Interrogatives and Adverbs of Quantification

In Katalin Bimbó & Andras Maté (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Logic and Language. Budapest: Aran Publishers. pp. 1-29 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This paper is about a topic in the semantics of interrogatives.1 In what follows a number of assumptions figure at the background which, though intuitively appealing, have not gone unchallenged, and it seems therefore only fair to draw the reader’s attention to them at the outset. The first assumption concerns a very global intuition about the kind of semantic objects that we associate with interrogatives. The intuition is that there is an intimate relationship between interrogatives and their answers: an interrogative determines what counts as an answer.2 Given a certain, independently motivated, view on what constitutes the meaning of an answer, this intuition, in return, determines what constitutes the meaning of an interrogative. For example, starting from the observation that answers are true or false in situations, we may be led to the view that answers express propositions, i.e., objects which determine a truth value in a situation. Given that much, our basic intuition says that interrogatives are to be associated with objects which determine propositions. Such objects will be referred to as ‘questions’ in what follows. Notice that all this is largely framework independent: we have made no assumptions yet about what situations, propositions, and questions are, we have only related them in a certain systematic way. In fact we will use a more or less standard, but certainly not uncontroversial, specification in what follows: situations are identified with (total) possible worlds; propositions with sets of worlds; and questions with equivalence relations on the set of worlds. The second assumption that plays a role in what follows is of a more linguistic nature. Interrogatives typically occur in two ways: as independent expressions, and as complements of certain verbs. The assumption is that these two ways of occurring are systematically related, not just syntactically but also semantically.3 Notice that the exact nature of this relationship is underdeter..



External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

152 (#128,364)

6 months
59 (#85,085)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Martin Stokhof
University of Amsterdam
Jeroen Groenendijk
University of Amsterdam

Citations of this work

Know-How and Gradability.Carlotta Pavese - 2017 - Philosophical Review 126 (3):345-383.
Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every.Filippo Beghelli & Tim Stowell - 1997 - In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 71--107.
Resolving questions, I.Jonathan Ginzburg - 1995 - Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (5):459 - 527.
Resolving questions, II.Jonathan Ginzburg - 1995 - Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (6):567 - 609.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Dynamic predicate logic.Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof - 1991 - Linguistics and Philosophy 14 (1):39-100.
Syntax and semantics of questions.Lauri Karttunen - 1977 - Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1):3--44.
Questions in montague english.Charles L. Hamblin - 1973 - Foundations of Language 10 (1):41-53.

View all 13 references / Add more references