Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 633–669 | Cite as

Toward a Dynamic Logic of Questions

  • Johan van BenthemEmail author
  • Ştefan Minică
Open Access


Questions are triggers for explicit events of ‘issue management’. We give a complete logic in dynamic-epistemic style for events of raising, refining, and resolving an issue, all in the presence of information flow through observation or communication. We explore extensions of the framework to multi-agent scenarios and long-term temporal protocols. We sketch a comparison with some alternative accounts.


Question Issue management Logical dynamics 


  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, A., & van Ditmarsch, H. (2011). What will they say?—Public announcement games. Synthese, 179, 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ågotnes, T., van Benthem, J., van Ditmarsch, H., & Minică, Ş. (2012). Question–answer games. In Proceedings of LOFT-2010. To appear in Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andréka, H., Ryan, M., & Schobbens, P. Y. (2002). Operators and laws for combining preference relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1), 13–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A. (2001). Logics for insecure communication. In J. van Benthem (Ed.), Proceedings of TARK’01 (pp. 111–122).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In Proceedings of TARK’98 (p. 43). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2007). From conditional probability to the logic of doxastic actions. In Proceedings of TARK ’07 (pp. 52–61). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(1), 55–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degremont, C. (2009). The temporal mind: Observations on the logic of belief change in interactive systems. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Girard, P. (2008). Modal logic for belief and preference change. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groenendijk, J. (1999). The logic of interrogation: Classical version. In T. Matthews, & M. Strolovitch (Eds.), SALT IX: Semantics and linguistic theory.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In Proceedings of SPR (Vol. 9). Citeseer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1997). Questions. In J. van Benthem, & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of the logic and language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamami, Y. (2010). The Interrogative model of inquiry meets dynamic epistemic logics. Master’s thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hintikka, J., Halonen, I., & Mutanen, A. (2002). Interrogative logic as a general theory of reasoning. In D. Gabbay, R. Johnson, H. Ohlbach, & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the logic of argument and inference. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoshi, T. (2009). Epistemic dynamics and protocol information. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC DS-2009-08.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holliday, W., Hoshi, T., & Icard, T. (2011). Schematic validity in dynamic epistemic logic: Decidability. Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, 87–96.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Icard, T. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and dynamic logic. Manuscript, Stanford Univ.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelly, K. (1996). The logic of reliable inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, F. (2008). Changing for the better—Preference dynamics and agent diversity. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Minică, Ş. (2011). Dynamic logic of questions. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belnap, N., & Steel, T. (1976). The logic of questions and answers. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ten Cate, B. (2005). Model theory for extended modal languages. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Unger, C., & Giorgolo, G. (2008). Interrogation in dynamic epistemic logic. In Proceedings of the 13th ESSLLI, Hamburg (pp. 195–202).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Benthem, J. (1993). Reflections on epistemic logic. Logique et Analyse, (34), 5–14.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17(2), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Benthem, J. (2009). The information in intuitionistic logic. Synthese, 2(167), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Hoshi, T., & Pacuit, E. (2009). Merging frameworks for interaction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(5), 491–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Benthem, J., Girard, P., & Roy, O. (2008). Everything else being equal: A modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 83–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Benthem, J., & Pacuit, E. (2011). Dynamic logics of evidence-based beliefs. Studia Logica, 1–32.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Benthem, J., & Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2009). Inference, promotion and the dynamics of awareness. ILLC Research Report.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Eijck, J., & Unger, C. (2010). Computational semantics with functional programming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Rooij, R. (2003). Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(6), 727–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Rooij, R. (2005). Questions and relevance. In Questions and answers: Theoretical and applied perspectives (Proceedings of 2nd CoLogNET-ElsNET symposium), (ILLC) (pp. 96–107).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Rooij, R. (2008). Comparing questions and answers: A bit of logic, a bit of language, and some bits of information. In Formal Theories of Information (pp. 161–192).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Velázquez-Quesada, F. (2009). Inference and update. Synthese, 196(2), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Velázquez-Quesada, F. (2011). Small steps in dynamics of information. Ph.D. Thesis, ILLC.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wiśniewski, A. (1995). The posing of questions. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language & ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations