Papers on questions
- Promises and Threats with Conditionals and Disjunctions . with Michael Franke (to appear in Ten Years After, volume edited by Grewendorf and E. Zimmermann) pdf file
With a conditional ``If you do ....., I'll do ....'' we can make
promises and threats. But with a disjunction ``You do \dots, or I'll
do \dots'' we can only make threats, no promises. We suggest that
this so because disjunctive promises would be a suboptimal strategic
commitment in a game-like situation where the speaker is trying to
influence the hearer's choice of action.
- Meaning and Use . (in Handbook of Philosophy and Linguistics, by Asher, Fernando, and Kempson, ) pdf file
This paper deals with the meaning of natural language expressions, and how meanings of expressions are used in communication. The two disciplines that talk most about meanings of expressions are linguistics (semantics and pragmatics) and philosophy. This paper is about topics discussed in both disciplines. The first part of the paper is more philosophical in nature and discusses what is meaning in the first place, and how it is related with reference. The second part is concerned with the relation between semantics and pragmatics.
- Comparing Questions and Answers: A bit of Logic, a bit of Language, and some bits of Information. (This paper was written in 2000, but is published in `Theories of Information' edited by G. Simuraga, in 2008) pdf
file
- Utility, informativity and protocols; (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2004, 33, pp. 389-419. An earlier version appeared in the Proceedings of LOFT 2002: Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, Bonnano et al. International Center for Economic research, Torino): pdf
file
In this paper I show that maximization of relevance reduces under specific circumstances to maximization of informativity. It is also shown that the logical notion of entailment can be seen as an {\it abstraction} of the comparative relation of utility between two speech acts. The moral of this technical article is important for my more linguistically oriented research: relevance, or utility, is shown to be the basic notion, and notions that are normally used in linguistic semantics and pragmatics, like informativity and entailment, can be seen as special cases.
- Questions and Relevance, (A slightly different version from one that appeared in: Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives (Proceedings of 2nd CoLogNET-ElsNET Symposium, pp. 96-107
, pdf file
In this paper it is argued that the interpretation of an interrogative sentence is {\it underspecified} by its conventional meaning. A uniform but still {\it substantial} underspecified meaning is given, and it is shown how this underspecification can be resolved by making use of a {\it relevance} relation between propositions. (I am afraid that this paper is not really new material, although the ideas are (hopefully) presented in a somewhat clearer way.)
- Quality and Quantity of Information Exchange (Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2003, 12: 423-451). Here is an almost final version: pdf file )
The paper deals with credible and relevant information flow in dialogs: How
useful is it for a receiver to get some information, how useful is it for a sender to
give this information, and how much credible information can we expect to flow between
sender and receiver? What is the relation between semantics and pragmatics? These
Gricean questions will be addressed from a decision and game-theoretical point of view.
- On Polar Questions (With Marie Safarova, In R. Young and Y. Zhou (eds.), Salt 13: Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University). Here is an almost final version: pdf
file
We first show on a number of examples that positive polar questions, negative polar questions and alternative questions (containing a proposition and its negation) are not interchangeable in context. We will account for the
differences pragmatically, using decision theory. We offer a
simple classification of three types of use, which covers a number
of phenomena hitherto not systematically dealt with. Finally, we
do away with Ladd's typology of negative polar questions and give
a more systematic interpretation of the data.
An earlier version of this paper appeared as `No's no Good Alternative (With Marie Nilsenova, Stuttgart workshop on Info-structure, 2002); pdf
file
- Questioning to Resolve Decision Problems (Linguistics and Philosophy, 2003, pp. 727-763, an early version of it appeared already in the Proceedings of the 1999 Amsterdam colloquium as an extended abstract). Here is an almost final version: pdf
file
Why do we ask questions? Because we want to
have some information. But why this particular kind of
information? Because only information of this particular
kind is helpful to resolve the {\it decision problem}
that the agent faces. In this paper I argue that
questions are asked because their answers help to
resolve the questioner's decision problem, and that this
assumption helps us to interpret interrogative
sentences. Interrogative sentences are claimed to have a
semantically {\it underspecified} meaning and this
underspecification is resolved by means of the decision
problem.
- The dynamics of questions and focus; With Maria Aloni, In: B. Jackson (ed.), Salt 12: Semantic and Linguistic Theory}, 2002, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University. Here is an almost final version: ps
file
This article presents a {\it dynamic} account of questions and focus which combines the logical appeal of the {\it partition theory} of questions with the empirical strength of the {\it structured meaning} account of questions and focus.
- Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance; (Journal of Semantics, 2003, 20: 239-273). Here is an almost final version: pdf
file
The traditional approach towards (negative)
polarity items is to answer the question in which
contexts NPIs are licensed. The inspiring
approaches of Kadmon \& Landman (1990, 1993) (K\&L) and
Krifka (1990, 1992, 1995) go a major step further: they
also seek to answer the question of {\it why} these
contexts license NPIs. To explain the appropriate use
of polarity items in questions, however, we need to
answer an even more challenging question: why is an NPI
{\it used} in a particular utterance in the first place?
K\&L and Krifka go some way to answer this question as
well, but I seek to give the question a somewhat
`deeper' explanation.
- Relevance of Communicative Acts; (Proceedings of Tark 2001) pdf
file dvi
file
This was my first paper where I argued that decision and game theory can be used to measure the {\it relevance} of
a speech act. In this paper
I argue that (i) the relevance of a speech act depends
on the `language game' one is involved in; (ii)
notions of relevance can be defined using
decision, information and game theory, and can be used
for linguistic applications; and (iii) the strategic
considerations of participants in a conversation deserve
our attention, especially when we consider mixed-motive
games of imperfect information, for instance, to
establish the common ground.
- The Utility of Mention-some Questions; (In Research on Language and Computation, 2004, 2, 401-416. The paper was already accepted in beginning of 2001!). Here is an almost final version: pdf
file dvi
file
- Permission to Change (Journal of Semantics, 2000, 17, pp. 119-145) pdf
file
In this paper I discuss how to account for the
performative effects of imperatives, and concentrate
mainly on permission sentences. In the first part of the
paper I argue that the performative effects of
permission sentences should be accounted for in terms of
a context change theory by making use of {\it
contraction} defined in terms of an ordering relation,
and show also how this ordering relation evolves from
permission to permission. In the second part a problem
for this analysis is discussed, i.e. the problem of
conjunctive permission sentences. I develop two ways to
solve this problem. First, I suggest that this problem
is due to the wrong way of accounting for contraction,
and propose an alternative way in which contraction can
be defined that accounts for the performative effects of
conjunctive permissions in a more satisfactory way.
Although the analysis is appealing, I will argue that we
should account for the problem by means of a type-shift
analysis.
- Some analyses of pro-attitudes. In: H. de Swart (ed.) Logic, Game Theory, and Social Choice, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, 1999; ps
file dvi
file
- Modal Subordination in Questions (Twendial '98, Recently, Something very close to this analysis has become popular via work of Adrian Brasoveanu) pdf
file
In this paper it is discussed how questions should change information
states in dynamic semantics. The main claim is that the meaning of
following utterances can be dependent on questions in a similar way as
these meanings can be dependent on quantificational sentences, or more
broadly, that this dependence is one of Ômodal subordinationÕ. The most
important contribution of this paper, however, is to show how this dependence
between questions and later utterances can be accounted for in a
general and systematic way.
E-mail: |
R.A.M.VanRooijATuva.nl |