, Volume 192, Issue 6, pp 1643–1687 | Cite as

Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic

  • Ivano A. Ciardelli
  • Floris RoelofsenEmail author


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.


Dynamic epistemic logic Inquisitive semantics Information exchange Logic of questions 



We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers, as well as Editor-in-Chief Wiebe van der Hoek, for very useful feedback. We are also grateful to Alexandru Baltag, Johan van Benthem, Jan van Eijck, Jeroen Groenendijk, Yacin Hamami, Sonja Smets, Matthijs Westera, and especially to Yanjing Wang for helpful discussion of the ideas presented here and closely related topics. Financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Ågotnes, T., van Benthem, J., van Ditmarsch, H., & Minică, Ş. (2011). Question–answer games. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 21(3–4), 265–288. doi: 10.3166/jancl.21.265-288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aloni, M., Égré, P., & de Jager, T. (2013). Knowing whether A or B. Synthese, 190(14), 2595–2621.Google Scholar
  3. Åqvist, L. (1965). A new approach to the logical theory of interrogatives. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
  4. Baltag, A. (2001). Logics for insecure communication. In Proceedings of theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK) VIII (pp. 111–122).Google Scholar
  5. Baltag, A., Moss, L. S., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (pp. 43–56). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Belnap, N. D. (1966). Questions, answers, and presuppositions. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(20), 609–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ciardelli, I. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics. Master Thesis. University of Amsterdam.
  8. Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(1), 55–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Attention! might in inquisitive semantics. In S. Ito & E. Cormany (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT XIX). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2012). Inquisitive semantics. NASSLLI lecture notes.
  11. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013a). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12037.Google Scholar
  12. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013b). On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7.
  13. Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gerbrandy, J., & Groeneveld, W. (1997). Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Groenendijk, J. (2011). Erotetic languages and the inquisitive hierarchy. In a Festschrift for Martin Stokhof.
  17. Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Presented at the workshop on language, communication, and rational agency at Stanford, May 2009.
  18. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055–1124). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hintikka, J. (1976). The semantics of questions and the semantics of questions: Case studies in the interrelations of logic, semantics, and syntax. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 28(4), 200.Google Scholar
  21. Hintikka, J. (1983). New foundations for a theory of questions and answers. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Questions and answers (pp. 159–190). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Liu, F., & Wang, Y. (2013). Reasoning about agent types and the hardest logic puzzle ever. Minds and Machines, 23, 123–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mascarenhas, S. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and logic. Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Minică, Ş. (2011). Dynamic logic of questions. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
  25. Pelis̆, M., & Majer, O. (2010). Logic of questions from the viewpoint of dynamic epistemic logic. In M. Pelis̆ (Ed.), The logica yearbook (pp. 157–172). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Pelis̆, M., & Majer, O. (2011). Logic of questions and public announcements. In N. Bezhanishvili, S. Löbner, K. Schwabe, & L. Spada (Eds.), Logic, language and computation: Selected revised papers from the eighth international Tbilisi symposium (pp. 145–157). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plaza, J. (1989). Logics of public communications. In M. L. Emrich, M. S. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, & Z. W. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems (pp. 201–216). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Reprinted as Plaza (2007).Google Scholar
  28. Plaza, J. (2007). Logics of public communications. Synthese, 158(2), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roelofsen, F. (2011). Information and attention. Manuscript, ILLC University of Amsterdam.
  30. Roelofsen, F. (2013a). Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese, 190, 79–102. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4.
  31. Roelofsen, F. (2013b). A bare bone semantics for attentive might. In M. Aloni, M. Franke & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of \(\varphi ,\; ?\varphi \) , and \(\Diamond \varphi \) : a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman (pp. 190–215). Amsterdam: ILLC Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Sano, K. (2009). Sound and complete tree-sequent calculus for inquisitive logic. In Proceedings of the sixteenth workshop on logic, language, information, and computation.Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 7(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unger, C., & Giorgolo, G. (2008). Interrogation in dynamic epistemic logic. In K. Balogh (Ed.), ESSLLI student session (pp. 195–202). Amsterdam: ILLC Publications.Google Scholar
  36. van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Benthem, J., & Minică, S. (2012). Toward a dynamic logic of questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(4), 633–669. doi: 10.1007/s10992-012-9233-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11), 1620–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vanderveeken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts: Principles of language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. van Ditmarsch, H. (2000). Knowledge games. PhD thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  42. van Ditmarsch, H. (2005). Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese, 147(2), 229–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Eijck, J., & Unger, C. (2010). Computational semantics with functional programming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Westera, M. (2013). Exhaustivity through the maxim of Relation. In Proceedings of logic and engineering of natural language semantics (LENLS 10).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language, and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations