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.
KeywordsDynamic 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.
- Aloni, M., Égré, P., & de Jager, T. (2013). Knowing whether A or B. Synthese, 190(14), 2595–2621.Google Scholar
- Åqvist, L. (1965). A new approach to the logical theory of interrogatives. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
- Baltag, A. (2001). Logics for insecure communication. In Proceedings of theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK) VIII (pp. 111–122).Google Scholar
- 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
- Ciardelli, I. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and intermediate logics. Master Thesis. University of Amsterdam. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
- 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
- Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2012). Inquisitive semantics. NASSLLI lecture notes. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
- Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013b). On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7.
- Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Groenendijk, J. (2011). Erotetic languages and the inquisitive hierarchy. In a Festschrift for Martin Stokhof. http://dare.uva.nl/document/487828.
- Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Presented at the workshop on language, communication, and rational agency at Stanford, May 2009. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
- Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Mascarenhas, S. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and logic. Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Minică, Ş. (2011). Dynamic logic of questions. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
- 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
- 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
- Roelofsen, F. (2011). Information and attention. Manuscript, ILLC University of Amsterdam. www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics.
- Roelofsen, F. (2013a). Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content. Synthese, 190, 79–102. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Vanderveeken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts: Principles of language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- van Ditmarsch, H. (2000). Knowledge games. PhD thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
- Westera, M. (2013). Exhaustivity through the maxim of Relation. In Proceedings of logic and engineering of natural language semantics (LENLS 10).Google Scholar