Abstract
Taking the lead from orthodox quantum theory, I will introduce a handy generalization of the Boolean approach to propositions and questions: the orthoalgebraic framework. I will demonstrate that this formalism relates to a formal theory of questions (or ‘observables’ in the physicist’s jargon). This theory allows formulating attitude questions, which normally are non-commuting, i.e., the ordering of the questions affects the answer behavior of attitude questions. Further, it allows the expression of conditional questions such as “If Mary reads the book, will she recommend it to Peter?”, and thus gives the framework the semantic power of raising issues and being informative at the same time. In the case of commuting observables, there are close similarities between the orthoalgebraic approach to questions and the Jäger/Hulstijn approach to question semantics. However, there are also differences between the two approaches even in case of commuting observables. The main difference is that the Jäger/Hulstijn approach relates to a partition theory of questions whereas the orthoalgebraic approach relates to a ‘decorated’ partition theory (i.e. the elements of the partition are decorated by certain semantic values). Surprisingly, the orthoalgebraic approach is able to overcome most of the difficulties of the Jäger/Hulstijn approach. Furthermore, the general approach is suitable to describe the different types of (non-commutative) attitude questions as investigated in modern survey research. Concluding, I will suggest that an active dialogue between the traditional model-theoretic approaches to semantics and the orthoalgebraic paradigm is mandatory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aerts D. (1982) Example of a macroscopical classical situation that violates Bell inequalities. Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento 34(4): 107–111
Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2008). A case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition, New Ideas in Psychology. Archive reference and link: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404068.
Amira H., Coecke B., Stubbe I. (1998) How quantales emerge by introducing induction within the operational approach. Helvetica Physica Acta 71(5): 554–572
Arita, S., & Kaufmann, S. (2008). The Japanese unconditional operator doose. Paper presented at the 10th symposium on logic and language (LoLa 10).
Axler S. (1996) Linear algebra done right. Springer, New York
Birkhoff G., von Neumann J. (1936) The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics 37(4): 823–843
Blutner R. (2009) Concepts and bounded Rationality:. In: Accardi L., Adenier G., Fuchs C., Jaeger G., Khrennikov A. Y., Larsson, & S. Stenholm J.-Å., S. Stenholm (eds) Foundations of probability and physics-5. American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, New York, pp 302–310
Blutner R. (2010) Quantum mechanics meets cognitive science: Explanatory vs. descriptive approaches. NeuroQuantology 8(3): 314–318
Blutner R., Hochnadel E. (2010) Two qubits for C.G. Jung’s theory of personality. Cognitive Systems Research 11(3): 243–259
Bruza, P., Busemeyer, J. R., & Gabora, L. (2009). Special issue on quantum cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5).
Coecke B., Sadrzadeh M., Clark S. (2011) Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. Linguistic Analysis 36: 345–384
DallaChiara M. L., Giuntini R., Greechie R. (2004) Reasoning in quantum theory: Sharp and unsharp quantum logics. Springer, Berlin, New York
Downs A. (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper, New York
Dunn J. M., Hardegree G. M. (2001) Algebraic methods in philosophical logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?. Physical Review 47: 777–780
Franco, R. (2007a). The conjunction fallacy and interference effects. Arxiv preprint arXiv:0708.3948.
Franco, R. (2007b). Quantum mechanics and rational ignorance. Arxiv preprint physics/0702163.
Groenendijk J. (2009) Inquisitive semantics:. In: Bosch P., Gabelaia D., Lang J. (eds) Logic, language, and computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 80–94
Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1984) Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Jurriaans BV, Amsterdam
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055–1124). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hamblin C. L. (1973) Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53
Hausser, R. (eds) (1983) The syntax and semantics of English mood. Reidel, Dordrecht
Hulstijn, J. (1997). Structured information states. Raising and resolving issues. In Proceedings of MunDial97. University of Munich.
Isaacs J., Rawlins K. (2008) Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25: 269–319
Jäger, G. (1996). Only updates. On the dynamics of the focus particle only. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 387–405).
Johnson E. J., Haubl G., Keinan A. (2007) Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 33(3): 461–473
Johnson J. G., Busemeyer J. R. (2010) Decision making under risk and uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(5): 736–749
Jung C. G. (1921) Psychologische Typen. Rascher, Zürich
Jung C. G., von Franz M.-L., Henderson J. L. (1968) Der Mensch und seine Symbole. Walter, Solothurn & Düsseldorf
Kalmbach G. (1983) Orthomodular lattices. Academic Press, London
Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44
Khrennikov A. Y. (2006) Quantum-like brain: “Interference of minds”. BioSystems 84(3): 225–241
Krifka M. (2001) For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. Studia Grammatika 52: 287–319
Krifka M. (2004) The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. In: Lee C., Gordon M., Büring D. (eds) Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation. Springer, Berlin
Lindley D. (2008) Uncertainty. Anchor Books, New York
Loeser F. (1968) Interrogativlogik. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin
Lüders, G. (1951). Über die Zustandsänderung durch den Meßprozeß. Annalen der Physik, 8, 322–328.
Miyadera, T., & Imai, H. (2009). No-cloning theorem on quantum logics. Available from http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3229v3.
Moore D. W. (2002) Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. The Public Opinion Quarterly 66(1): 80–91
Nelken, R., & Francez, N. (1999). The algebraic semantics of questions. Paper presented at the MOL6, the 6th meeting on mathematics of language.
Nelken R., Francez N. (2000) The algebraic semantics of interrogative NPs. Grammars 3(2): 259–273
Nelken R., Francez N. (2002) Bilattices and the semantics of natural language questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 37–64
Niestegge G. (2008) An approach to quantum mechanics via conditional probabilities. Foundations of Physics 38: 241–256
Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of quantum physics. Reading, Mass: WA Benjamin, Inc.
Rawlins, K. (2008). (Un)conditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UCSC.
Rédei M. (2009) The Birkhoff–von Neumann concept of quantum logic. In: Engesser K., Gabbay D. M., Lehmann D. (eds) Handbook of quantum logic and quantum structures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–22
Roelofsen F., van Gool S. (2010) Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting. In: Aloni M., Bastiaanse H., Jager T. D., Schulz K. (eds) Logic, language and meaning. Springer, Berlin, pp 384–394
Schuman H., Presser S. (1981) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments in question form, wording, and context. Academic Press, New York
Strang G. (2003) Introduction to linear algebra. Wellesley Cambridge Press, Cambridge
Sudman S., Bradburn N. M. (1982) Asking questions. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub, San Francisco
Tichy P. (1978) Questions, answers, and logic. American Philosphical Quaterly 15: 275–284
Tourangeau R., Rips L. J., Rasinski K. (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vedral V. (2006) Introduction to quantum information science. Oxford University Press, New York
Velissaratou, S. (2000). Conditional questions and which-interrogatives: Master of Logic Thesis MoL-2000-01, ILLC/University of Amsterdam.
Von Neumann J. (1932) Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Transl. by R. Beyer (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1955). Springer, Heidelberg
Von Stechow A. (1991) Focusing and backgrounding operators. In: Abraham W. (eds) Discourse particles. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 37–84
Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). Explaining and predicting question order effects using a quantum probability model. Under review.
Weber E. U., Johnson E. J. (2006) Constructing preferences from memories. In: Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. (eds) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp 397–410
Weber E. U., Johnson E. J. (2009) Mindful judgement and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 53–85
Wiśniewski A. (1995) The posing of questions: Logical foundations of erotetic inferences. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Zaefferer D. (1991) Conditionals and unconditionals. In: Cooper R., Mukai K., Peny J. (eds) Situation theory and its applications. Stanford, Cal: CSLI, pp 471–492
Acknowledgments
Thanks for valuable comments and discussions go to Maria Aloni, Anton Benz, Stefan Blutner, Hans-Martin Gärtner, Peter beim Graben, Manfred Krifka, Michiel van Lambalgen, Salvador Mascarenhas, Emar Maier, Floris Roelofsen, and two anonymous referees of JoLLI. Further, I thank the participants of an ESSLLI (2011) class on geometric models of meaning (see http://www.blutner.de/esslli), my students on quantum probabilities in Amsterdam (see http://www.blutner.de/uncert), and the participants of my lectures on ortho-algebraic semantics held at ZAS in 2008. Special thanks go to Anton Benz and Hans-Martin Gärtner for initiating the ZAS lectures.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Blutner, R. Questions and Answers in an Orthoalgebraic Approach. J of Log Lang and Inf 21, 237–277 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-012-9158-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-012-9158-0