On the unification of which-interrogatives and alternative-interrogatives
-
Yael Sharvit
Yael Sharvit is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Dr. Sharvit’s research focuses on semantics and the syntax-semantics interface. She serves as co-editor-in-chief of the journal Linguistics and Philosophy, and Associate Editor at the Journal of Semantics.
Abstract
Some similarities between alternative-interrogatives and which-interrogatives seem to support a unifying analysis. The paper discusses two such analyses, and the challenges they face, and some advantages and shortcomings of a non-unifying approach.
About the author
Yael Sharvit is a professor in the Department of Linguistics at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Dr. Sharvit’s research focuses on semantics and the syntax-semantics interface. She serves as co-editor-in-chief of the journal Linguistics and Philosophy, and Associate Editor at the Journal of Semantics.
Some interpretation rules are given in (I)-(VI) below, where W is the set of possible worlds, w ∈ W, g is a variable assignment, and ‘[λ…]’ is read as per Heim and Kratzer (1998), Chapter 2. Discourse rules are assumed but not provided.
– (I)-(III) are used in the unifying flexible or theory.
– (I) and (IV)-(V) are used in the unifying clausal or theory.
– (I), (IV) and (VI), together with either (III) or (V), are used in the non-unifying approach.
⟦greet⟧w,g(x, y) = True iff x greeted y in w.
⟦ _ i⟧w,g = g(i).
⟦student⟧w,g = {x| x is a student in w}.
⟦French student⟧w,g = {x| x is a student in w and x is French in w}.
⟦proposition⟧w,g = {p| p is a proposition in w}.
⟦Sam or Fred⟧w,g = {⟦Sam⟧w,g, ⟦Fred⟧w,g}.
⟦ [which ♦ γ]i ϕ⟧w,g is defined iff {x| x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→x] = True} is a singleton.
If defined, ⟦ [which ♦ γ]i ϕ⟧w,g = {x| x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→x] = True}.
⟦ [∃♦ γ]i ϕ⟧w,g = True iff {x| x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→x] = True} ≠ ∅.
⟦ [[which ♦ γ]i [which ♦ γ′]k] ϕ⟧w,g is defined iff for all x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g, {y| y ∈ ⟦γ′⟧w,g and ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→x,k→y] = True} is a singleton.
If defined, ⟦ ⟦which ♦ γ]i [which ♦ γ′]k] ϕ⟧w,g = {(x, Y)| x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and Y = {y| y ∈ ⟦γ′⟧w,g and ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→x,k→y] = True}}.
⟦ϕ or i φ⟧w,g = True iff g(i)(w) = True and g(i) ∈ {[λw′ ∈ W. ⟦ϕ⟧w′,g], [λw′ ∈ W. ⟦φ⟧w′,g]}.
⟦ [which ♣ γ]i ϕ⟧w,g is defined iff
{p| p(w) = True and {Z| Z ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and p = [λw′ ∈ W. ⟦ϕ⟧w′,g [i→Z]]} ≠ ∅} is a singleton.
If defined, ⟦ [which ♣ γ]i ϕ⟧w,g =
{p| p(w) = True and {Z| Z ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and p = [λw′ ∈ W. ⟦ϕ⟧w′,g [i→Z]]} ≠ ∅}.
⟦ [∃♣ γ]i ϕ⟧w,g = True iff {p| p(w) = True and {Z| Z ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and p = [λw′ ∈ W. ⟦ϕ⟧w′,g [i→Z]]} ≠ ∅} ≠ ∅.
⟦ [[which ♣ γ]i [which ♣ γ′]k] ϕ⟧w,g is defined iff for all x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g, {p| p(w) = True and {Z| Z ∈ ⟦γ′⟧w,g and p = [λw′ ∈ W. ⟦ϕ⟧w′,g [i→x,k→Z]]} ≠ ∅} is a singleton.
If defined, ⟦ ⟦which ♣ γ]i [which ♣ γ′]k] ϕ⟧w,g = {(x, Y)| x ∈ ⟦γ⟧w,g and Y = {p| p(w) = True and {Z| Z ∈ ⟦γ′⟧w,g and p = [λw′ ∈ W. ⟦ϕ⟧w′,g [i→x,k→Z]]} ≠ ∅}}.
⟦ALT-Qi ϕ⟧w,g is defined iff {p| ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→p] = True} is a singleton.
If defined, ⟦ALT-Qi ϕ⟧w,g = {p| ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→p] = True}.
⟦ALT-Di ϕ⟧w,g = True iff {p| ⟦ϕ⟧w,g[i→p] = True} ≠ ∅.
References
Abenina-Adar, Maayan & Yael Sharvit. 2021. On the presuppositional strength of interrogative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 29. 47–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09169-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay. 1996. Only’ noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items, and monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13. 265–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.4.265.Suche in Google Scholar
Bartels, Christine. 1999. The Intonation of English Statements and questions. New York: Garland.Suche in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Steven Franks. 2002. Across-the-board movement and LF. Syntax 3. 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00027.Suche in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1(2). 181–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00372562.Suche in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. In Oxford Studies in Semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/jj.13027259.6Suche in Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2017. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Constituent questions. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-5323-9Suche in Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form. In Meaning and Use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena & Yael Sharvit. 2014. Whether or not anything but not Whether anything or not. In Uli Sauerland & Luka Crnič (eds.), The Art and Craft of semantics: A Festschrift for irene Heim. Mitwpl, Vol. 70, 199–224.Suche in Google Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why even ask? On the Pragmatics of Questions and the Semantics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Suche in Google Scholar
Guerzoni, Elena. 2004. Even-NPIs in Yes/No questions. Natural Language Semantics 12. 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-8739-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53.Suche in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Cambrdige, MA and Amherst, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1993. Interrogatives. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from building 20, 195–227. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirsch, Aron. 2017. An inflexible Semantics for cross-categorial operators. PhD dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2016. The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92. 331–375. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0038.Suche in Google Scholar
Jeong, Sunwoo & Floris Roelofsen. 2023. Focused NPIs in statements and questions. Journal of Semantics 40(1). 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffac014.Suche in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1980. Interrogative quantifiers. In Christina Rohrer (ed.), Time, Tense and quantifiers: Proceedings of the stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and quantification, 181–206. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111346069.181Suche in Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1). 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351935.Suche in Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. The Structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Suche in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the third Tokyo Conference on psycholinguistics (TCP 2002), 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Suche in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v9i0.2830.Suche in Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as inherent scope relation. PhD dissertation. Austin: University of Texas.Suche in Google Scholar
Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 325–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00584131.Suche in Google Scholar
Nicolae, Andreea. 2013. Any questions? Polarity as a Window into the Structure of questions. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Suche in Google Scholar
Nicolae, Andreea. 2015. Questions with NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 23(1). 21–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9110-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pruitt, Kathryn & Floris Roelofsen. 2013. The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 632–650. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00141.Suche in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats & Barbara Partee. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity and wide scope or. In Daniel Flickinger, Marlys Macken & Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 1, stanford: Department of linguistics: Stanford University.Suche in Google Scholar
Schein, Barry. 2017. And’: Conjunction reduction redux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/10488.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
van Rooij, Robert. 2008. Towards a uniform analysis of ’any. Natural Language Semantics 16(4). 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9035-1.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Thematic issue in pragmatics and philosophy (TIPP)
- Research Articles
- The cultural evolution of speech act norms
- On the unification of which-interrogatives and alternative-interrogatives
- A functional theory of proper names: Insights from quasi-proper names
- The foundational role of sound quality for understanding demonstratives
- Problems for a uniform analysis of ancora in Italian
- Speech act theory of quotation: Quotation indirect quotation and Japanese quasi-quotation
- Topicality, accessibility, and causality in anaphora resolution: An eye-tracking study of null and overt pronouns in Italian
- Clause-level coordination and discourse continuity in Tohono O’odham
- Obituary
- Istvan Kecskes, Distinguished Professor of the State University of New York, affectionate friend and mentor
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Thematic issue in pragmatics and philosophy (TIPP)
- Research Articles
- The cultural evolution of speech act norms
- On the unification of which-interrogatives and alternative-interrogatives
- A functional theory of proper names: Insights from quasi-proper names
- The foundational role of sound quality for understanding demonstratives
- Problems for a uniform analysis of ancora in Italian
- Speech act theory of quotation: Quotation indirect quotation and Japanese quasi-quotation
- Topicality, accessibility, and causality in anaphora resolution: An eye-tracking study of null and overt pronouns in Italian
- Clause-level coordination and discourse continuity in Tohono O’odham
- Obituary
- Istvan Kecskes, Distinguished Professor of the State University of New York, affectionate friend and mentor
