Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Inquisitive Semantics$

Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen

Print publication date: 2018

Print ISBN-13: 9780198814788

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: December 2018

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198814788.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 18 June 2021

(p.211) Further reading

(p.211) Further reading

Source:
Inquisitive Semantics
Author(s):

Ivano Ciardelli

Jeroen Groenendijk

Floris Roelofsen

Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Bibliography references:

Despite its relatively recent inception, there has already been a lot of work on inquisitive semantics, much more than we have been able to cover in this book. The basic framework presented here has been further extended, refined, and applied in several ways, the logical properties of the framework have been investigated, and some interesting connections with other logical frameworks have emerged, though in all these areas there are still many open issues to be addressed. Below we provide some pointers for further reading.

Extensions of InqB and IEL

  • A type-theoretical extension of InqB, for full compositionality: Ciardelli, Roelofsen, and Theiler (2017a)

  • An extension of InqB with presuppositions: Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen (2012, 2015); Roelofsen (2015a)

  • An extension of InqB with propositional discourse referents: Roelofsen and Farkas (2015)

  • Integration of InqB with a commitment-based discourse model: Farkas and Roelofsen (2017)

  • An extension of IEL with dynamic operators that model the effects of statements and questions that are publicly observable by all conversational participants: Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2015)

  • An extension of IEL with dynamic operators that model the effects of statements and questions that may only be partially observable by some conversational participants: van Gessel (2016)

  • An extension of IEL with graded beliefs next to hard knowledge: Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2014); Sparkes (2016)

  • An extension of InqB with a weak negation operator, whose treatment requires the existence of propositions that are not downward closed: Punčochář (2015)

Generalizations and refinements of InqB

  • Generalizations of InqB based on non-classical logics of statements: Punčochář (2016b,a, 2017); Ciardelli et al. (2017b)

  • A refinement of InqB that is not only concerned with informative and inquisitive content, but also ‘attentive content’, whose treatment again (p.212) requires propositions that are not downward closed: 1 Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen (2014)

  • A refinement of InqB that is not only concerned with informative and inquisitive content, but also with ‘live possibilities’, those possibilities that are to be taken seriously in inquiry: Roelofsen (2016) (see also Willer, 2013, 2017, for closely related work)

  • A refinement of InqB that does not characterize a proposition just in terms of the states that support it, but also in terms of the states that reject it or ‘dismiss a supposition’ of it, referred to as InqS: Groenendijk and Roelofsen (2015)

  • An extension of InqS with operators corresponding to epistemic and deontic modal auxiliaries (might, may, must): Aher and Groenendijk (2015)

Logical investigations

  • Logical investigation of InqB: Ciardelli (2009); Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2011); Ciardelli (2016d); Grilletti (2017); Grilletti and Ciardelli (2017)

  • Logical investigation of IEL: Ciardelli (2014, 2016d); Ciardelli and Otto (2017)

  • Logical investigation of extensions and generalizations of InqB: Punčochář (2015, 2016b,a, 2017); Ciardelli et al. (2017b)

  • Logical investigation of inquisitive indifference semantics: Mascarenhas (2009); Sano (2009, 2011)

Applications in linguistics

  • Root questions: AnderBois (2011, 2012); Champollion et al. (2015); Roelofsen and Farkas (2015); Roelofsen (2015a); Farkas and Roelofsen (2017)

  • Embedded questions and question-embedding verbs: Theiler (2014); Theiler et al. (2017); Herbstritt (2014); Roelofsen et al. (2016); Roelofsen (2017); Roelofsen and Uegaki (2016); Cremers et al. (2017a); Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2018)

  • Disjunction: AnderBois (2011, 2012); Winans (2012); Roelofsen (2015a,b); Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2017a) (p.213)

  • Conditionals: Onea and Steinbach (2012); Starr (2014); Groenendijk and Roelofsen (2015); Champollion et al. (2016); Ciardelli (2016b); Ciardelli et al. (2017c); Willer (2017)

  • Modal auxiliaries: Aher (2013); Ciardelli et al. (2014); Aher and Groenendijk (2015); Willer (2015, 2017); Roelofsen (2013b, 2016)

  • Scalar modifiers: Coppock and Brochhagen (2013a,b); Blok (2015); Ciardelli et al. (2016); Cremers et al. (2017b)

  • Implicit questions in discourse: Onea (2013)

  • Answer particles (yes/no): Roelofsen and Farkas (2015)

  • Quantifier particles: Szabolcsi (2015b)

  • Ellipsis: AnderBois (2014, 2016a)

  • Exhaustivity implicatures: Westera (2012, 2013a,b, 2017)

  • Imperatives: Aloni and Ciardelli (2013); Ciardelli and Aloni (2016)

Applications in cognitive science

  • Reasoning fallacies: Koralus and Mascarenhas (2014); Mascarenhas (2014)

  • Implicit causality: Spenader (2015)

Applications in philosophical logic and epistemology

  • General perspective on the role of questions in logic: Ciardelli (2018, 2016d)

  • Fatalism: Bledin (2017)

  • The Gettier puzzle: Uegaki (2012)

  • Conversational inquiry: Hamami (2014)

  • Belief revision: Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2014); Sparkes (2016)

  • Contrastive knowledge: Cohen (2017)

Related frameworks

  • Dependence logic: Väänänen (2007) Discussion of connections with inquisitive semantics: Yang (2014); Yang and Väänänen (2016); Ciardelli (2016a,d)

  • Truth-maker semantics: Fine (2014); Yablo (2014) Discussion of connections with inquisitive semantics: Ciardelli (2013)

  • Possibility semantics for modal logic: Holliday (2014, 2018) Discussion of connections with inquisitive semantics: Ciardelli (2016d) (p.214)

  • Dynamic epistemic logic with questions: Minică (2011); van Benthem and Minică (2012) Discussion of connections with inquisitive semantics: Ciardelli and Roelofsen (2015); Ciardelli (2016d); van Gessel (2016)

  • Knowing value logic: Wang and Fan (2013, 2014); Fan et al. (2015) Discussion of connections with inquisitive semantics: Ciardelli (2016d)

  • Mental models theory: Johnson-Laird (1983) Implementation using ideas from inquisitive semantics: Mascarenhas (2014); Koralus and Mascarenhas (2014)

  • Inferential erotetic logic: Wiśniewski (1995 Discussion of connections with inquisitive semantics: Wiśniewski and Leszczyńska-Jasion (2015)

Notes:

(1) There is also work which argues that it is in fact impossible to capture all three types of content—informative, inquisitive, and attentive—at once using a single semantic object, and pursues a two-dimensional approach instead (Roelofsen, 2013b).