scholarly journals A dynamic semantics of single-wh and multiple-wh questions

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 376
Author(s):  
Jakub Dotlacil ◽  
Floris Roelofsen
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Inquisitive Semantics ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Wh Questions

We develop a uniform analysis of single-wh and multiple-wh questions couched in dynamic inquisitive semantics. The analysis captures the effects of number marking on which-phrases, and derives both mention-some and mention-all readings as well as an often neglected partial mention-some reading in multiple-wh questions. 

scholarly journals Questions

2018 ◽  
pp. 77-92
Author(s):  
Ivano Ciardelli ◽  
Jeroen Groenendijk ◽  
Floris Roelofsen
Keyword(s):  
Formal Analysis ◽  
Inquisitive Semantics ◽  
Analysis Question ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Alternative Questions

Chapter 5 discusses how the meaning of various types of questions in English can be captured in the basic inquisitive semantics framework presented in the previous chapters. Several kinds of questions, including polar questions, alternative questions, and wh-questions, are given a formal analysis. Question coordination and conditional questions are also considered.

Responses of Language-Disordered Children to Wh-Questions

1986 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha M. Parnell ◽  
James D. Amerman ◽  
Roger D. Harting
Keyword(s):  
Relative Difficulty ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Cognitive Linguistic ◽  
Wh Questions

Nineteen language-disordered children aged 3—7 years responded to items representing nine wh-question forms. Questions referred to three types of referential sources based on immediacy and visual availability. Three and 4-year-olds produced significantly fewer functionally appropriate and functionally accurate answers than did the 5- and 6-year-olds. Generally, questions asked with reference to nonobservable persons, actions, or objects appeared the most difficult. Why, when, and what happened questions were the most difficult of the nine wh-forms. In comparison with previous data from normal children, the language-disordered subjects' responses were significantly less appropriate and accurate. The language-disordered children also appeared particularly vulnerable to the increased cognitive/linguistic demands of questioning directed toward nonimmediate referents. A hierarchy of wh-question forms by relative difficulty was very similar to that observed for normal children. Implications for wh-question assessment and intervention are discussed.

Cross-speaker anaphora in dynamic semantics

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-129
Author(s):  
Jae-Il Yeom
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics

scholarly journals A Computational Treatment of Anaphora and Its Algorithmic Implementation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Bernardy ◽  
Stergios Chatzikyriakidis ◽  
Aleksandre Maskharashvili
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Test Suite ◽  
Abstract Syntax ◽  
Computational Approaches ◽  
Complex Cases

AbstractIn this paper, we propose a framework capable of dealing with anaphora and ellipsis which is both general and algorithmic. This generality is ensured by the compination of two general ideas. First, we use a dynamic semantics which reperent effects using a monad structure. Second we treat scopes flexibly, extending them as needed. We additionally implement this framework as an algorithm which translates abstract syntax to logical formulas. We argue that this framework can provide a unified account of a large number of anaphoric phenomena. Specifically, we show its effectiveness in dealing with pronominal and VP-anaphora, strict and lazy pronouns, lazy identity, bound variable anaphora, e-type pronouns, and cataphora. This means that in particular we can handle complex cases like Bach–Peters sentences, which require an account dealing simultaneously with several phenomena. We use Haskell as a meta-language to present the theory, which also consitutes an implementation of all the phenomena discussed in the paper. To demonstrate coverage, we propose a test suite that can be used to evaluate computational approaches to anaphora.

Should we regard question-based media headlines as clickbait?

English Today ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Brian Poole
Keyword(s):  
Question Mark ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Wh Questions

In an article published a little over a decade ago (Betteridge, 2009), the journalist Ian Betteridge offered some scathing comments about a piece published a few days earlier in TechCrunch by Erick Schonfeld (Schonfeld, 2009). Amongst other things, Betteridge suggested that the headline concerned (‘Did Last.fm Just Hand Over User Listening Data to the RIAA?’) was ‘a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no”.’ Readers of English Today will realise immediately that this ‘maxim’ cannot possibly be watertight as expressed by Betteridge, since only polar questions can be answered with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. For example, WH-questions (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1973: 196) such as ‘Who opened my letter?’ and ‘How long have you been waiting?’ obviously cannot be responded to in any sensible way with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Furthermore, it is not difficult to find media headlines taking the form of non-polar questions: for example, “What would a no-deal Brexit mean for business?” (O'Dwyer et.al., 2020).

scholarly journals Coconuts and curtain cakes: The production of wh-questions in ASD

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 239694152098295
Author(s):  
Nufar Sukenik ◽  
Eléonore Morin ◽  
Naama Friedmann ◽  
Philippe Prevost ◽  
Laurice Tuller
Keyword(s):  
Error Analysis ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Production Rates ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Analysis Of Error ◽  
Error Types

Background and aims Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have been found to exhibit difficulties in wh-question production. It is unclear whether these difficulties are pragmatic or syntactic in nature. The current study used a question elicitation task to assess the production of subject and object wh-questions of children with ASD in two different languages (Hebrew and French) wherein the syntactic structure of wh-questions is different, a fact that may contribute to better understanding of the underlying deficits affecting wh-question production. Crucially, beyond the general correct/error rate we also performed an in-depth analysis of error types, comparing syntactic to pragmatic errors and comparing the distribution of errors in the ASD group to that of children with typical development (TD) and children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Results Correct production rates were found to be similar for the ASD and DLD groups, but error analysis revealed important differences between the ASD groups in the two languages and the DLD group. The Hebrew- and French ASD groups were found to produce pragmatic errors, which were not found in children with DLD. The pragmatic errors were similar in the two ASD groups. Syntactic errors were affected by the structure of each language. Conclusions Our results have shown that although the two ASD groups come from different countries and speak different languages, the correct production rates and more importantly, the error types were very similar in the two ASD groups, and very different compared to TD children and children with DLD. Implications: Our results highlight the importance of creating research tasks that test different linguistic functions independently and strengthen the need for conducting fine-grained error analysis to differentiate between groups and gain insights into the deficits underlying each of them.

Focus Attracts Attachment

2021 ◽  
pp. 002383092110333
Author(s):  
Katy Carlson ◽  
David Potter
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Focus Position ◽  
Auditory Comprehension ◽  
Perceptual Salience ◽  
Wh Questions ◽  
Prosodic Boundaries ◽  
Sentence Interpretation ◽  
Pitch Accents

There is growing evidence that pitch accents as well as prosodic boundaries can affect syntactic attachment. But is this an effect of their perceptual salience (the Salience Hypothesis), or is it because accents mark the position of focus (the Focus Attraction Hypothesis)? A pair of auditory comprehension experiments shows that focus position, as indicated by preceding wh-questions instead of by pitch accents, affects attachment by drawing the ambiguous phrase to the focus. This supports the Focus Attraction Hypothesis (or a pragmatic version of salience) for both these results and previous results of accents on attachment. These experiments show that information structure, as indicated with prosody or other means, influences sentence interpretation, and suggests a view on which modifiers are drawn to the most important information in a sentence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document