questions, commitments and biasesslli2018.folli.info/wp-content/uploads/lecture3.pdf · questions,...

QUESTIONS,COMMITMENTSANDBIAS

ClaireBEYSSADESFL-Paris8Univ.

ElisabethDELAIS-ROUSSARIELLING,NantesUniv.

2

Outline1.Questionsinformal semantics

1. Hamblin 2.Karttunen3. Groenendijk & Stokhof 4.Structured meaning

2.Typesofquestions1.Variationinforms2.Variationinmeaning

3.Modeling questionsandbias1.InCommittment Space Semantics (Krifka)2.With actual andprojected committments3.Ourproposal

3

I. Questions in formal semantics

• Questions, contrarily to assertions, don’tdirectlymap to truth values.

• An interrogative maps to a set ofpropositions which correspond to itsanswers.

(1) a.[[Whocame?]]={Karencame,Lauracame,Marycame...}

b.[[DidJohncome?]]={Johncame,Johndidn’tcome}

4

I. Questions in formal semanticsAt least four variants1. Hamblin (1973)• Aquestiondenotesasetofstatementswhichcountaspossibleanswers tothatquestion.

• Statementscountaspossibleanswersirrespectiveofwhethertheyaretrueorfalse.Theimportantthingisthattheyaddressthequestion(inanintuitivesense).

5

I. Questions in formal semantics2. Karttunen(1977)• Extends Hamblin’s approach toembedded questions(2)Who comes depends onwho isinvited.

• Observesthat aclassofembedded questionsnarrows downthesetofpropositions picked outbythequestion tojust thetrue ones

(3)Iknowwhat Patbought?=Iknowjust thetrue answers tothequestion

‘What did Patbuy?’

6


2. Karttunen (1977)• Aquestiondenotesasetofstatementswhichcountastrueanswerstothatquestion.

• Dealsmainlywithembeddedinterrogatives.Forrootinterrogatives,headoptssomeembeddingapproach.

(4) a.What did Patbuy?b.Iask/wonderwhat Patbought.

7


3.Groenendijk &Stokhof (1984)• Assumethestrongexhaustivity intuition:

knowwho left =knowforeachperson whetherthat person leftknowwho left andwho didn’tleave.

Ø An embedded question denotes theproposition which counts as the singlecomplete answer (in the actual world).

8

I. Questions in formal semantics3.Groenendijk &Stokhof (1984)Yes-noquestion(5) …whether Johncame.

λw[cameʹ(j)inw=cameʹ(j)inw0]Inprose:Thesetofpossibleworldsatwhichthetruth-valueof‘Johncame’is identicaltothetruth-valueof‘Johncame’intheactualworld.

Wh-question(6) …whocame.

λw[λx[cameʹ(x)inw]=λx[cameʹ(x)inw0]]Inprose:Thesetofpossibleworldsatwhichthesetofpeoplethatcameisidenticaltothesetofpeoplethatcameintheactualworld.

9

I. Questions in formal semantics3.Groenendijk &Stokhof (1984)• StronglyexhaustiveanwersG&Scapturebothwhatactuallyhappenedandwhatactuallydidnothappen.Hence,theentailmentin(7)comesoutastrueunderG&S.(7) a.Johnbelieves thatBillandSuzywalk.

b.Actually,onlyBillwalks.c.Johndoesn’tknowwhowalks.

• Arootquestiondenotesapartition ofthesetofpossibleworlds,whichcorrespondstothesetofpossiblecompleteanswers.

• Yes-noquestionsdividethesetofpossibleworldsintotwopartitioncells.

10

I. Questions in formal semantics4. Structuredmeaning(vonStechow,Krifka)• Aninterrogativemapstoafunctionfrom(short)answers

topropositions.(8) a.[[Whocame?]]={Karen,Laura,Mary}

b.[[DidJohncome?]]={yes,no}Question meanings are functions that, when applied to themeaning of the [short/constituent] answer, yield aproposition. (from Krifka 2001: 288)Both questions and answers are incomplete, and questionshave functional interpretations.

11

I. Questions in formal semanticsYes-noquestion(9) DidJohneat?

λf[f(Johnate)] [[yes]]=λp[p] ,[[no]]=λp[¬p]

Wh-question(10a) WhatdidJohnhavefordinner?

λx [Johnhadxfordinner]

(10b) WhatdidJohnhavefordinner?– Salad.λx [Johnhadxfordinner](s)

whichcanbereducedin: ‘Johnhadsfordinner’

12

I. Questions in formal semanticsSummary• Propositional vs.functionalapproaches• Structuredmeaningandinformationstructure• Question-answerpairsindialogue• Typologyofanswers:

ü Partialvs.complete/weakvs.strongexhaustivityü Congruentvs.noncongruentü Short,ellipticalornot

13

II. Types of questions• Yes-noquestions,wh-questions(frontedorinsitu),tagquestions…

• Interrogativevs.declarativequestions• Rootvs. embeddedquestions

Ø VariationinformØ Variationinmeaning

14

2.1 Variation in formsA) InterrogativequestionsPolarquestion(11) DoyouspeakEnglish?

Wh-questions(12) Whathappens?InFrench(13) a.Quia-t-ilvu? Fronted wh- +Inversion

b.Quiilavu? Fronted wh-c.Ilavuqui? wh- insitu‘Who did he see?’

15

2.1 Variation in formsB)Declarativequestions(14) Tu parles anglais ?

YOU SPEAK ENGLISH

(15) a.JEANavuElisabethhier?b.JeanavuELISABETHhier?c.JeanavuElisabethHIER?

JEAN HAS SEEN ELISABETH YESTERDAY

VeryfrequentinFrench.Nearlynoconstraintsininformallanguage.MorerestrictedinEnglish(cf.Gunlogson2001,2008)

16

2.1 Variation in formsC)QuestionswithtagsInEnglish

Matchingquestiontags(samepolaritytags)(16) Edwontherace,didhe?

Eddidn’twintherace,didn’the?

ü Propositionputforwardasapotentialviewoftheaddressee.Matching questiontagsareasvoicing alikely opinionoftheaddressee.

17

2.1 Variation in formsC)QuestionswithtagsInEnglish

Reversequestiontags(Reversepolartity tags)(17) Edwontherace,didn’the?

Eddidn’twintherace,didhe?

ü Thespeakeroffersherownopinion,andasksforagreementbytheaddressee.

18

2.1 Variation in formsC)QuestionswithtagsInFrench,nogrammaticalconstruction,butparticles.N’est-cepas/hein:notdependent onsententialpolarity.

(18) a.Edagagnélacourse,n’est-cepas?a’.Edn’apasgagnélacourse,n’est-cepas?

‘Ed(won/didn’twin)therace,N’EST-CE PAS?’b.Edagagnélacourse,hein?b’.Edn’apasgagnélacourse,hein?

‘Ed(won/didn’twin)therace,HEIN?’

19

2.1 Variation in formsC)QuestionswithtagsNon/Si:dependentonsententialpolarity.

(19) a.Edagagnélacourse,non?‘Edwontherace,NON?’

b.Edn’apasgagnélacourse,(#non/si)?‘Eddidn’twintherace,(#NON/SI)?’

Frenchcounterpartofmatchingtags:c’est(bien)ça(20) a.Edagagnélacourse,c’est(bien)ça?

b.Edn’apasgagnélacourse,c’est(bien)ça?

20

2.1 Variation in formsD)Alternativequestions- Alternativeswith ‘ornot’(NAQ)(21) Isit asuccess ornot?- Alternativesbetween complements (CAQ)(22) Isit aboyoragirl?- Alternativesbuilt with awh-word(23) What did Maryeat,tomatoes orbeans?

21

2.1 Variation in formsE) Rhetorical questions• QuestionsincludingNPIwithanassertiveforce(24) Whowould ever eat there?

≈Nobodywould ever eat there.• Rhetorical echo-questions(25) A.We’re going toAfghanistanonvacation.

B.You’re goingWHEREonvacation?≈Ican’t believeyou’re going toAfghanistan

Cf.Lecture5

22

2.2 Variation in meaningAre there semantical or dialogical differencesassociated with the variation of form?- Stylistic variation- Written vs. spoken language/register…- In terms of speaker’s commitment and call-on-addressee.

23

2.2 Variation in meaningFrequency differences• In situ : very frequent in spoken language.• Fronted-wh + inversion: more frequent intexts than in spontaneous speech.

No systematic studies: a.o. Deprez, Hamlaoui,Wallner (phD. Constance) 60 to 80% in situ

24

2.2 Variation in meaning• A question is biased when the possible answers arenot equally probable, but one is preferred.

• They are different kinds of bias (a.o. Sudo):üEvidential bias

(26) Is it sunny outside? (# in a context providing negativeevidence)

üEpistemic bias(27) Didn’t John go to the party? (# when the speaker is

ignorant about who went or shoud have gone to the party)

25

2.2 Variation in meaningü English declarative questions are associated with an

evidential or epistemicbias (cf. Gunlogson).“Onepropertyofallthesituationsinwhichdeclarativesworkasquestions(aswellassomeofthesituationswheretheydonot)isthattheaddresseeisclearlybetterpositionedthanthespeakertorenderaverdictonthetruthoftheproposition,andbothpartiesareawareofthat.” (Gunlogson,2008)

ü No such constraints exist in French, wheredeclarative questions are very frequent and nearlynot constrained.

26

2.2 Variation in meaning• Tag questions convey epistemic bias which can be analyzed as

Speaker or Addressee commitments.

ü In matching tag questions, the proposition put forward as

a potential view/commitment of the addressee. Thespeaker checks this commitment attribution.

ü In reverse tag questions, the proposition put forward bythe speaker. The speaker checks whether thiscommitment is shared by the addressee.

Ø Both types of tags convey confirmation requests:confirmation of a commitment whose source varies.

27

2.2 Variation in meaning• Rhetorical questions correspond to cases of amaximal bias. (see lecture 5)

• Alternative questions correspond to caseswhere the set of possible answers is finite andpresented as presupposed. (see lecture 4)Observation: no alternative wh-questions(28) Est-ce que Jean est venu ou pas ?/ Did John come or

not?(28’) * Qui est venu ou pas ?/ *Who came or not?

28

2.2 Variation in meaningTags, particles, and prosody make explicit:

- A call-on-addressee- Its content (p or not p)- What the speaker is ready to commit to- What the speaker thinks that the addresseethinks, knows, believes or desires.

29

2.2 Variation in meaningDetermine:- the nature of bias- the degree of the bias- the source of the bias

Ø How tomodelbias indialogical framework?• In commitment spacesà la Krifka• Using tables à la Farkas and Bruce• Our proposal

30

III Modeling questions and bias

1. In commitment Space Semantics (Krifka)2.With a projected CG (Farkas & Bruce)3.With projected commitment for eachparticipants (Malamud & Stephenson)

4.Using commitments to non propositionalcontents (Beyssade & Marandin)

31

3.1. In commitment space semantics• Krifka proposes a formal framework for illocutionaryacts, which captures information shared by theinterlocutors, and the projected continuations of thecommunicativeexchange.

• Assertion: commitment for the truth of propositions• Question: conversational moves that restrict thecontinuations.

ØAccount for the state of the conversation at time t,but also its licits future developments.

32

3.1. In commitment space semantics

Themodelincludes- Commitmentstates:setsofpropositions- Commitmentspaces:setsofcommitmentstatesmodelinganinformationstateindiscourseanditsexpectedorpossiblecontinuations

- Commitmentspacedevelopments:sequenceofcommitmentspacesrecordingtheconversationalmoves<C0,C1,C2,…,Cn>

+indicates theupdateofcommitmentstates,commitment spaces,andCSDs.

33


• Speechact≠Propositionü Apropositionistrue orfalseü Aspeechact changesacommitment state

• Commitment state:setofpropositionsüUpdateofcommitment statecwith speechact Aϕ:

c+Aϕ =c⋃ {ϕ}.Krifka

the participants. The basic function of speech acts is tochange a commitment state. I will write Aφ for an illocu-tionary act that adds the proposition φ to the commit-ment state c, using graphical notation as in Figure 1.

(1) Update of commitment state c with speech act Aφ c + Aφ = c ⋃ {φ}.

There are certain requirements for pragmatically licit updates. Ideally, theproposition φ is not entailed by c; otherwise, φ would be redundant. More impor-tantly, the proposition φ should be consistent with the propositions in c. We can-not require consistency as a strict condition, as speakers often have inconsistentbeliefs, but there should not be any blatant inconsistencies, like a proposition andits negation being part of the same commitment state.

The notion of commitment states and their possible continuations naturallyleads to the modeling of an information state in discourse that includes the ex-pected or “legal” continuations of a commitment state. I call this a commitmentspace (CS); it is modeled as a set of commitment states.

(2) C is a commitment space if C is a set of commitment states, ⋂C ≠ ∅ and ⋂C ∈ C

We call ⋂C the root of C, and write √C. It is the set of all propositions that theparticipants have positively committed to up to the current point in conversation.

The notion of update of a commitment state by an illocutionary act can begeneralized to commitment spaces, as in (3):

(3) Update of a commitment space withan illocutionary act A, where A is de-fined for commitment states:C + A = {c∈C | √C + A ⊆ c}

For illustration, consider the update inFigure 2. The commitment space C has √Cas its root. The speech act Aφ updates thecommitment space C, leading to the com-mitment space C + Aφ, which is furthermoreupdated by Aψ, leading to the commitmentspace C + Aφ + Aψ.

One important application of commitment spaces is denegations of speechacts (cf. Cohen & Krifka 2014). It has been acknowledged since Searle (1969)that speech acts can undergo some sort of negation, as in (4):

(4) I don’t promise to come (≠ I promise not to come).

329

Figure 2: Updates of commitment space

√C + ¬φ+ ψ+ φ

+φ,ψ

CC+Aφ

+ ¬ψ

+φ,¬ψ +¬φ,ψ +¬φ,¬ψ

C+Aφ+Aψ

Aφ

Aψ

Figure 1: Update of commitment state

c

+ φ

Aφ

34


CommitmentspaceCisasetofcommitmentstates,suchthat∩C≠ø and∩C∈C

ü∩C,therootofC,isnoted√CüUpdateofacommitmentspaceCwithanillocutionaryactA:C +A ={c∈CI √C+A⊆c}.

Krifka

the participants. The basic function of speech acts is tochange a commitment state. I will write Aφ for an illocu-tionary act that adds the proposition φ to the commit-ment state c, using graphical notation as in Figure 1.

(1) Update of commitment state c with speech act Aφ c + Aφ = c ⋃ {φ}.

There are certain requirements for pragmatically licit updates. Ideally, theproposition φ is not entailed by c; otherwise, φ would be redundant. More impor-tantly, the proposition φ should be consistent with the propositions in c. We can-not require consistency as a strict condition, as speakers often have inconsistentbeliefs, but there should not be any blatant inconsistencies, like a proposition andits negation being part of the same commitment state.

The notion of commitment states and their possible continuations naturallyleads to the modeling of an information state in discourse that includes the ex-pected or “legal” continuations of a commitment state. I call this a commitmentspace (CS); it is modeled as a set of commitment states.

(2) C is a commitment space if C is a set of commitment states, ⋂C ≠ ∅ and ⋂C ∈ C

We call ⋂C the root of C, and write √C. It is the set of all propositions that theparticipants have positively committed to up to the current point in conversation.

The notion of update of a commitment state by an illocutionary act can begeneralized to commitment spaces, as in (3):

(3) Update of a commitment space withan illocutionary act A, where A is de-fined for commitment states:C + A = {c∈C | √C + A ⊆ c}

For illustration, consider the update inFigure 2. The commitment space C has √Cas its root. The speech act Aφ updates thecommitment space C, leading to the com-mitment space C + Aφ, which is furthermoreupdated by Aψ, leading to the commitmentspace C + Aφ + Aψ.

One important application of commitment spaces is denegations of speechacts (cf. Cohen & Krifka 2014). It has been acknowledged since Searle (1969)that speech acts can undergo some sort of negation, as in (4):

(4) I don’t promise to come (≠ I promise not to come).

329

Figure 2: Updates of commitment space

√C + ¬φ+ ψ+ φ

+φ,ψ

CC+Aφ

+ ¬ψ

+φ,¬ψ +¬φ,ψ +¬φ,¬ψ

C+Aφ+Aψ

Aφ

Aψ

Figure 1: Update of commitment state

c

+ φ

Aφ

35


Krifka defines various operations over speech acts incommitment spacesSpeech act denegation

(30) I don’t promise to come(31) I promisenot to come

Speech act conjunctionC + [A & B] = [C + A ] ∩ [C + B ]

Speech act disjunctionC + [A V B] = [C + A ] U [C + B ]

36


Commitmentspacedevelopments• CSDsareusedtoindicatetheactorofaspeechact

UpdateofacommitmentspacedevelopmentwithspeechactAbyactorS:⟨...,CSʹ⟩ +S A =⟨...,C S’,[C+A] S⟩

• TherejectionofthelastspeechactisexpressedbyanoperatorR,definedasbelow⟨...,C*,Cʹ*⟩ + S R =⟨...,C*,Cʹ*,C S⟩Thestar*standsforany discourse partcipant.

37


AssertionWhen asserting aproposition:• thespeakerundertakes responsibility forwhat is

claimed,bypublicly committing himself tothetruth ofthat proposition: S⊢φ

• Thespeakerwants tomake theaddressee believe thisproposition (see Bach&Harnish 1979).Butthis comesaboutasasecondary effect,cancelable, aconversationalimplicature.(32)a.Believe itornot,Iwontherace.

b.Idon’t carewhether you believe me,butIwontherace.

38


Reactionstoanassertion

Bias in commitment space semantics

(19) ⟨..., C*⟩ +S₁ S1⊢ φ +S₁ φ = ⟨..., C*, [C + S1⊢φ]S₁, [C + S1⊢φ + φ]S₁⟩

Let us now consider typical reactions to assertions.Speaker S₂ can simply acknowledge the assertion by S₁with utterances like Okay, Mmh, or nodding. In this, S₂confirms the last move of S₁. Another kind of reaction isby response particles like yes and no. As argued in Krifka2013, such particles are sentential anaphors that pick uprecently introduced propositions, where yes asserts thesentential anaphor, and no asserts its negation. The propo-sitional discourse referent is introduced by the TP of theantecedent clause.

(20) S₁: [ActP [[.] [CmP [[⊢] [TP I won the race]]]]] introduction of propositional ↪ φ discourse referent φ

S₂: Yes. +S₂ S₂⊢φ assert φS₂: No. +S₂ S₂⊢¬φ assert negation of φ

(21) illustrates confirmation by yes. Contradiction by no as in (22) requires a re-traction R, because otherwise the resulting commitment state would contain bothφ and S₂⊢¬φ, which is incoherent.

(21) (19) + S₂: Yes. = (19) +S₂ S₂⊢φ= ⟨..., C*, [C + S1⊢φ]S₁, [C + S1⊢φ + φ]S₁, [C + S1⊢φ + φ + S2⊢φ]S₂⟩

(22) (19) + S2: No. = (19) +S₂ R +S₂ S2⊢¬φ= ⟨..., C*, [C + S1⊢φ]S₁, [C + S1⊢φ + φ]S₂, [C + S1⊢φ]S₂, [C + S1⊢φ + S2⊢¬φ]S₂⟩

334

39


Question• Questions does not change the root of thecommitment space, they restrict the possiblecontinuations.(33)Did Iwin therace?(33) restricts the future developments of C in such away that the only legal continuations are thecommitments by the addressee S2 that S1 won therace or that S1 did not win the race. Other answers,such that I don’t know, require a prior retraction.

40


QuestionBipolar questions (neutral) vs. monopolar questions(biased).


one answer, so-called biased questions. One example are declarative questionswith assertive syntax, but rising prosody (Gunlogson 2002).

(26) I won the race?

Standard question theories have problems with biased questions; they have toresort to extraneous means to highlight one option over others (see e.g., Inquisi-tive Semantics; Farkas & Roelofson 2015). In the current framework there is anatural way to represent question bias: A speaker can propose just one legal con-tinuation to the addressee. I will call such moves monopolar questions.

(27) ⟨..., C*⟩ + S1, to S2: I won the race? = ⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S2⊢φ]S₁⟩

Notice that the answer yes is straightforward, whereas theanswer no requires a prior rejection. This reflects the bias ofsuch questions towards one particular answer.

(28) a. (27) + S₂: Yes. = (27) +S₂ S₂⊢φb. (27) + S₂: No. = (27) +S₂ R +S₂ S₂: No. = ⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S₂⊢φ]S₁, C*, [C + S₂⊢φ]S₂⟩

There is evidence that standard English polarity questions like Did I win therace? have a biased reading as well. This is evident with questions that contain apropositional negation. In standard analyses, such questions have the same read-ing as their non-negated counterparts. However, this is contrary to fact; they arebiased towards their (negated) proposition.

336

Krifka

The resulting commitment space contains the information that S1 is committedto φ, and that S2 is committed to ¬φ. Hence, S₁ and S₂ contradict each other. Ac-knowledgement, confirmation and contradiction are illustrated in Figure 7. Re-traction R is enacted when necessary; it is not a feature of the response particleno itself. If the antecedent clause contains a negation, as in I didn’t win the race,an answer like No, you didn’t does not involve a retraction (see Krifka 2013).

3 Polar questions and reactions to polar questions

The current framework creates the possibility of analyzing questions as a deriva-tive of other speech acts, in particular, assertions. With an information question, aspeaker requests an assertion of a particular type from the other speaker. This canbe modeled by a meta speech act that does not change the root of the commitmentspace, but restricts the possible continuations – to those in which the other speakermakes an assertion of an appropriate type.

A yes/no question, or polar question, is classically analyzed as offering achoice between two alternatives, a proposition and its negation (cf. Hamblin1973). This can be expressed in the current framework as in (23) and Figure 8.

tional discourse referent introduced by the question.

(24) a. (23) + S2: Yes. = (23) +S₂ S2⊢φ b. (23) + S2: No. = (23) +S₂ S2⊢¬φ

Non-congruent answers like I don’t know can be expressed after a prior retrac-tion of the last move. Retraction is required because the resulting commitmentspace could not contain both the information S2⊢φ and S2⊢‘S2 does not knowwhether φ’, or S2⊢‘S2 does not want to tell whether φ’.

(25) (23) +S₂ R +S₂ S2: I don’t know. = ⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S2⊢φ ⋃ C ⋃ S2⊢¬φ]S₁, CS₂, [C + S2⊢‘¬S2 knows whether φ’]S₂⟩

Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate congruent answers by yes and no, which donot require retraction, and a refusal to answer, which does. This corresponds to thestandard treatment of polar questions as presenting an option between two alterna-tives; I will call such questions bipolar. But questions may be skewed towards

335

41


Differences between assertions and questionsAfter an assertion, the root of the commitment spacehas changed.After a question, the root of the commitment spaceremains the same. Questions are called meta-speechacts, since they don’t change the commitment states.

42


Monopolar and bipolar questions in Chinese


(32a) can be used as a neutral information question, it is inappropriate in a contextin which the speaker sees the addressee eating an apple.

(32) a. Nī chí bu chí píngguo? b. Nǐ chí píngguo ma?you eat not eat apple you eat apple QU

‘Do you eat apples?’ ‘Do you eat apples?’, ‘You eat apples?’

But how does a canonical polarity question in English receive a bipolar read-ing that results in a non-biased question? Let us first consider the analysis of alter-native questions like (33a) and constituent questions like (33b).

(33) a. Did Ed meet Ann, Beth, or Carla? b. Who did Ed meet?

The alternative question (33a) can be analyzed by assuming that the alterna-tive phrase [DP Ann, Beth, or Carla] scopes out to SpecActP on the level of logicalform, where it is interpreted as a disjunction over speech acts.

(34) ⟦[ActP [DP Ann, Beth, or Carla]i [Act′ [Actº ?-did] [CmP [[Cmº ⊢] [TP Ed tdid meet ti]]]]]⟧S₁S₂

= ⟦[DP Ann, Beth, or Carla]⟧S₁S₂ (λxi ⟦[Act′ [Actº ?-did] [CmP [[Cmº ⊢] [TP Ed tdid meet ti]]]]⟧S₁S₂,tᵢ/xᵢ)

with ⟦[DP Ann, Beth, or Carla]⟧S₁S₂ = λR[R(Ann) V R(Beth) V R(Carla)]

and λxi⟦[Act′ [Actº ?-did] [CmP [[Cmº ⊢] [TP Ed tdid meet ti]]]]⟧S₁S₂,tᵢ/xᵢ

= λxi λ⟨..., C*⟩[⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met xi’]S₁⟩= λ⟨..., C*⟩[⟨..., C*, [⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met Ann’ ⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met Beth’

⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met Carla’]S₁⟩]

Taking φa, φb and φc as abbreviations for the respec-tive propositions, this results in the commitmentspace illustrated in Figure 13. The developments arerestricted to one of the three assertions by S₂, thatEd met Ann, that Ed met Beth, or that Ed met Carla.

Constituent questions like (33b) work in a simi-lar way, with the exception that in languages thatshow wh-movement like English SpecActP is filledexplicitly, with the wh expression.

338

Figure 13: Alternative question

��

√C C

��

√C C

��

√C C

��

S₁:


(32a) can be used as a neutral information question, it is inappropriate in a contextin which the speaker sees the addressee eating an apple.

(32) a. Nī chí bu chí píngguo? b. Nǐ chí píngguo ma?you eat not eat apple you eat apple QU

‘Do you eat apples?’ ‘Do you eat apples?’, ‘You eat apples?’

But how does a canonical polarity question in English receive a bipolar read-ing that results in a non-biased question? Let us first consider the analysis of alter-native questions like (33a) and constituent questions like (33b).

(33) a. Did Ed meet Ann, Beth, or Carla? b. Who did Ed meet?

The alternative question (33a) can be analyzed by assuming that the alterna-tive phrase [DP Ann, Beth, or Carla] scopes out to SpecActP on the level of logicalform, where it is interpreted as a disjunction over speech acts.

(34) ⟦[ActP [DP Ann, Beth, or Carla]i [Act′ [Actº ?-did] [CmP [[Cmº ⊢] [TP Ed tdid meet ti]]]]]⟧S₁S₂

= ⟦[DP Ann, Beth, or Carla]⟧S₁S₂ (λxi ⟦[Act′ [Actº ?-did] [CmP [[Cmº ⊢] [TP Ed tdid meet ti]]]]⟧S₁S₂,tᵢ/xᵢ)

with ⟦[DP Ann, Beth, or Carla]⟧S₁S₂ = λR[R(Ann) V R(Beth) V R(Carla)]

and λxi⟦[Act′ [Actº ?-did] [CmP [[Cmº ⊢] [TP Ed tdid meet ti]]]]⟧S₁S₂,tᵢ/xᵢ

= λxi λ⟨..., C*⟩[⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met xi’]S₁⟩= λ⟨..., C*⟩[⟨..., C*, [⟨..., C*, [{√C} ⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met Ann’ ⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met Beth’

⋃ C + S₂⊢‘Ed met Carla’]S₁⟩]

Taking φa, φb and φc as abbreviations for the respec-tive propositions, this results in the commitmentspace illustrated in Figure 13. The developments arerestricted to one of the three assertions by S₂, thatEd met Ann, that Ed met Beth, or that Ed met Carla.

Constituent questions like (33b) work in a simi-lar way, with the exception that in languages thatshow wh-movement like English SpecActP is filledexplicitly, with the wh expression.

338

Figure 13: Alternative question

��

√C C

��

√C C

��

√C C

��

S₁:

Ø (a) is a A-not-A question and can be used as a neutralinformation question.

Ø (b), with the final particle ma, is inappropriate where thespeaker sees the addressee eating an apple.

43


ReactiontobipolarquestionsTheyareassertionsandchangetheroot oftheCSp.









336

44


Reactionstomonopolar questionsSince thespeakerproposesjust onelegal continuationtotheaddressee:- theanswer yes isstraightforward- theanswer norequires

aprior rejection.









336

S2

Answer yes toamonopolar question

45


• Positive and negative bipolar questions convey thesamemeaning.

• A monopolar question with a propositional negationhas not the same reading that its non negativecounterpart.

• The bipolar interpretation is the result of adisjunctionof monopolar questions :

(34) a. Did I win the race or not?b. J’ai gagné ou pas ?

46


• A monopolar question with a propositional negation hasnot the same reading as its non negative counterpart.

Ø Negative monopolar question are biased toward anegative content.

(35) Did I not win the race?Expected answer : I did not win the race.

• The bipolar interpretation is the result of a disjunctionof monopolar questions:

(34) a. Did I win the race or not?b. J’ai gagné ou pas ?

47


Declarative questions• Krifka analysesdeclarativequestionsinEnglishasmonopolar questions.

• Heassumesthatasyntacticstructureinwhichthe?interpretationoftheActP istriggeredbyrisingprosodyoftheintonational phrasethatcorrespondstothespeechact.

Ø Risingprosodyplaysthesameroleasthesyntacticmarks.

48


Reversepolarity tagquestionsThespeakeroffers his orher own opinion,andasks foragreementbytheaddressee.(36) a.Ihavewontherace,haven’t I?

b.Ihaven’t wontherace,haveI?Aspeechact disjunction:ü S1puts forward acommittment toϕü Andshe asks forS2support.Result:ifS2commits toϕ,thenS1iscommittedtoϕ aswell.

49


Reversepolarity tagquestionResult:

ifS2commits toϕ,thenS1iscommitedtoϕ aswell.IfS2doesn’t provide thissupport,S1isfreeeither tostickϕ,ortoretract it,oreven toassert nonϕ

Krifka

(45) I have won the race, haven’t I? C +S₁ [⟦[ActP [ . ] [CmP [⊢] [TP I have won the race]]]⟧S₁S₂ V ⟦[ActP [ ? have’nt ] [CmP [⊢ ] [TP [[tn’t] [TP I thave won the race]]]]]⟧S₁S₂]= [C + S₁⊢φ] ⋃ [{√C}⋃ C + S₂⊢¬φ]

or to retract it and even assert ¬φ, without contradicting an earlier commitment.This corresponds Cattell’s characterization of reverse question tags. Also, the dis-junction as basic operation is evident in languages that use overt disjunction inquestion tags, as in German, see (46)

(46) Ich hab das Rennen gewonnen, oder?I have the race won, or‘I won the race, didn’t I?’

6 Conclusion

This article developed a theory of conversational update by speech acts that doesnot only model the current common ground (called commitment state), but also itsprojected continuation (the commitment space). This leads to a new conception ofquestions as conversational moves in which the speaker suggests particular asser-tions by the addressee. This view allows for “monopolar” questions that offer justone option for continuation. I argued that this is the proper analysis of biasedquestions, and proposed new analyses of alternative questions and constituentquestions as disjoined monopolar questions. I have analyzed high-negation ques-tions as projected non-commitments by the addressee, and of matching / reversequestion tags as conjunctions / disjunctions of an assertion and a question.

I would like to highlight one promising aspect of the framework developedhere: It distinguishes between the actor or instigator of a speech act and the com-mitter of a proposition. In regular assertions, these roles are both assumed by thespeaker; in a question, the speaker is the instigator, and the addressee the commit-ter, of the projected commitment. This provides a new handle on conjunct-dis-junct systems in languages like Newari, where the conjunct form appears to indexthe committer, the speaker in assertions, and the addressee in questions. Further-

343

50


Same polarity tagquestionsTheassertionisputforward asapotential viewoftheaddressee.(37)Youaretired,areyou?Aspeechact conjunction ofanassertionandamonopolarquestion.ü S1makes anassertionandü S1asks theaddressee tomake thesame assertion.

51


Same polarity tagquestionsResult:S1proposestoS2thatbothS1andS2arecommittedtothepropositionϕ.


call matching question tag as in (42) indicates that the assertion is put forward asa potential view of the listener. With a reverse question tag as in (43), which hasthe opposite polarity of the host clause, the speaker offers his or her own opinion,and asks for agreement by the addressee.

(42) You are tired, are you?

(43) a. I have won the race, haven’t I? b. I haven’t won the race, have I?

Matching question tags can be analyzed as speech act conjunction of an as-sertion and a monopolar question, as illustrated in (44) and in Figure 15.

(44) I have won the race, have I? C +S₁ [⟦[ActP [ . ] [CmP [⊢] [TP I have won the race]]]⟧S₁S₂ & ⟦[ActP [ ? ] [CmP [⊢] [TP I have won the race]]]⟧S₁S₂]

tral area in Figure 15 as new commitment space. S₁ can propose S₂⊢φ because φis understood as a commitment that S₂ has already anyway; this captures Cattell’scharacterization of matching question tags as voicing a likely opinion of the ad-dressee. If S₂ does not react, then the proposed commitments obtain. S₂ can reactwith yes, a move that is actually redundant given the root of the new commitmentspace of (44). If S₂ reacts with no and thus asserts ¬φ, this requires a previous re-ject operation, which will also reject that S1 is committed to φ. In this feature, anassertion with a matching tag differs from a simple assertion; if rejected by the ad-dressee, the speaker is still committed to the truth of the proposition. Again, thiscorresponds to Cattell’s characterization of matching question tags.

We now turn to reverse question tags, which I will analyze by speech act dis-junction. (45) and Figure 16 illustrate the analysis for the example with positivehost clause and negated tag. I interpret the negation the question tag as low nega-tion; an analysis in terms of high negation is possible as well.

342

52


• Anewnotion:monopolar questionswithonlyonecontinuation, usedtomodelbiasedquestions.

• Newanalysesofalternative questionsandconstituentquestionsasspeechactdisjunction (disjoinedmonopolar questions).

• Newanalysesoftagquestions.Distinguishbetween theinstigatorofaspeechactandthecommitterofaproposition.Limitsofthisapproach:- Nodegree inbias- Noindication ofthesourceofthebias.

53

3.2. With projected CG, à la Farkas et Bruce• EmphasizestheproposalnatureofassertionbydistinguishingactualandprojectedCommonGround.Assertion = proposing additions to the commonground, rather than actually changing it.

• Cannotaccountforbiasinquestions• Cannotaccountforthesourceofabiasinquestion(speaker,addressee,externalevidence…)

54

3.2. With projected CG, à la F&B

• A Table records syntactic objects paired with theirdenotations. Necessary to account for fragmentanswers and ellipsis.

• As long as there are items on the Table, there areissues that need to be dealt with. A conversation isin a stable statewhen its Table is empty.

• A conversational move that places an item on theTable simultaneously projects a set of futurecommon grounds relative to which the issue on theTable is decided,called the projectedset (ps) .

55


• A polar question projects two possible answers.(3)IsSamhome?(askedinacontextwheres1isshared)

Defaultpolarquestionsarenon-biasing: theydonotcommittheirauthortoeitherpropositionintheirdenotationandprojectaninquisitive contextwithrespecttotheirsentenceradical.

A Table B

<Samishome[I];{p,¬p}>

Com. Grounds1

Projected Set{s1∪ {p}, s1∪ {¬p}}

56


NothinginFarkas &Brucetoaccountforbiasinquestions.

A Table B

<Samishome[I];{p,¬p}>

Com. Grounds1

Projected Set{s1∪ {p}, s1∪ {¬p}}

57


How to account for the bias?- One could add p or ¬p in A or Bcommitment sets.

- Farkas & Roelofsen propose to underlinethe prefered answer in the projected set.

- Another solution could be to order theelements of the projected set, i.e. toorder the possible answers to anyquestion.

58

3.3. With projected committmentsets, à la Malamud et StephensonAasserts p

Current ProjectedCG{…} CG*{{…,p},...,{…,p}}

Proposestoadd ptotheCGDC(A){…,p} DC(A)*{{…,p},...,{…,p}}

adds ptoA’s current andprojected commitmentsDC(B){…} DC(B)*{{…},...,{…}}DC(C){…} DC(C)*{{…},...,{…}}

No changeto B orC’scommitmentsTable<p,…> Table*{<…>,..., <…>}

Adds ptothetopofthetable;proposesthat itbe resolved

59

3.3.With projected committmentsets, à la M&SAutters pwith aRP-tag

Current ProjectedCG{…} CG*{{…,p},...,{…,p}}

Proposestoadd ptotheCGDC(A){…} DC(A)*{{…,p},...,{…,p}}

adds ptoA’s projected commitmentsDC(B){…} DC(B)*{{…},...,{…}}DC(C){…} DC(C)*{{…},...,{…}}

No changeto B orC’scommitmentsTable<p,…> Table*{<…>,..., <…>}

Adds ptothetopofthetable;proposesthat itbe resolved

60

3.3. With projected committmentsets, à la M&SAutters pwith aSP-tag

Current ProjectedCG{…} CG*{{...},...,{…}}

NochangetotheCGDC(A){…} DC(A)*{{…},...,{…}}

nochangetoA’s commitmentsDC(B){…} DC(B)*{{…,p},...,{…,p}}

Adds pto B’s projected commitmentsTable<p,…> Table*{<…>,..., <…>}

NochangetotheTable

61

3.3.With projected committmentsets, à la M&SAutters pwith arising intonation

Current ProjectedCG{…} CG*{{...},...,{…}}

nochangetotheCGDC(A){…} DC(A)*{{…,p},...,{…,p}}

adds ptoA’s projected commitmentsDC(B){…} DC(B)*{{…},...,{…}}

nochangeto B’commitmentsTable<MLI(p),…> Table*{<p,…>,..., <p,…>}

adds ptotheprojected Table- pisexpected tobecome anissue:adds ametalinguistic issue(MLI(p)totheTable

62

3.4. Our proposal• DoubleimpactofspeechactsoncontextØ Thespeakertakes apublicstance:she shows

something fromher private mentalstate(Belief,Desire,Intention).

Ø The speaker expects an Addressee reaction.When uttering a question, the speaker shows:1. that she’s interested in the answer of this

question,and2. that she expects that the Addressee takes in

charge this question and answers it if he can.

63

3.4. Our proposalGiven the uttering of a question:• Whattypeofcontentdoes itcommitthe

speakerto?• Whattypeofcontentdoes itcallon

addressee toget committed to?• When does abias arise?

Ø When thespeakerraises anissuebutsimultaneouslyupdatesprojectedcommittmentsofoneorseveral discourseparticipants.

64

3.4. Our proposalClause types, particles, tags and prosodycontribute to specify these various updates.

ØDivision of labour betweenüsyntax,ülexical semanticsüand prosody.

65

3.4.1 Clause Type contribution1-1 relation between clause type and thespeaker’s commitment.Speaker is committed to the content that iscontributed by the clause type of her utterance.• aclausetype ischaracterized byatypeofcontent.

• Inroot clauses,theclausetypemarksthetypeofspeaker’s commitment (e.g.commitment toaproposition,toanissue,toacommand…).

66

3.4.1 Clause Type contribution

Starting point: contrast between declarativesand interrogatives.• by default, declaratives are associated withassertions and Speaker’s commitment to aproposition (p).

• by default, interrogatives are associated withquestions and Speaker’s commitment to aquestion (?p).

67

3.4.1 Clause Type contribution

Ø1-1 relation between clause type and type ofcommitment.- Declarative: commitment to p- Interrogative: commitment to ?p

ØBy default, no difference between the contentof speaker’s commitment and the content ofthe call on Addressee.- Declarative: S expects that A commits to p- Interrogative: S expects that A commits to ?p

68

3.4.1 Clause Type contributionSentence Speech

actSpeakerCommit--ment

Call-onAddressee

Jeanavuquelqu’un.Johnsawsomebody.

Simpleassertion p p

Est-cequeJeanavuquelqu’un?DidJohnseeanybody ?

Simplequestion ?p ?p

69

3.4.2 Particles contribution

The content of the call-on-Addressee maybe different from the content of thespeaker’s commitment.

Various constructional devices (particles,tags…) specify the type of content that thespeaker expects the addressee to getcommitted to.

70

3.4.2 Particles contributionN’est-ce pas in French, like RP tags in English, indicates that the speakercalls for the addressee to confirmher belief.ü The speaker’s belief is associated with the update of the speaker’s

projected commitments.ü The speaker has (provisional) commitment since there is no update of

the projected CG.ü The speaker expects that the addressee gets committed to ?p and

consequently resolves the raised issue.

A confirmation request with n’est-ce pas is a complex speech act,conveying

Ø a weak commitment to p from the speakerØ A call-on-Addressee to ?p

71

3.4.2 Particles contribution‘p,n’est-cepas?’/‘p,RP-tag?’

Table<Jean estmalade,n’est-cepas?>Current Projected

CG No changeDC(A) Adds ptoA’s projected commitmentsDC(B) NochangeDC(C) No changeAdd ?pQUD(A)QUD(B) Adds ?ptoQUD(B)(=callonaddressee)

72

3.4.2 Particles contributionC’est ça in French, like SP tags in English, indicates that the speaker callsfor the addressee to confirm that the addresseeherself believes that p.ü The addressee’s belief is associated with the update of the

addressee’s projected commitments.ü This isn’t committed to p since there is no update of the speaker’s

current or projected committment.ü The speaker expects that the addressee get committed to ?p and

consequently resolves the raised issue.

A confirmation request with c’est ça is a complex speech act, conveyingØ A belief attribution from the speaker to the addresseeØ A call-on-Addressee to ?p

73

3.4.2 Particles contribution‘p,c’estça?’/‘p,sP-tag?’

Table<Jean estmalade,c’estça?>Current Projected

CG No changeDC(A) NochangeDC(B) Adds ptoB’s projected commitmentsDC(C) No changeAdd ?pQUD(A)QUD(B) Adds ?ptoQUD(B)(=callonaddressee)

74

3.4.2 Particles contribution• Bias conveyed by n’est-ce pas: Speakerhas reasons to believe p rather non p.

• Bias conveyed by c’est ça: Speaker thinksthat Addressee has reasons to believe prather non p.

ØThe source of bias is lexically marked.Both particles indicates epistemic bias.

75

3.4.3 Prosody contributionDeclarative statements vs. declarative questions(Gunlogson 2001, Beyssade et al. 2006)Pierre va accueillir Nicolas. (ASSERT)‘Peterwill invite/accommodate Nicolas’

Pierre va accueillir Nicolas? (QUEST)‘Will Peter invite/ accommodate Nicolas ?’

76

3.4.3 Prosody contribution• In English, rising declaratives convey an evidential bias (a.o.

Gunlogson 2001).• In French, rising declaratives aren’t biased.• The rising intonation doesn’t convey by itself an interrogative

meaning: there are rising assertions, and falling questions (likedefault wh-questions).

• The rising intonation is used to indicate that the speech actrealized by the utterance is not the canonical speeach actassociated with the syntactic type of the utterance.Ø Declarative questions are typically risingØ Rhethorical (interrogative) questions are typically rising too.

77

3.4.3 Prosody contributionFocus in questionsA rising tone (H) at the end of the focaldomain indicates the focus of the question.

(9) BERNADETTE a vu Pierre à Paris hier ?(10) Bernadette a vu PIERRE à Paris hier ?(11) Bernadette a vu Pierre à PARIS hier?(12) Bernadette a vu Pierre à Paris HIER?

Bernadette saw Pierre in Paris yesterday ?

78

3.4.3 Prosody contribution(9’) Is it Bernadette who saw Pierre in Paris

yesterday?(10’) Is it Pierre that Bernadette saw in Paris

yesterday?(11’) Is it in Paris that Bernadette saw Peter

yesterday?(12’) Is it yesterday that Bernadette saw

Peter in Paris?

79

3.4.3 Prosody contributionIn rising declarative, a rising contour is realized at theend of the focus element, but the rising contour alsooccurs at the end of the utterance (copy).

‘Jean-MarieisfreeMonday’

PaulviendraAssertion

Question

décla

rative

Phrase

Interrogative

81

Conclusions• Use commitments to analyse speech acts.• Current and projected commitments• Assume commitments to nonpropositional contents

• Study the division of labour, betweensyntax (clause type), lexical semantics(particles), and prosody to these updatesof dialogical context.

82

ConclusionsDisentangling syntactic, semantic, prosodic andlexical contributions to interpretation.ü The importance of syntactic type which

determines the type of the speaker’scommitment.

ü The interpretation of rising which indicates acomplex moves, a difference between thecontent of the speaker’s commitment andthe speaker’s call-on-addressee.

83

Conclusions• Various types of bias in question:

Ø Evidential biasØ Epistemic bias

• Their realisation varies crosslinguistically:Ø Evidential bias of English declarative questions

(Gunlogson 2008)Ø Epistemic bias associated with particles in French, in

Japanese (Sudo 2010)Ø Epistemic bias associated with English tag questions.

• Are all questions biased? Probably not: seealternativequestions.

84

Open questions• What is the prosody of these particles?

Ø c’est ça? is incompatible with a falling intonation.Ø Experiments on biased polar questions in English and

German (cf. Domaneschi, Romero, Braun 2017).

• Is there one or several types of rising intonation?Ø Rising intonationØ Incredulity intonation: contrast between H*H% and

H+ H*H% in French (Michelas et al. 2013), betweenL*HH% and L+H* LH% in Dutch (Crespo-Sendra etal., 2017)

85

ReferencesK. Bach & R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

C. Bartels; 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions. NewYork, NY: Garland Publishing.

C.Beyssade &J.-M.Marandin.2006.‘Thespeechact assignment problemrevisited:Disentangling Speaker’scommitment from Speaker’scallonAddressee’ CSSP’sproceedings. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/.

D.Buring &C.Gunlogson.2000.Aren’tpositiveandnegativepolarquestionsthesame?TalkatLinguisticSocietyofAmerica(LSA)AnnualMeeting.

R.Cattell.1973.Negativetransportationandtagquestions.Language49,612- 639.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412354.

V. Crespo-Sendra, C. Kaland, M.Swerts & P. Prieto. 2013. Perceivingincredulity: the role of intonation and facial gestures, Journal ofpragmatics.

F.Domaneschi,M.Romero&B.Braun.2017.Biasinpolarquestions:EvidencefromEnglishandGreman productionexperiments,Glossa,1-28.

86

ReferencesC.Féry 2001.Focusandphrasing inFrench.Audiatur VoxSapientiae.A

Festschrift forArnimvon Stechow,ed.byC.Féry &W.Sternefeld, 153-81.Akademie-Verlag.

D.Farkas &K.B.Bruce.2010.Onreactingtoassertionsandpolarques- tions.JournalofSemantics27,81-118.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010.

D.Farkas &F.Roelofsen.2015.Polarinitiativesandpolarparticleresponsesasawindowontotheinterpretationofquestionsandassertions.Lan-guage 91,359-414.

J. Ginzburg, 1997. Querying and Assertion in Dialogue I, Hebrew University ofJerusalem, ms.

J. Ginzburg. 2012. The interactive Stance: Meaning in conversation, OxfordUniversity Press.

J. Ginzburg and I. A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI.

87

ReferencesJ.Groenendijk &M.Stokhof.1984.Onthesemantics ofquestionsandthe

pragmatics ofanswers. InF.Landman &F.Veltman (eds.),Varieties offormal semantics,Dordrecht:Foris,143–170.

C.Gunlogson.2001.TruetoForm:RisingandFallingDeclarativesasQuestionsinEnglish.PHDThesis,publishedin2003,Routledge.

C.Gunlogson.2008.Aquestionofcommitment.BelgiumJournalofLinguistics22,101-136.

C.L.Hamblin.1970.Fallacies,Methuen,London.C.L.Hamblin.1971.Mathematical models ofdialogue,Theoria 37:130-155.F.Hamlaoui.2010.OntheroleofphonologyanddiscourseinFrancilian

Frenchwh-questions. JournalofLinguistics47:1–34R.Huddleston. 2002.Clausetypeandillocutionary force.InR.Huddelston &

J.Pullum (eds),TheCambridgeGrammaroftheEnglishLanguage,CambridgeU.P,851-945.

L.Karttunen.1977.Thesyntax andsemantics ofquestions.Linguistics andPhilosophy 1,3–44.

88

ReferencesM.Krifka.2001.Forastructured meaning account ofquestionsandanswers.

InC.Féry &WolfgangSternefeld (eds.),Audiatur VoxSapientia.AFestschrift forArnimvon Stechow,Akademie Verlag (studia grammatica52),287-319.

M.Krifka.2015.Bias inCommitment Space Semantics:Declarative questions,negated questions,andquestiontag.SALT25.LSAOpenJournalSystems,328-345.

M.Krifka.2017.Negated polarity questionsasdenegation ofassertions. InC.Lee,F.Kiefer&M.Krifka (eds.), Contrastiveness inInformationStructure,AlternativesandScalar Implicature.Berlin:Springer,359-378.

S.A.Malamud&T.Stephenson.2011.ThreeWaystoAvoidCommitments:DeclarativeForceModifiersintheConversationalScoreboard. SemDial.

A.Michelas,C.Portes,M.Champagne-Lavau.2013.Intonational contrastsencodespeaker's certaintyinneutralvs.incredulitydeclarativequestionsinFrench.ProceedingsofInterspeech,783-787.

C.Portes,C.Beyssade, A.Michelas,J.-M.Marandin,M.Champagne-Lavau.2014. TheDialogical DimensionofIntonational Meaning:EvidencefromFrench.JournalofPragmatics, 74,15-29.

89

ReferencesK.Pruitt&F.Roelofsen.2013.Theinterpretationofprosodyindisjunctive

questions.LinguisticInquiry 44(4):632– 650.M.Romero&C.Han.2004.Onnegative yes/noquestions.Lin- guistics and

Philosophy 27,609-658.R.Simik,2011.Introductiontothesemanticsofquestions.Coursegiven

duringtheEGGSummerSchoolin Ceske Budejovice,Czech Republic.Y.Sudo.2010.BiasedpolarquestionsandJapaneseQuestionParticles,ms.H.Truckenbrodt.2013.AnAnalysisofprosodicF-effects ininterrogatives:

Prosody,syntaxandsemantics.Lingua124:131–175.H.Truckenbrodt.2015.Intonationphrasesandspeechacts.In:Kluck,Mar-

lies,DennisOtt &MarkdeVries (eds.),Parenthesis andellipsis:Crosslin-guistic andtheoretical perspectives,301-349.

Jean-Mariewill gotoGermany,Norway orIrelandInterrogative

Decla

rative

91

References (en plus)Delais-Roussarie &G.Turco 2016.IntonationofAlternativeConstructionsin

French:whichcuesallowdistinguishingquestionsfromassertions?.InRomanceLanguagesandLinguisticTheory2016.Selectedpapersfrom'GoingRomance'Frankfurt2016,JohnBenjamins

B.DeCornulier 1982.Surlesensdesquestionstotalesetalternatives [Onthemeaning ofpolarandalternativequestions].Langages67:55–109.

A.DiCristo2016.Lesmusiquesdufrançaiscontemporain:Essaissurl’accentuation,lamétrique,lerythme,lephraséprosodiqueetl’intonationdufrançaiscontemporain.DeGruyter.

R.Ladd.1996/2008.IntonationalPhonology. CambridgeUniversityPress.J.Pierrehumbert.1980.ThephonologyandphoneticsofEnglishintonation.

Doctoraldissertation,MIT,Cambridge,MA.J.Pierrehumbert &M.Beckman.1988.Japanese tonestructure.MA:MIT

Press.E.Selkirk.1984.Phonology andsyntax:Therelationbetween sound and

structure.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

questions, commitments and biasesslli2018.folli.info/wp-content/uploads/lecture3.pdf · questions,...

Documents