Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responding to alternative and polar questions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

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

  • Adger D., Quer J. (2001) The syntax and semantics of unselected embedded questions. Language 77: 107–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aloni M. (2003) Free choice in modal contexts. Proceedings of SuB 7: 28–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Aloni, M., Égré, P., & de Jager, T. (2009). Knowing whether A or B. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9646-1.

  • Aloni, M., & van Rooy, R. (2002). The dynamics of questions and focus. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 12. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2004). Simplification of disjunctive antecedents. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 34, pp. 1–15). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2005). Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society (Vol. 35). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Aoun J., Li Y.-H. A. (2003) Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. L. (1968). Indirect questions in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.

  • Baker Carl Lee (1970) Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels C. (1999) The intonation of English statements and questions. Garland Publishing., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belnap N., Steel T. (1976) The logic of questions and answers. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Biezma, M. (2009). Alternative vs. polar questions: The cornering effect. In Proceedings of SALT 19.

  • Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes–no questions are not alternative questions. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.

  • Bresnan, J. (1972). Theory of complementation in English syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Büring D. (2003) On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26: 511–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D., & Gunlogson, C. (2000). Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? Manuscript, UCSC/UCLA.

  • Cable, S. (2007). The grammar of q: Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting, as revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Chierchia G. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2009). Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: Evidence for embedded implicatures. In P. Égré & G. Magri (Eds.) Presuppositions and implicatures. Proceedings of the MIT-Paris workshop (Vol. 60). MITWPL 60, Paris.

  • Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2011). The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Eckardt, R. (2006). The syntax and pragmatics of embedded yes/no questions. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 447–466). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Farkas, D. (2007). The grammar of polarity particles in Romanian. Manuscript, UCSC

  • Farkas, D. (2009). Polarity particles in Hungarian. In M. den Dikken & R. M. Vago (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2006). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Manuscript, MIT.

  • Gawron, J. M. (2001). Universal concessive conditionals and alternative NPs in English. In C. Condoravdi & G. R. de Lavalette (Eds.), Logical perspectives on language and information. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Ginzburg, J. (1994). An update semantics for dialogue. In H. Bunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on computational semantics, Tilburg.

  • Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Language, logic, and computation (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: CSLI Lecture Notes.

  • Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford University Press.

  • Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. (Originally from the William James Lectures, Harvard University, 1967.)

  • Groenendijk, J. (1999). The Logic of Interrogation: Classical Version. In T. Matthews & D.L. Strolovitch (Eds.), The Proceedings of the ninth conference on semantics and linguistic theory. Ithaca, NY: CLC.

  • Groenendijk, J. (2009). Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction. In P. Bosch, D. Gabelaia, & J. Lang (Eds.), Seventh international Tbilisi symposium on language, logic, and computation. Berlin: Springer.

  • Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at Stanford workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency.

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055–1124). Amsterdam/Cambridge: Elsevier/MIT Press.

  • Gunlogson C. (2001) True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Rutledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunlogson C. (2008) A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin C.L. (1958) Questions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36: 159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, C., & Romero, M. (2002). Ellipsis and movement in the syntax of Whether /Q… or questions. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of the NELS (Vol. 32, pp. 197–216). Amherst: GLSA.

  • Han C., Romero M. (2004a) Disjunction, focus, and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 179–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han C., Romero M. (2004b) The syntax of Whether /Q… or questions: Ellipsis combined with movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 527–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, Martin, and Ekkehard König. (1998). Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham J. (1991) Either/or. Proceedings of NELS 21: 143–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg A. (2001) The syntax of Yes and No in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 141–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg A. (2007) Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61: 212–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddleston, R. (1994). The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics, 30(2), 411–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs J., Rawlins K. (2008) Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25: 269–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izvorski, R. (2000a). Free adjunct free relatives. In WCCFL 19 (pp. 232–245). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Izvorski, R. (2000b). Free relatives and related matters. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 167–193

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. (1977b). To doubt whether. In The CLS book of squibs. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.

  • Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1976). What indirect questions conventionally implicate. In CLS 12, Chicago, IL

  • Kramer, R., & Rawlins, K. (2009). Polarity particles: An ellipsis account. In Proceedings of NELS 39. Amherst, MA: Graduate Student Linguistic Association.

  • Kramer, R., & Rawlins, K. (2010). Polarity particles and ellipsis: A (somewhat) cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at UCSC workshop on polarity particles.

  • Kratzer, A. (2005). Indefinites and their operators. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The Partee effect. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

  • Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  • (2001) Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd R. (1981) A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions.. Proceedings of CLS 17: 164–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Larson R. (1985) On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1979). A problem about permission. In E. Saarinenand et al. (Eds.), Essays in honor of Jaakko Hintikka. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Maier, E., & van der Sandt, R. (2003). Denial and correction in layered DRT. In Proceedings of DiaBruck’03.

  • McCloskey J. (1991) Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85: 259–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menéndez-Benito, P. (2006). The grammar of choice. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Merchant, J. (2003). Remarks on stripping. Manuscript, University of Chicago.

  • Merchant J. (2006) Why no(t)?. Style 40: 20–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäurle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language (pp. 361–393). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Pope, E. (1972). Questions and answers in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Pruitt, K. (2008a). Mapping prosody to interpretation in alternative questions. Paper presented at CUNY conference on human sentence processing.

  • Pruitt, K. (2008b). Perceptual relevance of prosodic features in non-wh-questions with disjunction. UMass Amherst, Amherst.

  • Pruitt, K. (2008c). Prosody and focus in alternative questions: Accounting for interpretation. In Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

  • Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2010). Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Manuscript, UMass Amherst, May 3, 2010.

  • Pruitt, K., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen.

  • Rawlins, K. (2008a). Unconditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.

  • Rawlins, K. (2008b) Unifying if-conditionals and unconditionals In Proceedings of SALT 18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Rawlins, K. (in press). (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics.

  • Reese, B. (2007). Bias in questions. Ph.D. dissertation, UT Austin.

  • Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSU Working papers in linguistics 49: Papers in semantics. (pp. 91–136). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

  • Roelofsen, F. (2012). Algebraic inquisitive semantics. Manuscript, University of Amsterdam.

  • Roelofsen, F., & van Gool, S. (2009). Disjunctive questions, inotnation, and highlighting. In Amsterdam Colloquium 10, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Romero M., Han C.-H. (2004) Negative yes-no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 609–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M., & Partee, B. (1982). Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope “or”. In Proceedings of WCCFL 1. Stanford: CSLI.

  • Schiffrin, D. (1988). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spenader J., Maier E. (2009) Contrast as denial in multi-dimensional semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1707–1726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press.

  • Stalnaker R. (1975) Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.

  • Stockwell, R., Schachter, P., & Partee, B. (1973). Major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  • van Rooy, R., & Safárová, M. (2003). On polar questions. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistics Theory 13. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

  • van Leusen N. (2004) Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics 21: 415–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velissaratou, S. (2000). Conditional questions and which-interrogatives. Master of Logic Thesis, University of Amsterdam. ILLC Publications.

  • von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Zaefferer, D. (1990). Conditionals and unconditonals in universal grammar and situation semantics. In R. Cooper, K. Mukai, & J. Perry (Eds.), Situation theory and its applications I (pp. 471–492). Stanford, CA: CSLI.

  • Zaefferer, D. (1991). Conditionals and unconditionals: Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. In D. Zaefferer (Ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics. Berlin: Foris Publications.

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Linguistics and Language Studies, Carleton University, 215 Paterson Hall, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    María Biezma

  2. Cognitive Science Department, Johns Hopkins University, Room 237 Krieger Hall, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

    Kyle Rawlins

Authors
  1. María Biezma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyle Rawlins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Biezma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biezma, M., Rawlins, K. Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguist and Philos 35, 361–406 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9123-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9123-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation