Questions in Discourse: an Overview

Abstract

1 Some theories, cf. Krifka (2011), strive to keep a clear distinction between speech acts and semantic objects, hence, distinguishing between questions as meanings and questions as speech acts and thereby mirroring the distinction between propositions and assertions. We will not make such a terminological distinction here, because a corresponding terminology has not become customary in the literature, even though we do acknowledge that this may give rise to certain confounds. Edgar Onea and Malte Zimmermann -9789004378308 Downloaded from Brill.com07/05/2020 11:02:41PM via free access questions in discourse: an overview 7 questions in discourse: an overview 13 an update will only be possible if the next utterance addresses the question, in which case the question is deleted from the set of questions.6 (10) Discourse update for (6) a. D 0 = ⟨CG 0 , ∅⟩ b. D A1 = ⟨CG 0 , {Q}⟩ c. D B = ⟨CG 0 , ∅⟩ question addressed and deleted d. D A2 = ⟨CG 0 ∪ A2, ∅⟩ 2.2The Meaning of Interrogatives This section gives a short overview of the standard approaches to the analysis of overt questions through the study of the meaning of interrogative clauses. There are three main types of approaches, namely alternative-based approaches to question semantics, discussed in section 2.2.1 and prominently defended, e.g., in Hamblin (1973), Karttunen (1977), or more recently in Beaver & Clark (2008); Partition Semantics, as developed in Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984) and recently defended in Haida (2007), discussed here in section 2.2.2; and, finally, the Structured Propositions-based approach, which we briefly discuss in 2.

Impossible Presuppositions. On factivity, focus, and triviality

“…From this perspective, the main discourse-semantic function of focus is to establish a formal congruence between an utterance and its corre sponding QUD. As Onea & Zimmermann (2019) point out, this congruence relation can be formalized within an alternative semantics framework as follows:…”

“…2 For the sake of clarity, I adopt the adapted definition from Onea & Zimmermann (2019), which involves the classic notion of QUD instead of the Current Question, as in Beaver and Clark's proposal. As far as I can tell, this decision does not affect the core of my proposal.…”