Abstract
This paper examines distinctive discourse properties of preposed negative yes/no questions (NPQs), such as Isn’t Jane coming too?. Unlike with other yes/no questions, using an NPQ ∼ p? invariably conveys a bias toward a particular answer, where the polarity of the bias is opposite of the polarity of the question: using the negative question ∼ p? invariably expresses that the speaker previously expected the positive answer p to be correct. A prominent approach— what I call the context-management approach, developed most extensively by Romero and Han (Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 609-658 2004)— attempts to capture speaker expectation biases by treating NPQs fundamentally as epistemic questions about the proper discourse status of a proposition. I raise challenges for existing context-managing accounts to provide more adequate formalizations of the posited context-managing content, its implementation in the compositional semantics and discourse dynamics, and its role in generating the observed biases. New data regarding discourse differences between NPQs and associated epistemic modal questions are introduced. I argue that we can capture the roles of NPQs in expressing speakers’ states of mind and managing the discourse common ground without positing special context-managing operators or treating NPQs as questions directly about the context. I suggest that we treat the operator introduced with preposed negation as having an ordinary semantics of epistemic necessity, though lexically associated with a general kind of endorsing use observed with modal expressions. The expressive and context-managing roles of NPQs are explained in terms of a general kind of discourse-oriented use of context-sensitive language. The distinctive expectation biases and discourse properties observed with NPQs are derived from the proposed semantics and a general principle of Discourse Relevance.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., Henderson, R. (2015). At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics, 32, 93–138.
Asher, N., & Reese, B. (2007). Intonation and discourse: Biased questions. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, 8, 1–38.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 1–36.
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications: Stanford.
Bittner, M. (2011). Time and modality without tenses or modals. In Rathert, M., & Musan, R. (Eds.) Tense across languages (pp. 147–188). Niemeyer: Tübingen.
Bolinger, D. (1978). Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Hiz, H. (Ed.) Questions (pp. 87–105). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Brasoveanu, A. (2010). Decomposing modal quantification. Journal of Semantics, 27, 437–527.
Brown, J., & Cappelen, H. (Eds.). (2011). Assertion: New philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Büring, D., & Gunlogson, C. (2000). Aren’t positive and negative polar questions the same? MS, UCLA & UCSC.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, H.H., & Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.
Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 497–544.
Farkas, D.F., & Bruce, K.B. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27, 81–118.
von Fintel, K. (2003). Epistemic modals and conditionals revisited. Slides, UMass Linguistics Colloquium.
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A.S. (2010). Must . . . stay. . . strong!. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 351–383.
von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2011). Intensional semantics. MS, MIT.
Franke, M., & de Jager, T. (2011). Now that you mention it: awareness dynamics in discourse and decisions. In Benz, A., Ebert, C., Jäger, G., van Rooij, R. (Eds.) Language, games, and evolution (pp. 60–91). Berlin: Springer.
Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gibbard, A. (2012). Meaning and normativity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gunlogson, C. (2001). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Ph.D. thesis, UC Santa Cruz.
Gunlogson, C. (2008). A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 101–136.
Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-conditional meaning: Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K. (Eds.). (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In Kimball, J.P. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics 1 (pp. 1–20). New York: Academic Press.
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 337–355.
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H.-J., & Rieser, H. (Eds.) Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality/Conditionals. In von Stechow, A., & Wunderlich, D. (Eds.) Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–656). New York: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krifka, M. (2012). Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Kiefer, F., & Lee, C (Eds.) Contrastiveness and scalar implicatures. Berlin: Springer.
Krifka, M. (2015). Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. In D’Antonio, S., Moroney, M., Little, C.-R. (Eds.) Proceedings of SALT 25 (pp. 328–345). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Ladd, D.R. (1981). A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Hendrik, R, Masek, C., Miller, M.F. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 17 (pp. 164–171). Chicago: CLS.
Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10, 217–234.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Malamud, S.A., & Stephenson, T. (2015). Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics, 32, 275–311.
McCready, E. (2009). What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 671–724.
Moss, S. (2018). Probabilistic knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, S.E. (2014). Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 1–53.
Narrog, H. (2005). Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 677–731.
Papafragou, A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua, 116, 1688–1702.
Partee, B.H., & Borschev, V. (2003). Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Lang, E., Maienborn, C., Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.) Modifying adjuncts (pp. 67–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15, 351–383.
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 165–197.
Reese, B.J. (2007). Bias in questions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
Repp, S. (2006). ¬(A&B). Gapping, negation and speech act operators. Research on Language and Computation, 4, 397–423.
Repp, S. (2009). Negation in gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Repp, S. (2013). Common ground management: Modal particles, illocutionary negation and verum. In Gutzmann, D., & Gärtner, H.-M. (Eds.) Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning (pp. 231–274). Leiden: Brill.
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure: Towards an integrated theory of formal pragmatics. In Yoon, J.-H., & Kathol, A. (Eds.) OSU working papers in linguistics, Vol. 49: Papers in semantics. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Roelofsen, F., & Farkas, D.F. (2015). Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language, 91, 359–414.
Romero, M. (2005). Biased yes/no questions, really, and answers. In Proceedings of the workshop on formal and computational approaches to discourse and other particles. University of Barcelona.
Romero, M. (2006). Biased yes/no questions: The role of verum. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 30, 9–24.
Romero, M. (2015). High negation in subjunctive conditionals and polar questions. In Csipak, E., & Zeijlstra, H. (Eds.) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19 (pp. 499–516). University of Göttingen.
Romero, M., & Han, C.-h. (2004). On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 609–658.
van Rooy, R., & Šafářová, M. (2003). On polar questions. In Young, R.B., & Zhou, Y. (Eds.) Proceedings of SALT 13 (pp. 292–309). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Rothschild, D. (2012). Expressing credences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112, 99–114.
Sadock, J. (1971). Queclaratives. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 7 (pp. 223–232). Chicago: CLS.
Silk, A. (2013). Truth-conditions and the meanings of ethical terms. In Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.) Oxford studies in metaethics, Vol. 8 (pp. 195–222). New York: Oxford University Press.
Silk, A. (2014). Accommodation and negotiation with context-sensitive expressions. Thought, 3, 115–123.
Silk, A. (2015). Evaluational adjectives. MS, University of Birmingham, https://goo.gl/Ocvuo7.
Silk, A. (2015). How to be an ethical expressivist. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91, 47–81.
Silk, A. (2016). Discourse contextualism: A framework for contextualist semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silk, A. (2017). How to embed an epistemic modal: Attitude problems and other defects of character. Philosophical Studies, 174, 1773–1799.
Silk, A. (2017). Normative language in context. In Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.) Oxford studies in metaethics, Vol. 12 (pp. 206–243). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silk, A. (2018). Semantics with assignment variables. MS, University of Birmingham. https://goo.gl/kFVhw3.
Silk, A. (2018). Weak and strong necessity modals: On linguistic means of expressing “a primitive concept ought”. In Plunkett, D., & Dunaway, B. (Eds.) Meaning, decision and norms: Themes from the work of Allan Gibbard. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing.
Simons, M. (2007). Presupposition and cooperation. MS, Carnegie Mellon University.
Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In Li, N., & Lutz, D. (Eds.) Proceedings of SALT 20 (pp. 309–327). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought (pp. 47–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought (pp. 78–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.
Stalnaker, R. (2010). Responses to Stanley and Schlenker. Philosophical Studies, 151, 143–157.
Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 487–525.
Stevenson, C. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind, 46, 14–31.
Stone, M., & Hardt, D. (1999). Dynamic discourse referents for tense and modals. In Bunt, H., & Muskens, R. (Eds.) Computing meaning, Vol. 1 (pp. 301–319). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Swanson, E. (2016). The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45, 121–146.
Thomason, R..H. (2002). The beliefs of other agents. MS, University of Michigan.
Thomason, R.H., Stone, M., DeVault, D. (2006). Enlightened update: A computational architecture for presupposition and other pragmatic phenomena. In Byron, D., Roberts, C., Schwenter, S (Eds.) Presupposition accommodation. OSU Pragmatics Initiative.
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Simons, M. (2013). Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89, 66–109.
Traum, D. (1994). A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.
Trinh, T. (2014). How to ask the obvious: A presuppositional account of evidential bias in English yes/no questions. In Crnič, L., & Sauerland, U. (Eds.) The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 2, pp. 227–249). Cambridge: MITWPL.
Truckenbrodt, H. (2006). On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movemenet to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics, 32, 257–306.
Van Linden, A. (2012). Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261.
Verstraete, J.-C. (2007). Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy: Interpersonal grammar and the analysis of adverbial clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Willer, M. (2013). Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philosophical Review, 122, 45–92.
von Wright, G.H. (1963). Norm and action: A logical inquiry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Yalcin, S. (2012). Bayesian expressivism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112, 123–160.
Yalcin, S. (2012). Context probabilism. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G.W., Schulz, K., Westera, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 12–21). Berlin: Springer.
Zimmermann, M. (2011). Discourse particles. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., Portner, P. (Eds.) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 2011–2038). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to an anonymous referee for comments. This research has benefited from the support of an AHRC Early Career Research Grant (AH/N001877/1) and Leverhulme Research Fellowship (RF-2018-301∖0).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Silk, A. Expectation Biases and Context Management with Negative Polar Questions. J Philos Logic 49, 51–92 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09512-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09512-0