Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Responding to alternative and polar questions

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 to check access.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  65. (2001) Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

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

Keywords

  • Alternative questions
  • Polar questions
  • Syntax
  • Semantics
  • Pragmatics