/no-questions, yes/no-question disjunctions, and alternative questions: evidence from Chadic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Andreas Haida.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2010.\n Manuscript, Humboldt University of Berlin\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"On$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Haida:10,\n\tabstract = {In a large variety of languages, interrogative markers are closely related in form to disjunctive coordinators. Despite appearance to the contrary, the pertinent semantic question theories cannot explain this formal correlation. The framework of inquisitive semantics developed in this paper provides a natural explanation. The inquisitive-semantic analysis of yes/no-question carries over to yes/no-question disjunctions and alternative questions, but it needs to be supplemented, most notably, by a theory of focus. The paper proposes an inquisitive-semantic variant of the alternative semantics of focus and argues that the question operator is focus sensitive. This provides an account of various focus effects in non-wh-questions.},\n\tauthor = {Andreas Haida},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, Humboldt University of Berlin},\n\ttitle = {On the semantics and pragmatics of yes/no-questions, yes/no-question disjunctions, and alternative questions: evidence from {Chadic}},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Haida2010.pdf},\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Haida2010.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A first-order inquisitive semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu Jager, & Katrin Schulz., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 234–243. Springer, 2010.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Ciardelli:10ac,\n\tabstract = {This paper discusses the extension of propositional inquisitive semantics [Ciardelli and Roelofsen, 2009a, Groenendijk and Roelofsen, 2009] to the first order setting. We show that such an extension requires essential changes in some of the core notions of inquisitive semantics, and we propose and motivate a semantics which retains the essential features of the propositional system.},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth {Amsterdam Colloquium}},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_24},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Harald Bastiaanse and Tikitu de Jager and Katrin Schulz},\n\tpages = {234--243},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {A first-order inquisitive semantics},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14287-1_24},\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14287-1_24},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_24}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Sluicing as anaphora to issues.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Scott AnderBois.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 20), 2010. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Sluicing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Anderbois:10sluicing,\n\tabstract = {Since Merchant 2001, it has been widely agreed that the licensing condition on Sluicing is at least partly semantic in nature. This paper argues that the relevant semantic condition is one of symmetric entailment over a semantics which includes not only truth-conditional information, but also issues in the sense of Groenendijk & Roelofsen 2009. One kind of evidence for the proposal comes from expressions like doubly-negated indefinites and implicit passive agents which do not license Sluicing despite truth-conditional equivalence to overt indefinites. In addition to these facts, the paper examines novel data which show that Sluicing is not licensed by even overt indefinites inside of appositive relative clauses, arguing that these facts (and related facts regarding VP-Ellipsis) follow from the account together with an independently motivated semantics for appositives.},\n\tauthor = {Scott AnderBois},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 20)},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v20i0.2574},\n\tkeywords = {sluicing},\n\ttitle = {Sluicing as anaphora to issues},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2574},\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2574},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2574}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, & Sam Gool.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu Jager, & Katrin Schulz., editor(s), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 384–394, Berlin, 2010. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Disjunctive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{RoelofsenGool:10,\n\tabstract = {This paper examines how intonation affects the interpretation of disjunctive questions. The semantic effect of a question is taken to be three-fold. First, it raises an issue. In the tradition of inquisitive semantics, we model this by assuming that a question proposes several possible updates of the common ground (several possibilities for short) and invites other participants to help establish at least one of these updates. But apart from raising an issue, a question may also highlight and/or suggest certain possibilities, and intonation determines to a large extent which possibilities are highlighted/suggested.},\n\taddress = {Berlin},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and van Gool, Sam},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth {Amsterdam Colloquium}},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_39},\n\teditor = {Aloni, Maria and Bastiaanse, Harald and de Jager, Tikitu and Schulz, Katrin},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,highlighting,answer particles,disjunction,questions,intonation},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {384--394},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {{Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting}},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14287-1_39},\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14287-1_39},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_39}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Radical Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2010.\n Presented at the Colloquium of the Institute for Cognitive Science, University of Osnabrueck, January 13, 2010; the Sixth International Symposium on Logic, Cognition, and Communication at the University of Latvia; and some other places after that. This work is currently continued under the heading suppositional inquisitive semantics\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Radical$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{GroenendijkRoelofsen:10ris,\n\tauthor = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\thandout = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/GroenendijkRoelofsen2010_radical-seminar-handout.pdf},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,negation,conditionals,questions,manuscript},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {Presented at the Colloquium of the Institute for Cognitive Science, University of Osnabrueck, January 13, 2010; the Sixth International Symposium on Logic, Cognition, and Communication at the University of Latvia; and some other places after that. This work is currently continued under the heading suppositional inquisitive semantics},\n\ttitle = {{Radical Inquisitive Semantics}},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2010_Radical.pdf},\n\tyear = {2010},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2010_Radical.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2009\n \n \n (14)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Semantics: a Cross-linguistic Study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sterre Leufkens.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2009.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Leufkens:09,\n\tauthor = {Leufkens, Sterre},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Semantics: a Cross-linguistic Study},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Leufkens2009_Crosslinguistic.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Leufkens2009_Crosslinguistic.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Intonation of disjunctive questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sam Gool.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2009.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Intonation$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Gool:09a,\n\tabstract = {Starting from the observation that for disjunctive questions the choice of an intonation pattern has both semantic and pragmatic implications, this paper has a three-fold aim: (i) to systematically describe and classify the effects of the different intonation patterns, (ii) to isolate the properties of the intonation patterns which cause these effects, (iii) to formalize the intonations as operators in a model for questions, in a framework based on the `inquisitive possibility semantics' developed by Groenendijk, Roelofsen and Ciardelli.},\n\tauthor = {van Gool, Sam},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Intonation of disjunctive questions},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/vanGool2009_IntonationDisjunctive.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/vanGool2009_IntonationDisjunctive.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Syntactic Charaterization of Compliance in Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Irma Cornelisse.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2009.\n BSc thesis, University of Amsterdam. See also the accompanying website: http://www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics/computing-compliance/\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Cornelisse:09,\n\tabstract = {In this paper the notion of compliance (Groenendijk [2008a,b]) in inquisitive semantics (Groenendijk [2008b], Mascarenhas [2008], Ciardelli [2008], Ciardelli and Roelofsen [2009a], Groenendijk and Roelofsen [2009]) is brought into practise. An algorithm for compting compliant responses is presented, based on an earlier draft (Ciardelli and Roelofsen [2009b]). The presented algorithm is proved to be sound and complete. An implementation can be found at www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics/computing-compliance. Furthermore the complexity of the presented algorithm is analysed and (the essential part of the algorithm) is in O(2^2^2^2^2^n), with n the number of proposition letters in the input formula. The large computation time may in the future be reduced by computing not all compliant responses, but only the best candidates.},\n\tauthor = {Cornelisse, Irma},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {BSc thesis, University of Amsterdam. See also the accompanying website: http://www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics/computing-compliance/},\n\ttitle = {A Syntactic Charaterization of Compliance in Inquisitive Semantics},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/theses/Cornelisse2009_BSc-thesis.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/theses/Cornelisse2009_BSc-thesis.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Ciardelli:09thesis,\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive logic},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/theses/Ciardelli2009_InquisitiveSemanticsAndIntermediateLogics.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/theses/Ciardelli2009_InquisitiveSemanticsAndIntermediateLogics.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Theme with variations: a context-based analysis of focus.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kata Balogh.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Theme$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Balogh:09,\n\tabstract = {In this dissertation I proposed a new, context-based analysis of focusing in the framework of Inquisitive Semantics (2008). The logical system of Groenendijk's framework is introduced for modeling dialogues and motivated by this aim it is defined in such a way that it can handle both questions and assertions in a uniform way. In the syntax of inquisitive logic there is no separate category for questions. Questions are defined in terms of disjunction which is motivated by certain similarities observed in natural language examples. As Grice (1975) already pointed out, the natural language 'or' is mostly used to introduce two alternatives of whom the speaker considers one to be true, but does not know which one. With this alternative interpretation disjunctions turn out to be inquisitive. In chapter 2 I introduced the framework of Inquisitive Semantics in detail. De Inquisitieve Semantiek is tevens uitgerust met een systeem voor dialoog management dat is ontwikkeld met het doel om samenhangende dialogen tussen co{\\"o}peratieve deelnemers te modelleren. Dialoogzetten worden aangestuurd door dialoogprincipes die zijn ingegeven door de volgende regels van de griceaanse pragmatiek. The language of Inquisitive Semantics is provided with a dialogue management system that is developed in order to model coherent dialogues between co-operative agents. The dialogue moves are driven by the dialogue principles that are motivated by the main lines of gricean pragmatics. \n\nThe core of the dissertation can be found in chapters 3 to 5, where I propose a new, context-bases analysis of focus, applying and extending the system of Inquisitive Semantics. In order to provide an adequate theory of focusing I provide an analysis for the phenomena of question-answer relation: the notion of congruence, exhaustification of answers; and the focus sensitive particle 'only'. The kernel of my analysis is the claim that the focus structure of the utterance leads to a special theme/rheme division. The theme of a focused sentence is an inherent question, that is determined by the placement of focus. I claim that the intonation pattern of the sentence determines the way of division and determines the theme that has an important role in our semantics. The theme of the focused utterance has a strong link to the actual context, that is determined by the focus requirement as the theme of a focused sentence must be compliant to the actual common ground. I also introduced the recent issues of the exhaustive interpretation of answers. I provided an analysis where the exhaustive interpretation of a focused answer is due to a pragmatic inference that is technically carried out by the secondary uptake of the utterance, the pragmatic operation of 'exhaustification'. My main claim is that the focus sensitive particle 'only' introduces a special issue in addition which corresponds to the expectation of more individuals having the given property (Zeevat 2008; Balogh 2005). I capture this idea by the division of an 'only'-sentence that leads to a theme as the question 'are there more?', and the rheme as the exhaustive statement. In my proposal 'only' corresponds to the semantic operator that takes the theme/ rheme division of the focused utterance it modifies. \n\nAfter having proposed my approach of focus, in chapter 6 I investigated the interpretation of Hungarian structural focus with special attention to the a well known phenomenon that this structural focus is interpreted exhaustively. The pre-verbal focus position in Hungarian is widely claimed to be associated with an exhaustive/identificational semantic interpretation. I suggest a different analysis, and claim that we can apply the analysis of the exhaustive interpretation via a pragmatic inference similarly as proposed for English focusing. Nevertheless, there is a crucial difference that in Hungarian, in case focusing is not triggered by other linguistic devices (contrastive topic, stress avoiding verb etc.) then focusing signals an obligatory implicature of exclusiveness that cannot be cancelled.},\n\tauthor = {Kata Balogh},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Theme with variations: a context-based analysis of focus},\n\turl = {https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2009-07.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.324349}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n

\n In this dissertation I proposed a new, context-based analysis of focusing in the framework of Inquisitive Semantics (2008). The logical system of Groenendijk's framework is introduced for modeling dialogues and motivated by this aim it is defined in such a way that it can handle both questions and assertions in a uniform way. In the syntax of inquisitive logic there is no separate category for questions. Questions are defined in terms of disjunction which is motivated by certain similarities observed in natural language examples. As Grice (1975) already pointed out, the natural language 'or' is mostly used to introduce two alternatives of whom the speaker considers one to be true, but does not know which one. With this alternative interpretation disjunctions turn out to be inquisitive. In chapter 2 I introduced the framework of Inquisitive Semantics in detail. De Inquisitieve Semantiek is tevens uitgerust met een systeem voor dialoog management dat is ontwikkeld met het doel om samenhangende dialogen tussen coöperatieve deelnemers te modelleren. Dialoogzetten worden aangestuurd door dialoogprincipes die zijn ingegeven door de volgende regels van de griceaanse pragmatiek. The language of Inquisitive Semantics is provided with a dialogue management system that is developed in order to model coherent dialogues between co-operative agents. The dialogue moves are driven by the dialogue principles that are motivated by the main lines of gricean pragmatics. The core of the dissertation can be found in chapters 3 to 5, where I propose a new, context-bases analysis of focus, applying and extending the system of Inquisitive Semantics. In order to provide an adequate theory of focusing I provide an analysis for the phenomena of question-answer relation: the notion of congruence, exhaustification of answers; and the focus sensitive particle 'only'. The kernel of my analysis is the claim that the focus structure of the utterance leads to a special theme/rheme division. The theme of a focused sentence is an inherent question, that is determined by the placement of focus. I claim that the intonation pattern of the sentence determines the way of division and determines the theme that has an important role in our semantics. The theme of the focused utterance has a strong link to the actual context, that is determined by the focus requirement as the theme of a focused sentence must be compliant to the actual common ground. I also introduced the recent issues of the exhaustive interpretation of answers. I provided an analysis where the exhaustive interpretation of a focused answer is due to a pragmatic inference that is technically carried out by the secondary uptake of the utterance, the pragmatic operation of 'exhaustification'. My main claim is that the focus sensitive particle 'only' introduces a special issue in addition which corresponds to the expectation of more individuals having the given property (Zeevat 2008; Balogh 2005). I capture this idea by the division of an 'only'-sentence that leads to a theme as the question 'are there more?', and the rheme as the exhaustive statement. In my proposal 'only' corresponds to the semantic operator that takes the theme/ rheme division of the focused utterance it modifies. After having proposed my approach of focus, in chapter 6 I investigated the interpretation of Hungarian structural focus with special attention to the a well known phenomenon that this structural focus is interpreted exhaustively. The pre-verbal focus position in Hungarian is widely claimed to be associated with an exhaustive/identificational semantic interpretation. I suggest a different analysis, and claim that we can apply the analysis of the exhaustive interpretation via a pragmatic inference similarly as proposed for English focusing. Nevertheless, there is a crucial difference that in Hungarian, in case focusing is not triggered by other linguistic devices (contrastive topic, stress avoiding verb etc.) then focusing signals an obligatory implicature of exclusiveness that cannot be cancelled.\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Semantics: Questions, Assertions, and Hybrids.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2009.\n Manuscript, Amsterdam; Presented during a seminar at NYU\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Groenendijk:09qah,\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, Amsterdam; Presented during a seminar at NYU},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Semantics: Questions, Assertions, and Hybrids},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Groenendijk2009_AssertionsQuestionsHybrids.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Groenendijk2009_AssertionsQuestionsHybrids.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Sound and Complete Tree-Sequent Calculus for Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Katsuhiko Sano.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation, 2009. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Sound$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Sano:09,\n\tabstract = {We introduce a tree-sequent calculus for inquisitive logic (Groenendijk 2008) as a special form of labelled deductive system (Gabbay 1996). In particular, we establish that (i) our tree-sequent calculus is sound and complete with respect to Groenendijk's inquisitive semantics and that (ii) our tree-sequent calculus is decidable and enjoys cut-elimination theorem. (ii) is semantically revealed by our argument for (i). The key idea which allows us to obtain these results is as follows: In Groenendijk's inquisitive semantics, a formula of propositional logic is evaluated against a pair of worlds on a model. Given the appropriate pre-order on the set of such pairs, any inquisitive model can be regarded as a Kripke model for intuitionistic logic. This representation enables us to connect inquisitive semantics with the tree-sequent technique for non-classical logics (Kashima 1999).},\n\tauthor = {Katsuhiko Sano},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixteenth Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-02261-6_29},\n\ttitle = {Sound and Complete Tree-Sequent Calculus for Inquisitive Logic},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-02261-6_29},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-02261-6_29},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02261-6_29}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Semantics: Two Possibilities for Disjunction.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Peter Bosch, David Gabelaia, & Jérôme Lang., editor(s), Proceedings of the Seventh International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation, pages 80-94. Springer-Verlag, 2009.\n A prefinal version of the paper, which is a few pages longer: http://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Reports/PP-2008-26.text.pdf\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Groenendijk:09tbilisi-extended,\n\tabstract = {We introduce an inquisitive semantics for a language of propositional logic, where the interpretation of disjunction is the source of inquisitiveness. Indicative conditionals and conditional questions are treated on a par both syntactically and semantically. The semantics comes with a new logical-pragmatical notion which judges and compares the compliance of responses to an initiative in inquisitive dialogue.},\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the Seventh International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_8},\n\teditor = {Peter Bosch and David Gabelaia and J{\\'e}r{\\^o}me Lang},\n\tnote = {A prefinal version of the paper, which is a few pages longer: http://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Reports/PP-2008-26.text.pdf},\n\tpages = {80-94},\n\tpublisher = {Springer-Verlag},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Semantics: Two Possibilities for Disjunction},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_8},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_8},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_8}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Non-interrogative Questions in Yukatec Maya.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Scott AnderBois.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Non-interrogative$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@conference{AnderBois:09sula,\n\taddress = {USA},\n\tauthor = {Scott AnderBois},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tpublisher = {MIT},\n\ttitle = {Non-interrogative Questions in Yukatec Maya},\n\turl = {https://sites.clps.brown.edu/anderbois/files/2013/12/AnderBoisSULA.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://web.mit.edu/sula5/program.html}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Uninformativity and focus in questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Scott AnderBois.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Proceedings of the first meeting of Californian Universities on Semantics and Pragmatics (CUSP). 2009.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Uninformativity$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Anderbois:09cusp,\n\tauthor = {Scott AnderBois},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Proceedings of the first meeting of Californian Universities on Semantics and Pragmatics (CUSP)},\n\ttitle = {Uninformativity and focus in questions},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TBiNzMxN/CUSP.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TBiNzMxN/CUSP.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Workshop on Language, Communication and Rational Agency, 2009. \n An earlier version appeared in J.M. Larrazabal and L. Zubeldia, editors, Meaning, Content and Argument, Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics and Rhetoric, pages 41-72, University of the Basque Country Publication Service, 2009 (https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2009_SPR.pdf). Dustin Tucker provided interesting comments (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wq1yip0tbrlr8ly/dustin-tuckers-comments.pdf?dl=0) on this paper, and a response to these comments is also available (https://www.dropbox.com/s/b0cgccgy1nszihk/Comments%20Dustin%20October%202010.pdf?dl=0).\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{GroenendijkRoelofsen:09michigan,\n\tabstract = {This paper starts with an informal introduction to inquisitive semantics. After that, we present a formal definition of the semantics, introduce the semantic notions of inquisitiveness and informativeness, and define the semantic categories of questions, assertions, and hybrid\nsentences.\n\nThe focus of the paper will be on the logical pragmatical notions that the semantics gives rise to. We introduce and motivate inquisitive versions of principles of cooperation, which direct a conversation towards enhancement of the common ground. We define a notion of compliance, which judges relatedness of one utterance to another, and a notion of homogeneity, which enables quantitative comparison of compliant moves. We end the paper with an illustration of the cooperative way in which implicatures are established, or cancelled, in inquisitive pragmatics.},\n\tauthor = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Workshop on Language, Communication and Rational Agency},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,inquisitive pragmatics,disjunction},\n\tnote = {An earlier version appeared in J.M. Larrazabal and L. Zubeldia, editors, Meaning, Content and Argument, Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics and Rhetoric, pages 41-72, University of the Basque Country Publication Service, 2009 (https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2009_SPR.pdf). Dustin Tucker provided interesting comments (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wq1yip0tbrlr8ly/dustin-tuckers-comments.pdf?dl=0) on this paper, and a response to these comments is also available (https://www.dropbox.com/s/b0cgccgy1nszihk/Comments%20Dustin%20October%202010.pdf?dl=0).},\n\ttitle = {{Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics}},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2009_ISP-Stanford.pdf},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/GroenendijkRoelofsen2009_ISP-Stanford.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Computing Compliance.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Irma Cornelisse, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In X He, J Horty, & E Pacuit., editor(s), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, pages 55–65, 2009. Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Computing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:09lori,\n\tabstract = {Inquisitive semantics (cf. Groenendijk, 2008) provides a formal framework for reasoning about information exchange. The central logical notion that the semantics gives rise to is compliance. This paper presents an algorithm that computes the set of compliant responses to a given initiative. The algorithm is sound and complete. The implementation is accessible online via www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics .},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Cornelisse, Irma and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Logic, Rationality, and Interaction},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_5},\n\teditor = {He, X and Horty, J and Pacuit, E},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,compliance,computational},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {55--65},\n\tpublisher = {Springer},\n\ttitle = {{Computing Compliance}},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/computing-compliance/},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_5}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Attention! Might in Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Satoshi Ito, & Ed Cormany., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 19), pages 91-108, 2009. CLC Publications\n The handout version of this paper (https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/CiardelliGroenendijkRoelofsen2009_SALT.pdf) presented a slightly different theory, which may be of independent interest.\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Attention!$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 10 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:09salt,\n\tabstract = {This paper points out that the notion of meaning propounded by inquisitive semantics is not only suited to capture both informative and inquisitive content, but also a sentence's potential to draw attention to certain possibilities. This gives rise to a novel analysis of 'might'.},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 19)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v19i0.2520},\n\teditor = {Ito, Satoshi and Cormany, Ed},\n\thandout = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/CiardelliGroenendijkRoelofsen2009_SALT.pdf},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,attention,might,modality,free choice},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\tnote = {The handout version of this paper (https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/handouts/CiardelliGroenendijkRoelofsen2009_SALT.pdf) presented a slightly different theory, which may be of independent interest.},\n\tpages = {91-108},\n\tpublisher = {CLC Publications},\n\ttitle = {{Attention! Might in Inquisitive Semantics}},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2520/2268},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2520/2268},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2520}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Generalized Inquisitive Logic: Completeness via Intuitionistic Kripke Models.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli, & Floris Roelofsen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Theoretical Aspacts of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 12), 2009. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Generalized$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{CiardelliRoelofsen:09tark,\n\tabstract = {This paper investigates a generalized version of inquisitive semantics (Groenendijk, 2008b; Mascarenhas, 2008). A complete axiomatization of the associated logic is established. The connection with intuitionistic logic is clarified and heavily exploited.},\n\tannote = {Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge},\n\tauthor = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},\n\tbooktitle = {Theoretical Aspacts of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 12)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1145/1562814.1562827},\n\tkeywords = {inquisitive semantics,philosophical logic},\n\tmendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},\n\ttitle = {{Generalized Inquisitive Logic: Completeness via Intuitionistic {Kripke} Models}},\n\turl = {https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1562814.1562827},\n\tyear = {2009},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1562814.1562827},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1145/1562814.1562827}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2008\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Generalized Inquisitive Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ivano Ciardelli.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2008.\n Term paper, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"A$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Ciardelli:08,\n\tabstract = {In Inquisitive Semantics, formulas are evaluated on ordered pairs of indices; actually, the order of the pair is irrelevant, so these pairs could just just as well be taken to be non-empty sets of indices of cardinality at most two. This last restriction, however, sounds particularly unnatural, especially considering that the definition of inquisitive semantics can be easily reformulated in such a way that it is meaningful for any non-empty set of indices. \nIn this little paper I investigate the consequences of undertaking this generalized approach. In section 1 I introduce the generalized inquisitive semantics, I reformulate the notions of standard inquisitive semantic for this extended setting, and I prove many basic properties of the system, most of which are the analogue of properties of inquisitive logic.},\n\tauthor = {Ivano Ciardelli},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {termpaper},\n\tnote = {Term paper, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {A Generalized Inquisitive Semantics},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Ciardelli2008_GIL.pdf},\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Ciardelli2008_GIL.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inquisitive Semantics and Logic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Salvador Mascarenhas.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2008.\n Manuscript, University of Amsterdam\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Inquisitive$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@mastersthesis{Mascarenhas:08,\n\tauthor = {Salvador Mascarenhas},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tnote = {Manuscript, University of Amsterdam},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Inquisitive Semantics and Logic},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/825/1/MoL-2009-18.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/825/1/MoL-2009-18.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Perspectives on concealed questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Floris Roelofsen, & Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Tova Friedman, & Satoshi Ito., editor(s), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 18), pages 619–636, 2008. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Perspectives$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{RoelofsenAloni:08,\n\tabstract = {This paper presents a novel theory of concealed questions (CQs). The theoryis the first to provide a unified and principled account of definite, indefinite,and quantified CQs and CCQs (CQ-containing CQs).},\n\tauthor = {Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 18)},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.3765/salt.v18i0.2500},\n\teditor = {Tova Friedman and Satoshi Ito},\n\tkeywords = {theoretical linguistics,questions,concealed questions,conceptual covers,quantification,ellipsis},\n\tmendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},\n\tpages = {619--636},\n\ttitle = {{Perspectives on concealed questions}},\n\turl = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2500},\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2500},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2500}}\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2007\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n The Dynamics of Inquiry.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2007.\n Handout presented at the Symposium on Philosophical Consequences of Dynamic Logic, held at the Central APA Meeting in Chicago\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@unpublished{Groenendijk:07,\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tnote = {Handout presented at the Symposium on Philosophical Consequences of Dynamic Logic, held at the Central APA Meeting in Chicago},\n\ttitle = {The Dynamics of Inquiry},\n\tyear = {2007}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Axiomatizing Groenendijk's Logic of Interrogation.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Balder Cate, & Chung-Chieh Shan.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Maria Aloni, Alistair Butler, & Paul Dekker., editor(s), Questions in Dynamic Semantics, pages 63–82. Elsevier, 2007.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Axiomatizing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{CateShan:07,\n\tabstract = {Jeroen Groenendijk introduced a logic, which he called the Logic of Interrogation (LoI), that can be used to analyze which linguistic answers are appropriate in response to a given question. Groenendijk gave only a semantic definition of his logic. For practical applications like building question-answering systems, understanding of the proof theory of this logic is needed. This chapter bridges this gap by providing a sound and complete axiomatization for Lol. It presents a connection between entailment in LoI and Beth's definability theorem for first-order logic. The chapter explains how LoI can be seen not only as a logic for reasoning about linguistic questions and answers, but also with natural interpretations in mathematics, database theory, and philosophical logic. Finally, it shows not only a natural linguistic interpretation, but also describes equivalence relations between models, reductions among database queries, and logicality of operations.},\n\tauthor = {ten Cate, Balder and Chung-Chieh Shan},\n\tbooktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1163/9780080470993_004},\n\teditor = {Maria Aloni and Alistair Butler and Paul Dekker},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {63--82},\n\tpublisher = {Elsevier},\n\ttitle = {Axiomatizing {G}roenendijk's Logic of Interrogation},\n\turl = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9780080470993/B9780080470993-s004.xml},\n\tyear = {2007},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9780080470993/B9780080470993-s004.xml},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_004}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Free Choice, Modals and Imperatives.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Maria Aloni.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 15(1): 65–94. 2007.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Free$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Aloni:07,\n\tauthor = {Maria Aloni},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {65--94},\n\ttitle = {Free Choice, Modals and Imperatives},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2#citeas},\n\tvolume = {15},\n\tyear = {2007},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2#citeas},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2006\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Disjunction in Alternative Semantics.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Luis Alonso-Ovalle.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2006.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Disjunction$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{Alonso:06,\n\tauthor = {Luis Alonso-Ovalle},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tschool = {University of Massachusetts, Amherst},\n\ttitle = {Disjunction in Alternative Semantics},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TVkY2ZlM/alonso-ovalle2006.pdf},\n\tyear = {2006},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TVkY2ZlM/alonso-ovalle2006.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2005\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Dividing things up: the semantics of or and the modal/or interaction.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Mandy Simons.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Natural Language Semantics, 13(3): 271–316. 2005.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Dividing$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Simons:05,\n\tabstract = {In this paper, the meanings of sentences containing the word or and a modal verb are used to arrive at a novel account of the meaning of or coordinations. It is proposed that or coordinations denote sets whose members are the denotations of the disjuncts; and that the truth conditions of sentences containing or coordinations require the existence of some set made available by the semantic environment which can be `divided up' in accordance with the disjuncts. The relevant notion of `dividing things up' is made explicit in the paper. Detailed attention is given to the question of how the proposed truth conditions are derived from the syntactic input. The account offered allows for the derivation of both the disjunctive and the non-disjunctive readings of modal/or sentences, including the much-discussed `free choice' readings of may/or sentences.},\n\tauthor = {Mandy Simons},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7},\n\tjournal = {Natural Language Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tpages = {271--316},\n\ttitle = {Dividing things up: the semantics of or and the modal/or interaction},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7},\n\tvolume = {13},\n\tyear = {2005},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 2002\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Angelika Kratzer, & Junko Shimoyama.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Yukio Otsu., editor(s), The Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pages 1–25, 2002. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Indeterminate$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{KratzerShimoyama:02,\n\tauthor = {Angelika Kratzer and Junko Shimoyama},\n\tbooktitle = {The Third {Tokyo} Conference on Psycholinguistics},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Yukio Otsu},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {1--25},\n\ttitle = {Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from {J}apanese},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNjc4Z/Indeterminate%20Pronouns.pdf},\n\tyear = {2002},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNjc4Z/Indeterminate%20Pronouns.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1999\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Logic of Interrogation.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n 1999.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"The$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@conference{Groenendijk:99,\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk},\n\tbooktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {109--126},\n\tpublisher = {Cornell University Press},\n\ttitle = {The Logic of Interrogation},\n\turl = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Groenendijk1999_LogicOfInterrogation.pdf},\n\tyear = {1999},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers/Groenendijk1999_LogicOfInterrogation.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1997\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Structured information states: raising and resolving issues.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Joris Hulstijn.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Anton Benz, & Gerhard Jäger., editor(s), Proceedings of MunDial, 1997. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Structured$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Hulstijn:97,\n\tauthor = {Joris Hulstijn},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of MunDial},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Anton Benz and Gerhard J{\\"a}ger},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\ttitle = {Structured information states: raising and resolving issues},\n\turl = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.6905},\n\tyear = {1997},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.6905}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk, & Martin Stokhof.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Johan, & Alice., editor(s), Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 1055–1124. Elsevier, 1997.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{GroenendijkStokhof:97,\n\tauthor = {Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof},\n\tbooktitle = {Handbook of Logic and Language},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {Johan {van Benthem} and Alice {ter Meulen}},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {1055--1124},\n\tpublisher = {Elsevier},\n\ttitle = {Questions},\n\turl = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/640/1/X-1999-02.text.pdf},\n\tyear = {1997},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/640/1/X-1999-02.text.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1996\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Information Structure in Discourse.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Craige Roberts.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In J.H. Yoon, & A. Kathol., editor(s), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 49, pages 91–136. Ohio State University, 1996.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Information$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@incollection{Roberts:96,\n\tauthor = {Craige Roberts},\n\tbooktitle = {OSU Working Papers in Linguistics},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\teditor = {J.H. Yoon and A. Kathol},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {91--136},\n\tpublisher = {Ohio State University},\n\ttitle = {Information Structure in Discourse},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WYzOTRkO/InfoStructure.pdf},\n\tvolume = {49},\n\tyear = {1996},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WYzOTRkO/InfoStructure.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Only updates: on the dynamics of the focus particle only.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gerhard Jäger.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Paul Dekker, & Martin Stokhof., editor(s), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, 1996. \n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Only$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@inproceedings{Jager:96,\n\tabstract = {This chapter aims to extend the coverage of the dynamic paradigm to phenomena involving the focus sensitive operator only. Constructions involving this item show a dependency on linguistic context reminiscent to the behavior of anaphora. Existing approaches address this phenomenon by weakening the compositionality of interpretation in several respects. The chapter outlines a dynamic theory of the semantics of these constructions that preserves compositionality both on the sentence and on the text level. The semantics of ULQA makes use of a kind of simulated partiality. The implicit universal quantification introduced by only-constructions is restricted by contextual information. According to Rooth (1992), these constructions nevertheless involve classical universal quantification which is restricted by a syntactically present anaphor. The chapter concludes that the semantics of universal quantification is changed in such a way that it is restricted implicitly by the context.},\n\tauthor = {J{\\"a}ger, Gerhard},\n\tbooktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1163/9780080470993_006},\n\teditor = {Paul Dekker and Martin Stokhof},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\ttitle = {Only updates: on the dynamics of the focus particle only},\n\turl = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9780080470993/B9780080470993-s006.xml},\n\tyear = {1996},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9780080470993/B9780080470993-s006.xml},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_006}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1984\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Jeroen Groenendijk, & Martin Stokhof.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1984.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Studies$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@phdthesis{GS:84,\n\tauthor = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tschool = {University of Amsterdam},\n\ttitle = {Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers},\n\turl = {https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.392528},\n\tyear = {1984},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.392528}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1978\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Assertion.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Robert Stalnaker.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Syntax and Semantics, 9: 315–332. 1978.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Assertion$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Stalnaker:78,\n\tauthor = {Robert Stalnaker},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Syntax and Semantics},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {315--332},\n\ttitle = {Assertion},\n\turl = {http://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Courses/PHI534-2012-13/Lepore/stalnaker78.pdf},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tyear = {1978},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Courses/PHI534-2012-13/Lepore/stalnaker78.pdf}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1977\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Syntax and Semantics of Questions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lauri Karttunen.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Linguistics and Philosophy, 1: 3-44. 1977.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Syntax$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Karttunen:77,\n\tauthor = {Lauri Karttunen},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/bf00351935},\n\tjournal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tpages = {3-44},\n\ttitle = {Syntax and Semantics of Questions},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00351935},\n\tvolume = {1},\n\tyear = {1977},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00351935}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n 1973\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Questions in Montague English.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Charles L. Hamblin.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Foundations of Language, 10(1): 41-53. 1973.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n $\"Questions$ Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

@article{Hamblin:73,\n\tauthor = {Hamblin, Charles L.},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tjournal = {Foundations of Language},\n\tkeywords = {background},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tpages = {41-53},\n\ttitle = {Questions in {M}ontague {E}nglish},\n\turl = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703},\n\tvolume = {10},\n\tyear = {1973},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703}}\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n \n undefined\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n

\n

\n \n \n

\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n A Multi-type Calculus for Inquisitive Logic.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Sabine Frittella, Giuseppe Greco, Alessandra Palmigiano, & Fan Yang.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information, and Computation, pages 215–233, . Springer\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n

\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n