Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 249–298 | Cite as

A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions

  • Sigrid Beck
  • Hotze Rullmann

Abstract

A semantics for interrogatives is presented which is based on Karttunen's theory, but in a flexible manner incorporates both weak and strong exhaustivity. The paper starts out by considering degree questions, which often require an answer picking out the maximal degree from a certain set. However, in some cases, depending on the semantic properties of the question predicate, reference to the minimal degree is required, or neither specifying the maximum nor the minimum is sufficient. What is needed is an operation which defines the maximally informative answer on the basis of the Karttunen question denotation. Shifting attention to non-degree questions, two notions of answerhood are adopted from work by Heim. The first of these is weakly exhaustive and the second strongly exhaustive. The second notion of answerhood is proven to be equivalent to Groenendijk and Stokhof's interrogative semantics. On the basis of a wide range of empirical data showing that questions often are not interpreted exhaustively, it is argued that a fairly rich system of semantic objects associated with questions is needed to account for the various ways in which questions contribute to the semantics and pragmatics of the utterances in which they appear.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Beck, Sigrid: 1996a, ‘Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement’, Natural Language Semantics 4(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Sigrid: 1996b, Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form, PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  3. Berman, Stephen: 1991, On the Semantics and Logical Form of Wh-Clauses, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. Cresti, Diana: 1995, ‘Extraction and Reconstruction’, Natural Language Semantics 3(1), 79–122.Google Scholar
  5. Dayal, Veneeta: 1996: Locality in WH Quantification, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Enç, Mürvet: 1986, ‘Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9(4), 405–426.Google Scholar
  7. Frampton, John: 1990, ‘The Fine Structure of Wh-Movement and the Proper Formulation of the ECP’, unpublished manuscript, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  8. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1982, ‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5(2), 175–233.Google Scholar
  9. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1989, ‘Type-Shifting Rules and the Semantics of Interrogatives’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Volume II: Semantic Issues, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 21–68.Google Scholar
  11. Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
  12. Heim, Irene: 1991, ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 487–535.Google Scholar
  13. Heim, Irene: 1994, ‘Interrogative Semantics and Karttunen's Semantics for Know’, in R. Buchalla and A. Mittwoch (eds.), IATL 1, Akademon, Jerusalem, pp. 128–144.Google Scholar
  14. Jacobson, Pauline: 1995, ‘On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 451–486.Google Scholar
  15. Karttunen, Lauri: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1), 3–44.Google Scholar
  16. Lahiri, Utpal: 1991, Embedded Interrogatives and Predicates that Embed Them, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Link, Godehard: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 303–323.Google Scholar
  18. McCloskey, James: 1995, ‘Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in Irish English’, handout for paper presented at NELS 26, Harvard/MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Reis, Marga: 1992, ‘The Category of Invariant alles in Wh-Clauses’, in Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 7, University of Tübingen, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
  20. Rooth, Mats: 1985, Association with Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. Rooth, Mats: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75–116.Google Scholar
  22. Rullmann, Hotze: 1995, Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  23. Rullmann, Hotze and Sigrid Beck: 1998, ‘Reconstruction and the Interpretation of Which-Phrases’, in G. Katz and S.-S. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction (Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340), University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  24. Rullmann, Hotze and Sigrid Beck: to appear, ‘Presupposition Projection and the Interpretation of Which-Questions’, in Proceedings of SALT 8, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sigrid Beck
    • 1
  • Hotze Rullmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA; E-mail
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations