Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (2010) Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27: 37–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aloni, M. 2003. Free choice in modal contexts. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, ed. M. Weisgerber, 28–37. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • AnderBois, S. 2009. Non-interrogative questions in Yukatek Maya. In Proceedings of SULA 5 (UMOP 41), ed. S. Lima, 1–16. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • AnderBois, S. 2010. Sluicing as anaphora to issues. In Proceedings of SALT 20, ed. N. Li and D. Lutz, 451–470. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • AnderBois, S. 2011a. Issues and alternatives. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.

  • AnderBois, S. 2011b. Strong positions and laryngeal features. In Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. S. Lina et al., 41–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Avelino, H. 2009. Intonational patterns of topic and focus constructions in Yucatec Maya. In New perspectives in Mayan linguistics, MITWPL, 1–21. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  • Balogh, K. 2009. Theme with variations. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Kim S. (2006) Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Computational German Linguistics 9: 165–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhat D. (2000) The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4: 365–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasoveanu, A., 2007. Structured nominal and modal reference. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.

  • Cable, S. 2007. The grammar of Q. PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Chomsky N. (1972) Studies on semantics in generative grammar. Mouton, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciardelli, I. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics, M.Sc. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., Roelofsen, F. 2009. Might and free choice in inquisitive semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 19. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • den Dikken, M. 2009. Predication and specification in the syntax of cleft sentences. Manuscript, CUNY. http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/lingu/dendikken/papers.html.

  • Farkas, D. 2003. Assertion, belief and mood choice. In Workshop on Conditional and Unconditional Modality, ESSLLI.

  • Farkas D., Bruce K. (2010) On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1): 81–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, J. 2002. L-analyticity and natural language. Manuscript, MIT.

  • Gajewski, J. 2009. L-triviality and grammar. Manuscript, University of Connecticut. Distributed at UConn Logic Group, 2/27/09.

  • Geurts B. (2005) Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B., van der Sandt R. (2004) Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. 2007. Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction. In Proceedings of the 7th international Tbilisi symposium on language, logic, and computation, ed. P. Bosch et al., 80–94. Berlin: Springer.

  • Groenendijk, J., Roelofsen, F. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In Proceedings of the ILCLI international workshop on semantics, pragmatcis, and rhetoric, ed. J. Larrzabal and L. Zubeldia, 41–72. Leioa: University of the Basque Country Publication Service.

  • Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Gunlogson, C. 2001. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.

  • Gussenhoven, C., Teeuw, R. 2008. A moraic and a syllabic h-tone in Yucatec Maya. In Fonologia instrumental: Patrones fonicos y variacion, ed. E. Herrera, 49–71. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico.

  • Haida, A. 2008. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University.

  • Hamblin C.L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath M. (1997) Indefinite pronouns. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer E., Muskens R. (1995) Negation and disjunction in discourse representation theory. Journal of Semantics 12: 357–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A., Shimoyama, J. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  • Kripke S. (2009) Presupposition and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 367–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuegler, F., Skopeteas, S., Verhoeven, E. 2007. Encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya: On the interplay of prosody and syntax. In Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 08, ed. S.J. Shinichiro Ishihara and A. Schwarz, 187–208. Potsdam: Potsdam University.

  • Lahiri U. (2002) Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas, S. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and logic. Master’s thesis, ILLC Amsterdam.

  • Mikkelsen, L. 2011. Copular clauses. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. K. von Heusinger et al., 1805–1829. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Moyse-Faurie, C., Lynch, J. 2004. Coordination in oceanic languages and proto oceanic. In Coordinating constructions, ed. M. Haspelmath, 445–497. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Novel, M., Romero, M. 2010. Movement, variables and Hamblin alternatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, ed. M. Prinzhorn et al., 322–338. Vienna: University of Vienna.

  • Pruitt, K. 2007. Perceptual relevance of prosodic features in non-wh-questions with disjunction. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rooth, M., Partee, B. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope or. In WCCFL 1, 353–362. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.

  • Schlenker P. (2006) Scopal independence: A note on branching and wide scope readings of indefinites and disjunctions. Journal of Semantics 21: 281–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, C. 2004. Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls for variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. R. Young, 289–304. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Simons M. (2000) Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons M. (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons M. (2007) Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C. 2011. What projects and why. In Proceedings of SALT 20, ed. N. Li and D. Lutz, 309–327. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and semantics 9, ed. P. Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.

  • Tonhauser, J. 2003. On the syntax and semantics of content questions in Yucatec Maya. In Proceedings of the 6th workshop on American Indian Languages (WAIL), ed. J. Castillo, 106–122. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics.

  • Tonhauser, J. 2011. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. In Proceedings of SULA 6, ed. E. Bogal-Allbritten, 239–254. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Ultan, R. 1978. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax, ed. J. Greenberg et al., 211–248. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • van Rooij R. (1998) Modal subordination in questions. Twendial 98: 237–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward G., Hirschberg J. (1991) A pragmatic analysis of tautological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamashina, M., Tancredi, C. 2005. Degenerate plurals. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9, ed. E. Maier et al., 522–537. Berlin: Humboldt University.

  • Zimmermann T.E. (2000) Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, 503 Lattimore Hall, University of Rochester, PO Box 270096, Rochester, NY, 14627–0096, USA

    Scott AnderBois

Authors
  1. Scott AnderBois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott AnderBois.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

AnderBois, S. Focus and uninformativity in Yucatec Maya questions. Nat Lang Semantics 20, 349–390 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9084-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation