Advertisement

Reconciling Inquisitive Semantics and Generalized Quantifier Theory

  • Ka-fat ChowEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11717)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new treatment of quantifiers under the theoretical framework of Inquisitive Semantics (IS). After discussing the difficulty in treating quantifiers under the existing IS framework, I propose a new treatment of quantifiers that combines features of IS and the Generalized Quantifier Theory (GQT). My proposal comprises two main points: (i) assuming that the outputs of all quantifiers given non-inquisitive inputs are non-inquisitive; and (ii) deriving a predicate \(X^*\) of type \(s\!\!\rightarrow \!\!(e^n\!\!\rightarrow \!\! t)\) corresponding to each predicate X of type \(e^n\!\!\rightarrow \!\! T\). By using \(X^*\), we can then restore the traditional treatment of GQT under the IS framework. I next point out that to properly handle the pair list reading of some questions with “every”, we have to revert to the old treatment of every. I also introduce (and prove) a theorem that shows that the new treatment of every is just a special case of the old treatment, and conclude that the new treatment of all quantifiers other than every plus the old treatment of every is sufficient for the general purpose of treating quantified statements and questions.

Keywords

Inquisitive Semantics Generalized Quantifier Theory Inquisitiveness Pair list reading 

References

  1. 1.
    Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., Roelofsen, F.: Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2019)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ciardelli, I., Roelofsen, F.: An inquisitive perspective on modals and quantifiers. Ann. Rev. Linguist. 4, 129–149 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ciardelli, I., Roelofsen, F., Theiler, N.: Composing alternatives. Linguist. Philos. 40(1), 1–36 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coppock, E., Brochhagen, T.: Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semant. Pragmatics 6(3), 1–57 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farkas, D.F., Roelofsen, F.: Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives. J. Semant. 34, 237–289 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M.: Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. Thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam (1984)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keenan, E.L: Semantic case theory. In: Groenendijk, J., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 109–132. ITLI, Amsterdam (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keenan, E.L., Westerståhl, D.: Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. In: van Ben-them, J., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd edn, pp. 859–910. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Mey, J.: Determiner logic or the grammar of the NP. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Groningen (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peters, S., Westerståhl, D.: Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Theiler, N.: A multitude of answers: embedded questions in typed inquisitive semantics, M.Sc. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., Aloni, M.: A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. J. Semant. 35, 409–466 (2018) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations