@inproceedings{esselink:23b,
  author = {Esselink, Lyke and Oomen, Marloes and Roelofsen, Floris},
  booktitle={2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW)}, 
  title={Truedepth Measurements of Facial Expressions: Sensitivity to the Angle Between Camera and Face}, 
  year={2023},
  volume={},
  number={},
  pages={1-5},
  doi={10.1109/ICASSPW59220.2023.10193107},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSPW59220.2023.10193107},
  keywords = {Facial expressions, Depth-sensing cameras},
  abstract = {Facial expressions play an important role in communication, especially in sign languages. Linguistic analysis of the exact contribution of facial expressions, as well as the creation of realistic conversational avatars, especially sign language avatars, requires accurate measurements of the facial expressions of humans while engaged in linguistic interaction. Several recent projects have employed a TrueDepth camera to make such measurements. The present paper investigates how reliable this technique is. In particular, we consider the extent to which the obtained measurements are affected by the angle between the camera and the face. Overall, we find that there are generally significant, and often rather substantial differences between measurements from different angles. However, when the measured facial features are highly activated, measurements from different angles are generally strongly correlated.}
}

Facial expressions play an important role in communication, especially in sign languages. Linguistic analysis of the exact contribution of facial expressions, as well as the creation of realistic conversational avatars, especially sign language avatars, requires accurate measurements of the facial expressions of humans while engaged in linguistic interaction. Several recent projects have employed a TrueDepth camera to make such measurements. The present paper investigates how reliable this technique is. In particular, we consider the extent to which the obtained measurements are affected by the angle between the camera and the face. Overall, we find that there are generally significant, and often rather substantial differences between measurements from different angles. However, when the measured facial features are highly activated, measurements from different angles are generally strongly correlated.

@unpublished{esselink:23c,
  author = {Esselink, Lyke and Roelofsen, Floris and Oomen, Marloes},
  title = {Exploring new methods for measuring, analyzing, and visualizing facial expressions},
  year = {2023},
  keywords = {Facial expressions, Depth-sensing cameras, Clustering, Visualization},
  url = {https://www.signlab-amsterdam.nl/publications/FEAST_methods_measuring_analyzing_visualizing_facial_expressions.pdf},
  abstract = {We explore new methods for measuring, analyzing, and visualizing facial expressions and demonstrate the utility of these methods in a case study on polar questions in Sign Language of the Netherlands.},
  note = {Publication forthcoming in FEAST 2023 proceedings.}
}

We explore new methods for measuring, analyzing, and visualizing facial expressions and demonstrate the utility of these methods in a case study on polar questions in Sign Language of the Netherlands.

@unpublished{esselink:23d,
  author = {Esselink, Lyke and Roelofsen, Floris and Dotla{\v{c}}il, Jakub and Mende-Gillings, Shani and Meulder, Maartje de and Sijm, Nienke and Smeijers, Anika},
  title = {Exploring automatic text-to-sign translation in a healthcare setting},
  year =      {2023},
  keywords = {manuscript},
  url = {https://www.signlab-amsterdam.nl/publications/Esselink22.pdf},
  abstract = {Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf patients has been particularly challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have explored the possibility to automatically translate phrases that are frequently used in the diagnosis and treatment of hospital patients, in particular phrases related to COVID-19, from Dutch or English to Dutch Sign Language (NGT). The prototype system we developed displays translations either by means of pre-recorded videos featuring a deaf human signer (for a limited number of sentences) or by means of animations featuring a computer-generated signing avatar (for a larger, though still restricted number of sentences). We evaluated the comprehensibility of the signing avatar, as compared to the human signer. We found that, while individual signs are recognized correctly when signed by the avatar almost as frequently as when signed by a human, sentence comprehension rates and clarity scores for the avatar are substantially lower than for the human signer. We identify a number of concrete limitations of the JAsigning avatar engine that underlies our system. Namely, the engine currently does not offer sufficient control over mouth shapes, the relative speed and intensity of signs in a sentence (prosody), and transitions between signs. These limitations need to be overcome in future work for the engine to become usable in practice.},
  note = {Publication forthcoming in Universal Access in the Information Society.}
}

Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf patients has been particularly challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have explored the possibility to automatically translate phrases that are frequently used in the diagnosis and treatment of hospital patients, in particular phrases related to COVID-19, from Dutch or English to Dutch Sign Language (NGT). The prototype system we developed displays translations either by means of pre-recorded videos featuring a deaf human signer (for a limited number of sentences) or by means of animations featuring a computer-generated signing avatar (for a larger, though still restricted number of sentences). We evaluated the comprehensibility of the signing avatar, as compared to the human signer. We found that, while individual signs are recognized correctly when signed by the avatar almost as frequently as when signed by a human, sentence comprehension rates and clarity scores for the avatar are substantially lower than for the human signer. We identify a number of concrete limitations of the JAsigning avatar engine that underlies our system. Namely, the engine currently does not offer sufficient control over mouth shapes, the relative speed and intensity of signs in a sentence (prosody), and transitions between signs. These limitations need to be overcome in future work for the engine to become usable in practice.

@unpublished{oomen:23a,
  author = {Oomen, Marloes and Roelofsen, Floris},
  title = {Biased polar question forms in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT): Two functions of headshake},
  year = {2023},
  keywords = {Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), polar questions, bias, headshake},
  url = {https://www.signlab-amsterdam.nl/publications/FEAST_2023_headshake_in_biased_polar_questions_in_NGT.pdf},
  abstract = {We identify several polar question forms in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) through a production experiment in which we manipulate two types of biases: (i) the prior expectations of the person asking the question, and (ii) the evidence available in the immediate context of utterance. Our analysis in the present paper focuses on forms involving headshake. We find that in some cases headshake expresses negation, as ex- pected, but in other cases it fulfils another function, namely, it is part of a sentence-final phrase either expressing uncertainty or signalling a request for a response from the ad- dressee, or possibly both at the same time. We further observe that each question form has a distinct ‘bias profile’, indicating a certain combination of prior expectations and contextual evidence. Besides these empirical findings, our study also makes a method- ological contribution: our experimental design could be used in future work to identify polar question forms with different bias profiles in sign languages other than NGT, as well as visual cues accompanying polar questions with different bias profiles in spoken languages.},
  note = {Publication forthcoming in FEAST 2023 proceedings.}
}

We identify several polar question forms in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) through a production experiment in which we manipulate two types of biases: (i) the prior expectations of the person asking the question, and (ii) the evidence available in the immediate context of utterance. Our analysis in the present paper focuses on forms involving headshake. We find that in some cases headshake expresses negation, as ex- pected, but in other cases it fulfils another function, namely, it is part of a sentence-final phrase either expressing uncertainty or signalling a request for a response from the ad- dressee, or possibly both at the same time. We further observe that each question form has a distinct ‘bias profile’, indicating a certain combination of prior expectations and contextual evidence. Besides these empirical findings, our study also makes a method- ological contribution: our experimental design could be used in future work to identify polar question forms with different bias profiles in sign languages other than NGT, as well as visual cues accompanying polar questions with different bias profiles in spoken languages.

@incollection{oomen:23b,
    author =    {Marloes Oomen and Lyke Esselink and Tobias de Ronde and Floris Roelofsen},
    year =      {2023},
    title =     {First steps towards a procedure for annotating non-manual markers in sign languages},
    booktitle = {NELS53 Proceedings},
    editor =    {Suet-Ying Lam and Satoru Ozaki},
    url = {https://www.signlab-amsterdam.nl/publications/NELS53_Proceedings_Oomen.pdf},
    abstract = {We report on the development, application, and evaluation of a procedure for annotating non-manual markers (NMM) in experimentally obtained sign language data. We also share resources to enable other researchers investigating NMM in sign languages or multimodal communication to utilize the annotation protocol we developed in their own research.},
    note = {Publication forthcoming in NELS 2023 proceedings.}
}

We report on the development, application, and evaluation of a procedure for annotating non-manual markers (NMM) in experimentally obtained sign language data. We also share resources to enable other researchers investigating NMM in sign languages or multimodal communication to utilize the annotation protocol we developed in their own research.

@inproceedings{hollain:23a,
  author = {Hollain, Natalie and Larson, Martha and Roelofsen, Floris},
  booktitle={2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW)}, 
  title={Distractor-Based Evaluation of Sign Spotting}, 
  year={2023},
  volume={},
  number={},
  pages={1-5},
  doi={10.1109/ICASSPW59220.2023.10193484},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSPW59220.2023.10193484},
  keywords = {Sign spotting, Evaluation, Distractors},
  abstract = {Sign spotting is a subtask of sign language processing in which we determine when a given target sign occurs in a given sign sequence. This paper proposes a method for evaluating sign spotting systems, which we argue to be more reflective of the degree to which a system would satisfy the user’s requirements in practice than previously proposed evaluation methods. To deal with an incomplete ground truth, we introduce the concept of distractors: signs which are similar to the target sign according to a given distance measure. We assume that the performance of a sign spotting model when distinguishing a given target sign from the associated distractors will reflect the performance of the model on the complete ground truth. We develop a sign spotting model to demonstrate our evaluation method.}
}

Sign spotting is a subtask of sign language processing in which we determine when a given target sign occurs in a given sign sequence. This paper proposes a method for evaluating sign spotting systems, which we argue to be more reflective of the degree to which a system would satisfy the user’s requirements in practice than previously proposed evaluation methods. To deal with an incomplete ground truth, we introduce the concept of distractors: signs which are similar to the target sign according to a given distance measure. We assume that the performance of a sign spotting model when distinguishing a given target sign from the associated distractors will reflect the performance of the model on the complete ground truth. We develop a sign spotting model to demonstrate our evaluation method.

@inproceedings{hollain:23b,
    title = {Analyzing the Potential of Linguistic Features for Sign Spotting: A Look at Approximative Features},
    author = {Hollain, Natalie and Larson, Martha  and Roelofsen, Floris},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Automatic Translation for Signed and Spoken Languages},
    month = {jun},
    year = {2023},
    address = {Tampere, Finland},
    publisher = {European Association for Machine Translation},
    url = {https://aclanthology.org/2023.at4ssl-1.1},
    pages = {1--10},
    abstract = {Sign language processing is the field of research that aims to recognize, retrieve, and spot signs in videos. Various approaches have been developed, varying in whether they use linguistic features and whether they use landmark detection tools or not. Incorporating linguistics holds promise for improving sign language processing in terms of performance, generalizability, and explainability. This paper focuses on the task of sign spotting and aims to expand on the approximative linguistic features that have been used in previous work, and to understand when linguistic features deliver an improvement over landmark features. We detect landmarks with Mediapipe and extract linguistically relevant features from them, including handshape, orientation, location, and movement. We compare a sign spotting model using linguistic features with a model operating on landmarks directly, finding that the approximate linguistic features tested in this paper capture some aspects of signs better than the landmark features, while they are worse for others.},
}

Sign language processing is the field of research that aims to recognize, retrieve, and spot signs in videos. Various approaches have been developed, varying in whether they use linguistic features and whether they use landmark detection tools or not. Incorporating linguistics holds promise for improving sign language processing in terms of performance, generalizability, and explainability. This paper focuses on the task of sign spotting and aims to expand on the approximative linguistic features that have been used in previous work, and to understand when linguistic features deliver an improvement over landmark features. We detect landmarks with Mediapipe and extract linguistically relevant features from them, including handshape, orientation, location, and movement. We compare a sign spotting model using linguistic features with a model operating on landmarks directly, finding that the approximate linguistic features tested in this paper capture some aspects of signs better than the landmark features, while they are worse for others.

@inproceedings{ozyildiz2023crosslinguistic,
  title={A Crosslinguistic Database for Combinatorial and Semantic Properties of Attitude Predicates},
  author={{\"O}zy{\i}ld{\i}z, Deniz and Qing, Ciyang and Roelofsen, Floris and Romero, Maribel and Uegaki, Wataru},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Research in Computational Linguistic Typology and Multilingual {NLP}},
  pages={65--75},
  year={2023},
  url             = {https://aclanthology.org/2023.sigtyp-1.7/},
  abstract = {We introduce a cross-linguistic database for attitude predicates, which references their combinatorial (syntactic) and semantic properties.
Our data allows assessment of cross-linguistic generalizations about attitude predicates as well as discovery of new typological/cross-linguistic patterns.
This paper motivates empirical and theoretical issues that our database will help to address, the sample predicates and the properties that it references, 
as well as our design and methodological choices. 
Two case studies illustrate how the database can be used to assess validity of cross-linguistic generalizations.}
}

We introduce a cross-linguistic database for attitude predicates, which references their combinatorial (syntactic) and semantic properties. Our data allows assessment of cross-linguistic generalizations about attitude predicates as well as discovery of new typological/cross-linguistic patterns. This paper motivates empirical and theoretical issues that our database will help to address, the sample predicates and the properties that it references, as well as our design and methodological choices. Two case studies illustrate how the database can be used to assess validity of cross-linguistic generalizations.

@article{jeong2023focused,
  title={Focused NPIs in statements and questions},
  author={Jeong, Sunwoo and Roelofsen, Floris},
  journal={Journal of Semantics},
  volume={40},
  number={1},
  pages={1--68},
  year={2023},
  publisher={Oxford University Press},
  url             = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article-pdf/40/1/1/50326592/ffac014.pdf},
  abstract = {Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) with emphatic prosody such as ANY or EVER, and
minimizers such as lift a finger or sleep a wink are known to generate particular
contextual inferences that are absent in the case of non-emphatic NPIs such as
unstressed any or ever. It remains an open question, however, what the exact status
of these inferences is and how they come about. In this paper, we analyze these
cases as NPIs bearing focus, and examine the interaction between focus semantics
and the lexical semantics of NPIs across statements and questions.}
}

Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) with emphatic prosody such as ANY or EVER, and minimizers such as lift a finger or sleep a wink are known to generate particular contextual inferences that are absent in the case of non-emphatic NPIs such as unstressed any or ever. It remains an open question, however, what the exact status of these inferences is and how they come about. In this paper, we analyze these cases as NPIs bearing focus, and examine the interaction between focus semantics and the lexical semantics of NPIs across statements and questions.

@article{10.1162/ling_a_00441,
    author = {Hengeveld, Kees and Iatridou, Sabine and Roelofsen, Floris},
    title = "{Quexistentials and Focus}",
    journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
    volume = {54},
    number = {3},
    pages = {571-624},
    year = {2023},
    month = {06},
    abstract = "{Many languages have words that can be interpreted either as question words or as existentials. We call such words quexistentials. It has been claimed in the literature (e.g., Haida 2007) that, across languages, quexistentials are (a) always focused on their interrogative interpretation and (b) never focused on their existential interpretation. We refer to this as the quexistential-focus biconditional. The article makes two contributions. The first is that we offer a possible explanation for one direction of the biconditional: the fact that quexistentials are generally contrastively focused on their interrogative use. We argue that this should be seen as a particular instance of an even more general fact—namely, that interrogative words (quexistential or not) are always contrastively focused—and propose an account for this fact. The second contribution of the article concerns the other direction of the biconditional. We present evidence that, at least at face value, suggests that focus on a quexistential does not necessarily preclude an existential interpretation. Specifically, we show that it is possible for Dutch wat to be interpreted existentially even when it is focused. We attempt to explain this phenomenon.}",
    issn = {0024-3892},
    doi = {10.1162/ling_a_00441},
    url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/ling\_a\_00441},
    eprint = {https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article-pdf/54/3/571/2136750/ling\_a\_00441.pdf},
}

Many languages have words that can be interpreted either as question words or as existentials. We call such words quexistentials. It has been claimed in the literature (e.g., Haida 2007) that, across languages, quexistentials are (a) always focused on their interrogative interpretation and (b) never focused on their existential interpretation. We refer to this as the quexistential-focus biconditional. The article makes two contributions. The first is that we offer a possible explanation for one direction of the biconditional: the fact that quexistentials are generally contrastively focused on their interrogative use. We argue that this should be seen as a particular instance of an even more general fact—namely, that interrogative words (quexistential or not) are always contrastively focused—and propose an account for this fact. The second contribution of the article concerns the other direction of the biconditional. We present evidence that, at least at face value, suggests that focus on a quexistential does not necessarily preclude an existential interpretation. Specifically, we show that it is possible for Dutch wat to be interpreted existentially even when it is focused. We attempt to explain this phenomenon.

@unpublished{RoelofsenDotlacil:22,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Jakub Dotlacil},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,dynamic semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics,ongoing},
	note = {To appear as a target article in Theoretical Linguistics},
	title = {{Wh-questions in dynamic inquisitive semantics}},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TZiMDVjO/wh-questions-in-dynamic-inquisitive-semantics-submitted%20-%20Floris%20Roelofsen.pdf},
	year = {2022},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TZiMDVjO/wh-questions-in-dynamic-inquisitive-semantics-submitted%20-%20Floris%20Roelofsen.pdf}}

@inproceedings{qing2022gradient,
  title={On the gradient acceptability of quantifiers scoping over questions},
  author={Qing, Ciyang and Roelofsen, Floris},
  booktitle={Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung},
  volume={26},
  pages={697--715},
  year={2022},
  url             = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/1025},
  abstract={Questions with quantifiers such as Which book did every student read? can allow for pair-list answers. 
  However, whether or to what extent such pair-list answers are acceptable varies for different types of quantifiers. 
  Recently, van Gessel and Cremers (2021) experimentally tested the acceptability of pair-list answers for questions 
  with different types of quantifiers, and discovered a full gradient in their acceptability judgments. 
  In this paper, we start with the intuitive idea that pair-list answers are expected if we let quantifiers take scope above questions,
   and show that we can extend inquisitive semantics in a principled way using independently motivated ingredients to derive such wide-scope
  readings that expect pair-list answers for various quantifiers. 
  We also identify factors that contribute to their gradient acceptability.}
}

Questions with quantifiers such as Which book did every student read? can allow for pair-list answers. However, whether or to what extent such pair-list answers are acceptable varies for different types of quantifiers. Recently, van Gessel and Cremers (2021) experimentally tested the acceptability of pair-list answers for questions with different types of quantifiers, and discovered a full gradient in their acceptability judgments. In this paper, we start with the intuitive idea that pair-list answers are expected if we let quantifiers take scope above questions, and show that we can extend inquisitive semantics in a principled way using independently motivated ingredients to derive such wide-scope readings that expect pair-list answers for various quantifiers. We also identify factors that contribute to their gradient acceptability.

@inproceedings{Gemert:22,
	abstract = {{Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf
patients is challenging, and the current COVID-19 pandemic makes this
issue even more acute. Sign language interpreters can often not enter
hospitals and face masks make lipreading impossible. To address this urgent problem, we developed a system which allows healthcare professionals to translate sentences that are frequently used in the diagnosis and
treatment of COVID-19 into Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT).
Translations are displayed by means of videos and avatar animations.
The architecture of the system is such that it could be extended to other
applications and other sign languages in a relatively straightforward way.}},
	author = {Britt van Gemert and Richard Cokart and Lyke Esselink and Maartje de Meulder and Nienke Sijm and Floris Roelofsen},
	booktitle = {Sign Language Translation and Avatar Technology},
	editor = {},
	keywords = {sign language, machine translation},
	mendeley-tags = {sign language, machine translation},
	pages = {109-116},
	title = {First Steps Towards a Signing Avatar for Railway Travel Announcements in the Netherlands},
	url = {https://www.signlab-amsterdam.nl/publications/SLTAT2022Proceedings.pdf},
	year = {2022},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {}}

Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf patients is challenging, and the current COVID-19 pandemic makes this issue even more acute. Sign language interpreters can often not enter hospitals and face masks make lipreading impossible. To address this urgent problem, we developed a system which allows healthcare professionals to translate sentences that are frequently used in the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 into Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Translations are displayed by means of videos and avatar animations. The architecture of the system is such that it could be extended to other applications and other sign languages in a relatively straightforward way.

@article{cremers2022ignorance,
  title={Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals},
  author={Cremers, Alexandre and Coppock, Liz and Dotla{\v{c}}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},
  journal={Linguistics and Philosophy},
  pages={683-740},
  number           = {45},
  year={2022},
  abstract = {Modified numerals, such as at least three and more than five, are known to sometimes give rise to ignorance inferences. However, there is disagreement in the literature regarding the nature of these inferences, their context dependence, and differences between at least and more than. We present a series of experiments which sheds new light on these issues. Our results show that (a) the ignorance inferences of at least are more robust than those of more than, (b) the presence and strength of the ignorance inferences triggered by both at least and more than depends on the question under discussion (QUD), and (c) whether ignorance inferences are detected in a given experimental setting depends partly on the task that participants are asked to perform (e.g., an acceptability task versus an inference task). We offer an Optimality Theoretic account of these findings. In particular, the task effect is captured by assuming that in performing an acceptability task, participants take the speaker’s perspective in order to determine whether an expression is optimal given a certain epistemic state, while in performing an inference task they take the addressee’s perspective in order to determine what the most likely epistemic state of the speaker is given a certain expression. To execute the latter task in a fully rational manner, participants have to perform higher-order reasoning about alternative expressions the speaker could have used. Under the assumption that participants do not always perform such higher-order reasoning but also often resort to so-called unidirectional optimization, the task effect finds a natural explanation. This also allows us to relate our finding to asymmetries between comprehension and production that have been found in language acquisition.},
  keywords = {asymmetry,experimental linguistics,numerals,theoretical linguistics},
  url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10988-021-09336-9},
  mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics,experimental linguistics,numerals,asymmetry},
  publisher={Springer}
}

Modified numerals, such as at least three and more than five, are known to sometimes give rise to ignorance inferences. However, there is disagreement in the literature regarding the nature of these inferences, their context dependence, and differences between at least and more than. We present a series of experiments which sheds new light on these issues. Our results show that (a) the ignorance inferences of at least are more robust than those of more than, (b) the presence and strength of the ignorance inferences triggered by both at least and more than depends on the question under discussion (QUD), and (c) whether ignorance inferences are detected in a given experimental setting depends partly on the task that participants are asked to perform (e.g., an acceptability task versus an inference task). We offer an Optimality Theoretic account of these findings. In particular, the task effect is captured by assuming that in performing an acceptability task, participants take the speaker’s perspective in order to determine whether an expression is optimal given a certain epistemic state, while in performing an inference task they take the addressee’s perspective in order to determine what the most likely epistemic state of the speaker is given a certain expression. To execute the latter task in a fully rational manner, participants have to perform higher-order reasoning about alternative expressions the speaker could have used. Under the assumption that participants do not always perform such higher-order reasoning but also often resort to so-called unidirectional optimization, the task effect finds a natural explanation. This also allows us to relate our finding to asymmetries between comprehension and production that have been found in language acquisition.

@incollection{Roelofsen2021questions,
  title={Questions and Indeterminate Reference},
  author={Roelofsen, Floris},
  booktitle={Asking and Answering: Rivalling Approaches to Interrogative Methods},
  editor         = {Moritz Cordes},
  pages={241-251},
  year={2021},
  abstract = {This short paper describes a perspective on questions which does not
view wh-words as existential quantifiers or as expressions introducing a
quantificational domain, but rather as indeterminate referential expressions
(Dotlačil and Roelofsen 2019). The proposal is programmatic in nature,
and several aspects of it remain to be worked out in greater detail. I
argue, however, that it has several potential benefits, including a principled
account of weak and strong question interpretations, a uniform analysis of
single-wh and multiple-wh questions, and an account of the typologically
widespread similarity between interrogative and indefinite pronouns which,
unlike previous approaches, can explain the observation that if a language
contains interrogative and indefinite pronouns which are similar in form but
non-identical (e.g., where and somewhere), the indefinite pronouns are always
morphologically more complex than the interrogative pronouns, and never
the other way around (Haspelmath 1997). The tentative proposal is that an
interrogative pronoun involves complete indeterminacy in the sense that it
does not only leave open what its referential value is but also whether it
has a referential value at all. For instance, where is completely indeterminate,
permitting lack of a referential value. The ‘some’ in somewhere eliminates this
possibility and thereby exerts existential force.},
  keywords	= {inquisitive semantics,dynamic semantics,questions, indefinites,theoretical linguistics},
  url            = {https://elibrary.narr.digital/book/10.24053/9783823394808},
  publisher={Narr Francke Attempto Verlag}
}

This short paper describes a perspective on questions which does not view wh-words as existential quantifiers or as expressions introducing a quantificational domain, but rather as indeterminate referential expressions (Dotlačil and Roelofsen 2019). The proposal is programmatic in nature, and several aspects of it remain to be worked out in greater detail. I argue, however, that it has several potential benefits, including a principled account of weak and strong question interpretations, a uniform analysis of single-wh and multiple-wh questions, and an account of the typologically widespread similarity between interrogative and indefinite pronouns which, unlike previous approaches, can explain the observation that if a language contains interrogative and indefinite pronouns which are similar in form but non-identical (e.g., where and somewhere), the indefinite pronouns are always morphologically more complex than the interrogative pronouns, and never the other way around (Haspelmath 1997). The tentative proposal is that an interrogative pronoun involves complete indeterminacy in the sense that it does not only leave open what its referential value is but also whether it has a referential value at all. For instance, where is completely indeterminate, permitting lack of a referential value. The ‘some’ in somewhere eliminates this possibility and thereby exerts existential force.

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:21triton,
	abstract = {{Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf
patients is challenging, and the current COVID-19 pandemic makes this
issue even more acute. Sign language interpreters can often not enter
hospitals and face masks make lipreading impossible. To address this urgent problem, we developed a system which allows healthcare professionals to translate sentences that are frequently used in the diagnosis and
treatment of COVID-19 into Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT).
Translations are displayed by means of videos and avatar animations.
The architecture of the system is such that it could be extended to other
applications and other sign languages in a relatively straightforward way.}},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Lyke Esselink and Shani Mende-Gillings and Anika Smeijers},
	booktitle = {Translation and Interpreting Technology (TRITON)},
	editor = {Ruslan Mitkov and Vilelmini Sosoni and Julie Christine Giguere and Elena Murgolo and Elizabeth Deysel},
	keywords = {sign language, machine translation},
	mendeley-tags = {sign language, machine translation},
	pages = {110-124},
	title = {Sign language translation in a healthcare setting},
	url = {http://triton-conference.org/proceedings/},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://triton-conference.org/proceedings/}}

Communication between healthcare professionals and deaf patients is challenging, and the current COVID-19 pandemic makes this issue even more acute. Sign language interpreters can often not enter hospitals and face masks make lipreading impossible. To address this urgent problem, we developed a system which allows healthcare professionals to translate sentences that are frequently used in the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 into Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Translations are displayed by means of videos and avatar animations. The architecture of the system is such that it could be extended to other applications and other sign languages in a relatively straightforward way.

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:21at4ssl,
	abstract = {{We present a number of methodological recommendations concerning the online evaluation of
avatars for text-to-sign translation, focusing on the structure, format and length of the questionnaire, as well as methods for eliciting and faithfully transcribing responses.}},
	author = {Floris Roelofsen and Lyke Esselink and Shani Mende-Gillings and Maartje de Meulder and Nienke Sijm and Anika Smeijers},
	booktitle = {First International Workshop on Automatic Translation for Sign and Spoken Languages (AT4SSL)},
	editor = {Dimitar Shterionov},
	keywords = {sign language, machine translation},
	mendeley-tags = {sign language, machine translation},
	pages = {82-87},
	title = {Online evaluation of text-to-sign translation by deaf end users: Some methodological recommendations},
	url = {https://aclanthology.org/2021.mtsummit-at4ssl.9/},
	year = {2021},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://aclanthology.org/2021.mtsummit-at4ssl.9/}}

We present a number of methodological recommendations concerning the online evaluation of avatars for text-to-sign translation, focusing on the structure, format and length of the questionnaire, as well as methods for eliciting and faithfully transcribing responses.

@inproceedings{RoelofsenUegaki:20,
	abstract = {We propose a new universal constraint on the relationship between the meaning of a clause-embedding predicate when it takes an interrogative complement and its meaning when it takes a declarative complement. According to this proposal, every clause-embedding predicate V satisfies a constraint that we refer to as P-to-Q Entailment. That is, for any exhaustivity-neutral interrogative complement Q, if there is an answer p to Q such that "x Vs p" is true, then it follows that "x Vs Q" is true as well. We discuss empirical advantages of this proposal over existing proposals and explore potential counterexamples to P-to-Q Entailment.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Uegaki, Wataru},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 30)},
	date-added = {2021-03-05 11:02:34 +0100},
	date-modified = {2021-04-08 11:32:56 +0200},
	editor = {Joseph Rhyne and Kaelyn Lamp and Nicole Dreier and Chloe Kwon},
	keywords = {attitude predicates,cross-linguistic,modality,inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {attitude predicates,cross-linguistic,modality,inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {542-561},
	publisher = {Linguistics Society of America},
	title = {Searching for a universal constraint on the denotations of clause-embedding predicates},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/30.542},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538/437}}

We propose a new universal constraint on the relationship between the meaning of a clause-embedding predicate when it takes an interrogative complement and its meaning when it takes a declarative complement. According to this proposal, every clause-embedding predicate V satisfies a constraint that we refer to as P-to-Q Entailment. That is, for any exhaustivity-neutral interrogative complement Q, if there is an answer p to Q such that "x Vs p" is true, then it follows that "x Vs Q" is true as well. We discuss empirical advantages of this proposal over existing proposals and explore potential counterexamples to P-to-Q Entailment.

@inproceedings{DotlacilRoelofsen:20,
	abstract = {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.},
	author = {Dotla{\v{c}}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 30)},
	date-added = {2021-03-05 10:58:19 +0100},
	date-modified = {2021-03-05 11:02:03 +0100},
	editor = {Joseph Rhyne and Kaelyn Lamp and Nicole Dreier and Chloe Kwon},
	keywords = {dynamic semantics,inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,dynamic semantics,questions},
	title = {A dynamic semantics of single and multiple wh-questions},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/30.376},
	year = {2020},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538/437}}

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.

@inproceedings{HoeksRoelofsen:19,
	author = {Morwenna Hoeks and Floris Roelofsen},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 29},
	date-added = {2020-02-15 14:17:47 +0100},
	date-modified = {2020-02-15 14:24:38 +0100},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v29i0.4632},
	editor = {Katherine Blake and Forrest Davis and Kaelyn Lamp and Joseph Rhyne},
	keywords = {questions,exhaustivity,inquisitive semantics,disjunction,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {562-581},
	publisher = {Linguistics Society of America},
	title = {Coordinating questions: The scope puzzle},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/29.562},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/29.562},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4632}}

@unpublished{DotlacilRoelofsen:19rutgers,
	author = {Floris Roelofsen and Jakub Dotlacil},
	date-added = {2019-11-29 11:24:32 +0100},
	date-modified = {2019-11-29 12:58:48 +0100},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,dynamic semantics,questions,anaphora,intervention effects,theoretical linguistics,indefinites,ongoing},
	note = {Presented at Rutgers University, November 2019},
	title = {Interacting alternatives: Referential indeterminacy and questions},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GNhZDUxO/slides.pdf},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GNhZDUxO/slides.pdf}}

@unpublished{Roelofsen:19quex,
	author = {Floris Roelofsen and Sabine Iatridou and Kees Hengeveld},
	date-added = {2019-11-29 11:04:55 +0100},
	date-modified = {2019-11-29 11:40:45 +0100},
	keywords = {quexistentials,questions,quantification,focus,indefinites,intonation,cross-linguistic,theoretical linguistics,ongoing},
	note = {Presented at the University of British Columbia and at Princeton, November 2019},
	title = {Quexistentials and focus},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GE3MjFiY/handout.pdf},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GE3MjFiY/handout.pdf}}

@article{FarkasRoelofsen:19,
	author = {Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-added = {2019-05-08 16:08:31 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-11-29 11:04:31 +0100},
	journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
	keywords = {answer particles,anaphora,theoretical linguistics,cross-linguistic},
	number = {15},
	title = {Polarity particles revisited},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.15},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DUxN2JhM/paper.pdf}}

@incollection{Roelofsen:19OER,
	abstract = {This survey article discusses two basic issues that semantic theories of questions face. The first is how to conceptualise and formally represent the semantic content of
questions. This issue arises in particular because the standard truth-conditional notion of
meaning, which has been fruitful in the analysis of declarative statements, is not applicable
to questions. The second issue is how questions, when embedded in a declarative statement
(e.g., in Bill wonders who called) contribute to the truth-conditional content of that statement. Several ways in which these issues have been addressed in the literature are discussed
and compared.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics},
	date-added = {2019-05-08 15:13:16 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:15:34 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,modality,attitude predicates,survey},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	title = {Semantic theories of questions},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tc5NjlhY/article.pdf},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tc5NjlhY/article.pdf}}

This survey article discusses two basic issues that semantic theories of questions face. The first is how to conceptualise and formally represent the semantic content of questions. This issue arises in particular because the standard truth-conditional notion of meaning, which has been fruitful in the analysis of declarative statements, is not applicable to questions. The second issue is how questions, when embedded in a declarative statement (e.g., in Bill wonders who called) contribute to the truth-conditional content of that statement. Several ways in which these issues have been addressed in the literature are discussed and compared.

@article{Theiler:19nals,
	abstract = {It is a long-standing puzzle why predicates like believe embed declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., Bill believes that/*whether Mary left) and why predicates like wonder embed interrogative but not declarative complements (e.g., Bill wonders whether/*that Mary left). This paper shows how the selectional restrictions of a range of predicates (neg-raising predicates like believe, truth-evaluating predicates like be true, inquisitive predicates like wonder, and predicates of dependency like depend on) can be derived from semantic assumptions that can be independently motivated.},
	author = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
	doi = {10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},
	journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	keywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	title = {{Picky predicates: Why believe doesn't like interrogative complements, and other puzzles}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9}}

It is a long-standing puzzle why predicates like believe embed declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., Bill believes that/*whether Mary left) and why predicates like wonder embed interrogative but not declarative complements (e.g., Bill wonders whether/*that Mary left). This paper shows how the selectional restrictions of a range of predicates (neg-raising predicates like believe, truth-evaluating predicates like be true, inquisitive predicates like wonder, and predicates of dependency like depend on) can be derived from semantic assumptions that can be independently motivated.

@inproceedings{DotlacilRoelofsen:19sub,
	abstract = {This paper develops a dynamic inquisitive semantics and illustrates its potential to capture interactions between anaphora and questions.},
	author = {Dotla{\v{c}}il, Jakub and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23},
	keywords = {anaphora,dynamic semantics,inquisitive semantics,philosophical logic,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,dynamic semantics,questions,anaphora,philosophical logic},
	title = {{Dynamic inquisitive semantics: anaphora and questions}},
	url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538/437},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/538/437}}

This paper develops a dynamic inquisitive semantics and illustrates its potential to capture interactions between anaphora and questions.

@article{CremersRoelofsenUegaki:18,
	abstract = {A sentence like Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the
vase implies that Mary still considers all disjuncts possible. This inference has been
referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We
present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered
by two verbs, wonder and believe, with different types of complements and different
types of subjects.

The results of these experiments show that the distributive ignorance inferences
triggered by the two verbs pattern very much alike. We argue that the data are best
explained by an account that involves a strengthening mechanism which is sensitive
to the syntactic structure of the complement of the verbs involved and optionally
applies locally, as part of the semantic composition process.},
	author = {Cremers, Alexandre and Roelofsen, Floris and Uegaki, Wataru},
	date-modified = {2019-11-29 11:04:15 +0100},
	journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,questions,ignorance,experimental linguistics,exhaustivity,implicatures},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {5},
	title = {Distributive ignorance inferences with wonder and believe},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.5},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TdhYjRiM/paper.pdf}}

A sentence like Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the vase implies that Mary still considers all disjuncts possible. This inference has been referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by two verbs, wonder and believe, with different types of complements and different types of subjects. The results of these experiments show that the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by the two verbs pattern very much alike. We argue that the data are best explained by an account that involves a strengthening mechanism which is sensitive to the syntactic structure of the complement of the verbs involved and optionally applies locally, as part of the semantic composition process.

@incollection{Roelofsen:19surprise,
	abstract = {This paper is written in honor of Lauri Karttunen's seminal contributions to formal
semantics, in particular his work on discourse referents (Karttunen, 1969), presuppositions (Karttunen, 1973, 1974) and questions (Karttunen, 1977). The present
paper is connected to all these lines of work, suggesting that a long-standing issue
concerning question embedding verbs like surprise, raised in Karttunen (1977), can
be resolved by assuming that such verbs involve a presupposition that is sensitive
to the discourse referents introduced by their complement.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Tokens of Meaning: Papers in Honor of Lauri Karttunen},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 16:03:38 +0200},
	editor = {Cleo Condoravdi and Tracy Holloway King},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,modality,presupposition,highlighting},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	publisher = {CSLI Publications},
	title = {{Surprise for {Lauri Karttunen}}},
	url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mI4NTFjO/paper.pdf},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mI4NTFjO/paper.pdf}}

This paper is written in honor of Lauri Karttunen's seminal contributions to formal semantics, in particular his work on discourse referents (Karttunen, 1969), presuppositions (Karttunen, 1973, 1974) and questions (Karttunen, 1977). The present paper is connected to all these lines of work, suggesting that a long-standing issue concerning question embedding verbs like surprise, raised in Karttunen (1977), can be resolved by assuming that such verbs involve a presupposition that is sensitive to the discourse referents introduced by their complement.

@incollection{Roelofsen:19qid,
	abstract = {This paper offers an account of the fact that certain verbs license wh-questions as
their complement but not whether-questions. For instance, it is felicitous to say
It is surprising who Bill had invited but not to say It is surprising whether Bill had
invited his wife. We refer to this contrast as the *whether puzzle. We propose an
account which crucially rests on the assumption that the relevant kind of verbs are
sensitive to the semantic objects that their complement clause brings into salience,
rather than just its truth/resolution conditions. It has been argued in previous work
that the semantic objects that matrix questions bring into salience are important
to understand the role of such questions in discourse. The present paper is, to the
best of our knowledge, the first to argue that this aspect of meaning is also crucial
for understanding the role of embedded questions in grammar.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Herbstritt, Michele and Aloni, Maria},
	booktitle = {Questions in Discourse},
	date-modified = {2020-05-12 16:08:15 +0200},
	doi = {10.1163/9789004378308_005},
	editor = {Klaus von Heusinger and Malte Zimmermann and Edgar Onea},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,modality,highlighting},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {172--197},
	publisher = {Brill},
	title = {{The *whether puzzle}},
	url = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004378308/BP000004.xml},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TIzMGI1Z/paper.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378308_005}}

This paper offers an account of the fact that certain verbs license wh-questions as their complement but not whether-questions. For instance, it is felicitous to say It is surprising who Bill had invited but not to say It is surprising whether Bill had invited his wife. We refer to this contrast as the *whether puzzle. We propose an account which crucially rests on the assumption that the relevant kind of verbs are sensitive to the semantic objects that their complement clause brings into salience, rather than just its truth/resolution conditions. It has been argued in previous work that the semantic objects that matrix questions bring into salience are important to understand the role of such questions in discourse. The present paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to argue that this aspect of meaning is also crucial for understanding the role of embedded questions in grammar.

@incollection{Roelofsen:19disjunction,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Questions in Discourse},
	date-modified = {2020-05-12 16:09:42 +0200},
	doi = {10.1163/9789004378322_009},
	editor = {Klaus von Heusinger and Malte Zimmermann and Edgar Onea},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,disjunction,alternative semantics},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {251--274},
	publisher = {Brill},
	title = {{Two alternatives for disjunction: an inquisitive reconciliation}},
	url = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004378322/BP000008.xml},
	year = {2019},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WViZDBhM/paper.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_009}}

@misc{Aloni:18topoi,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 09:28:04 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 09:53:49 +0200},
	editor = {Maria Aloni and Franz Berto and Luca Incurvati and Floris Roelofsen},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {Semantics and Philosophy (Special issue of Topoi)},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-017-9505-5},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-017-9505-5}}

@book{Ciardelli:18book,
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:05:07 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics,monograph},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	title = {{Inquisitive Semantics}},
	url = {http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780198814788.pdf},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780198814788.pdf}}

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:18,
	abstract = {Inquisitive semantics enriches the standard truth-conditional notion of meaning, in order to facilitate an integrated semantic analysis of statements and questions. Taking this richer view on meaning as a starting point, this review presents a new perspective on modal operators and quantifiers, one that has the potential to address a number of challenges for standard semantic analyses of such operators. To illustrate the new perspective, we present an inquisitive take on the semantics of attitude verbs and on quantifiers taking scope out of questions.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:11:52 +0200},
	doi = {10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626},
	journal = {Annual Review of Linguistics},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,modality,quantification,questions,theoretical linguistics,survey},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,quantification,questions},
	pages = {129--149},
	title = {{An Inquisitive Perspective on Modals and Quantifiers}},
	url = {http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QJ7NerczQ6Yaj9rGbGQe/full/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QJ7NerczQ6Yaj9rGbGQe/full/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045626}}

Inquisitive semantics enriches the standard truth-conditional notion of meaning, in order to facilitate an integrated semantic analysis of statements and questions. Taking this richer view on meaning as a starting point, this review presents a new perspective on modal operators and quantifiers, one that has the potential to address a number of challenges for standard semantic analyses of such operators. To illustrate the new perspective, we present an inquisitive take on the semantics of attitude verbs and on quantifiers taking scope out of questions.

@incollection{CrossRoelofsen:18,
	abstract = {The philosophy of language since Frege has emphasized propositions and declarative sentences, but it is clear that questions and interrogative sentences are just as important. Scientific investigation and explanation proceed in part through the posing and answering of questions, and human-computer interaction is often structured in terms of queries and answers. After going over some preliminaries we will focus on three lines of work on questions: one located at the intersection of philosophy of language and formal semantics, focusing on the semantics of what Belnap and Steel (1976) call elementary questions; a second located at the intersection of philosophy of language and philosophy of science, focusing on why-questions and the notion of explanation; and a third located at the intersection of philosophy of language and epistemology, focusing on embedded or indirect questions.},
	annote = {Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
	author = {Cross, Charles and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 13:52:46 +0200},
	editor = {Zalta, Edward},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,questions,theoretical linguistics,survey},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions},
	publisher = {Stanford University},
	title = {{Questions}},
	url = {http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/questions},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/questions}}

The philosophy of language since Frege has emphasized propositions and declarative sentences, but it is clear that questions and interrogative sentences are just as important. Scientific investigation and explanation proceed in part through the posing and answering of questions, and human-computer interaction is often structured in terms of queries and answers. After going over some preliminaries we will focus on three lines of work on questions: one located at the intersection of philosophy of language and formal semantics, focusing on the semantics of what Belnap and Steel (1976) call elementary questions; a second located at the intersection of philosophy of language and philosophy of science, focusing on why-questions and the notion of explanation; and a third located at the intersection of philosophy of language and epistemology, focusing on embedded or indirect questions.

@article{Theiler:18jos,
	abstract = {This paper proposes a semantics for declarative and interrogative complements and for so-called responsive verbs, like know and forget, which embed both kinds of complements. Following Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984), we pursue a uniform account in the sense that we take both kinds of complements to be of the same semantic type and we assume a single lexical entry for each responsive verb. This approach avoids a number of problems for non-uniform theories, such as the reductive theories of Karttunen (1977), Heim (1994), Lahiri (2002), Spector & Egr{\'{e}} (2015), among others, and the twin relations theory of George (2011). On the other hand, our account also addresses the main limitation of Groenendijk & Stokhof's (1984) proposal, which is that it is primarily designed to derive strongly exhaustive readings for interrogative complements. Our account is more flexible in that it straightforwardly derives non-exhaustive and intermediate exhaustive readings as well.},
	author = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 12:47:38 +0200},
	doi = {10.1093/jos/ffy003},
	journal = {Journal of Semantics},
	keywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics,exhaustivity},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,modality,attitude predicates},
	number = {3},
	pages = {409--466},
	title = {{A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements}},
	url = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/35/3/409/5047430},
	volume = {35},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article/35/3/409/5047430},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy003}}

This paper proposes a semantics for declarative and interrogative complements and for so-called responsive verbs, like know and forget, which embed both kinds of complements. Following Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984), we pursue a uniform account in the sense that we take both kinds of complements to be of the same semantic type and we assume a single lexical entry for each responsive verb. This approach avoids a number of problems for non-uniform theories, such as the reductive theories of Karttunen (1977), Heim (1994), Lahiri (2002), Spector & Egré (2015), among others, and the twin relations theory of George (2011). On the other hand, our account also addresses the main limitation of Groenendijk & Stokhof's (1984) proposal, which is that it is primarily designed to derive strongly exhaustive readings for interrogative complements. Our account is more flexible in that it straightforwardly derives non-exhaustive and intermediate exhaustive readings as well.

@unpublished{Roelofsen:18nyu,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-11-29 11:41:33 +0100},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,npi,questions,theoretical linguistics,ongoing},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,npi,questions},
	note = {NYU Linguistics Colloquium},
	title = {{NPIs in questions}},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY0MzU0N/handout.pdf},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WY0MzU0N/handout.pdf}}

@inproceedings{UegakiRoelofsen:18,
	author = {Uegaki, Wataru and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 13:48:18 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v28i0.4427},
	editor = {Sireemas Maspong and Brynhildur Stefansdottir and Katherine Blake and Forrest Davis},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,questions,attitude predicates},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,questions,attitude predicates},
	pages = {809-829},
	publisher = {Linguistics Society of America},
	title = {Do modals take propositions or sets of propositions? Evidence from Japanese darou},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.809},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.809},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4427}}

@inproceedings{Gessel:18salt,
	abstract = {Attitude predicates can be classified by the kinds of complements they can embed: declaratives, interrogatives or both. However, several authors have claimed that predicates like be certain can only embed interrogatives in specific environments. According to Mayr, these are exactly the environments that license negative polarity items (NPIs). In his analysis, both NPIs and embedded interrogatives are licensed by the same semantic strengthening procedure. If this is right, one would expect a correlation between acceptability of be certain whether and NPIs. The analysis also predicts a contrast between antecedents vs. consequents of conditionals and restrictors vs. scopes of universal quantifiers. This paper tests these predictions experimentally through an acceptability judgment task. We find that judgments for be certain whether do not correlate with judgments on NPIs, which suggests that be certain whether and NPIs are in fact licensed by different mechanisms.},
	author = {van Gessel, Thom and Cremers, Alexandre and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 13:49:16 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v28i0.4424},
	editor = {Sireemas Maspong and Brynhildur Stefansdottir and Katherine Blake and Forrest Davis},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,attitude predicates,experimental linguistics,npi,negation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {217--232},
	title = {{Polarity sensitivity of question embedding: experimental evidence}},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.217/4041},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/28.217/4041},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v28i0.4424}}

Attitude predicates can be classified by the kinds of complements they can embed: declaratives, interrogatives or both. However, several authors have claimed that predicates like be certain can only embed interrogatives in specific environments. According to Mayr, these are exactly the environments that license negative polarity items (NPIs). In his analysis, both NPIs and embedded interrogatives are licensed by the same semantic strengthening procedure. If this is right, one would expect a correlation between acceptability of be certain whether and NPIs. The analysis also predicts a contrast between antecedents vs. consequents of conditionals and restrictors vs. scopes of universal quantifiers. This paper tests these predictions experimentally through an acceptability judgment task. We find that judgments for be certain whether do not correlate with judgments on NPIs, which suggests that be certain whether and NPIs are in fact licensed by different mechanisms.

@inproceedings{Ciardelli2018,
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Coppock, Liz and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 21},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 13:40:35 +0200},
	editor = {Truswell, Robert and Cummins, Chris and Heycock, Caroline and Rabern, Brian and Rohde, Hannah},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,numerals,ignorance,implicatures},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {283--300},
	title = {{Implicatures of modified numerals: quality or quantity?}},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DRjNjViN/CiardelliCoppockRoelofsen.pdf},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DRjNjViN/CiardelliCoppockRoelofsen.pdf}}

@inproceedings{RoelofsenUegaki:16,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Uegaki, Wataru},
	booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 21},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:40:07 +0200},
	editor = {Truswell, Robert and Cummins, Chris and Heycock, Caroline and Rabern, Brian and Rohde, Hannah},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,ignorance,questions,modality,attitude predicates,exhaustivity,implicatures},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {999-1016},
	title = {{The distributive ignorance puzzle}},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DRjNjViN/RoelofsenUegaki.pdf},
	year = {2018},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DRjNjViN/RoelofsenUegaki.pdf}}

@book{Cremers:17,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 09:50:14 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:03:53 +0200},
	editor = {Alexandre Cremers and Thom van Gessel and Floris Roelofsen},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {ILLC Publications},
	title = {Proceedings of the Twentyfirst Amsterdam Colloquium},
	url = {http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2017/Proceedings},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2017/Proceedings}}

@unpublished{Champollion:17,
	author = {Champollion, Lucas and Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:05:36 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,presupposition,compositionality,handout},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at the 2nd workshop on Inquisitiveness Below and Beyond the Sentence Boundary (InqBnB2).},
	title = {{On questions and presuppositions in typed inquisitive semantics}},
	url = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/2017_amsterdam_handout.pdf},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/2017_amsterdam_handout.pdf}}

@inproceedings{Theiler:17salt,
	abstract = {It is a long-standing puzzle why verbs like believe and think take declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., *Bill believes whether Mary left), while closely related verbs like know and be certain take both kinds of complements. We show that this contrast can be derived from the fact that believe and think, unlike know and be certain, are neg-raising verbs. 

},
	author = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:59:06 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v27i0.4125},
	editor = {Dan Burgdorf and Jacob Collard and Sireemas Maspong and Brynhildur Stefansdottir},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,modality,attitude predicates,neg-raising,triviality},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {248--265},
	title = {{What's wrong with believing whether?}},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/27.248/3844},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4125}}

It is a long-standing puzzle why verbs like believe and think take declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., *Bill believes whether Mary left), while closely related verbs like know and be certain take both kinds of complements. We show that this contrast can be derived from the fact that believe and think, unlike know and be certain, are neg-raising verbs.

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:17hurford,
	abstract = {This paper contributes to two recent lines of work on disjunction: on the one hand, work on so-called Hurford disjunctions, i.e., disjunctions where one disjunct entails another, and on the other hand, work in alternative and inquisitive semantics where disjunction has been argued to generate multiple propositional alternatives. We point out that Hurford effects are found not only in disjunctive statements, but also in disjunctive questions. These cases are not covered by the standard accounts of Hurford phenomena, which assume a truth-conditional treatment of disjunction. We show that inquisitive semantics facilitates a unified explanation of Hurford phenomena in statements and questions. We also argue that Hurford effects provide an empirical handle on the subtle differences between inquisitive semantics and alternative semantics, providing insight into the notion of alternatives and the notion of meaning adopted in these two frameworks.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:02:56 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y},
	journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,disjunction,alternative semantics,questions,exhaustivity},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {3},
	pages = {199--222},
	title = {{Hurford's constraint, the semantics of disjunctions, and the nature of alternatives}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y},
	volume = {25},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9134-y}}

This paper contributes to two recent lines of work on disjunction: on the one hand, work on so-called Hurford disjunctions, i.e., disjunctions where one disjunct entails another, and on the other hand, work in alternative and inquisitive semantics where disjunction has been argued to generate multiple propositional alternatives. We point out that Hurford effects are found not only in disjunctive statements, but also in disjunctive questions. These cases are not covered by the standard accounts of Hurford phenomena, which assume a truth-conditional treatment of disjunction. We show that inquisitive semantics facilitates a unified explanation of Hurford phenomena in statements and questions. We also argue that Hurford effects provide an empirical handle on the subtle differences between inquisitive semantics and alternative semantics, providing insight into the notion of alternatives and the notion of meaning adopted in these two frameworks.

@article{FarkasRoelofsen:17,
	abstract = {This article presents an account of the semantic content and conventional discourse effects of a range of sentence types in English, namely falling declaratives, polar interrogatives and certain kinds of rising declaratives and tag interrogatives. The account aims to divide the labor between compositional semantics and conventions of use in a principled way. We argue that falling declaratives and polar interrogatives are unmarked sentence types. On our account, differences in their conventional discourse effects follow from independently motivated semantic differences combined with a single convention of use, which applies uniformly to both sentence types. As a result, the Fregean `illocutionary force operators' Assertion and Question become unnecessary. In contrast, we argue that rising declaratives and tag interrogatives are marked sentence types. On our account, their conventional discourse effects consist of the effects that are dictated by the basic convention of use that is common to all sentence types considered here, augmented with special effects that are systematically connected to their formal properties. Thus, a central feature of our approach is that it maintains a parallelism between unmarked and marked sentence types on the one hand, and basic and complex discourse effects on the other.},
	author = {Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:00:26 +0200},
	doi = {10.1093/jos/ffw012},
	journal = {Journal of Semantics},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,discourse commitments,questions,tag questions,rising declaratives,intonation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {2},
	pages = {237--289},
	title = {{Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives}},
	url = {https://academic.oup.com/jos/article-abstract/34/2/237/2932198},
	volume = {34},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw012}}

This article presents an account of the semantic content and conventional discourse effects of a range of sentence types in English, namely falling declaratives, polar interrogatives and certain kinds of rising declaratives and tag interrogatives. The account aims to divide the labor between compositional semantics and conventions of use in a principled way. We argue that falling declaratives and polar interrogatives are unmarked sentence types. On our account, differences in their conventional discourse effects follow from independently motivated semantic differences combined with a single convention of use, which applies uniformly to both sentence types. As a result, the Fregean `illocutionary force operators' Assertion and Question become unnecessary. In contrast, we argue that rising declaratives and tag interrogatives are marked sentence types. On our account, their conventional discourse effects consist of the effects that are dictated by the basic convention of use that is common to all sentence types considered here, augmented with special effects that are systematically connected to their formal properties. Thus, a central feature of our approach is that it maintains a parallelism between unmarked and marked sentence types on the one hand, and basic and complex discourse effects on the other.

@article{Ciardelli:17,
	abstract = {There is a prominent line of work in natural language semantics, rooted
in the work of Hamblin, in which the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a
single proposition, but rather a set of propositions---a set of alternatives. This allows
for a more fine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a
wide range of linguistic phenomena. However, this approach also faces a number of
problems. We focus here on two of these, in our view the most fundamental ones. The
first has to do with how meanings are composed, i.e., with the type-theoretic operations
of function application and abstraction; the second has to do with how meanings are
compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile what we take to be
the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic framework
rooted in the work of Montague in such a way that both the explanatory utility of
the former and the solid formal foundations of the latter are preserved. Our proposal
builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics, and it also contributes to
the further development of this framework by specifying how the inquisitive meaning
of a sentence may be built up compositionally.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris and Theiler, Nadine},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:40:39 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2},
	journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,compositionality,questions,alternative semantics,philosophical logic},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {1},
	pages = {1--36},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {{Composing alternatives}},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10988-016-9195-2.pdf},
	volume = {40},
	year = {2017},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10988-016-9195-2.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9195-2}}

There is a prominent line of work in natural language semantics, rooted in the work of Hamblin, in which the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a single proposition, but rather a set of propositions—a set of alternatives. This allows for a more fine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a wide range of linguistic phenomena. However, this approach also faces a number of problems. We focus here on two of these, in our view the most fundamental ones. The first has to do with how meanings are composed, i.e., with the type-theoretic operations of function application and abstraction; the second has to do with how meanings are compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile what we take to be the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic framework rooted in the work of Montague in such a way that both the explanatory utility of the former and the solid formal foundations of the latter are preserved. Our proposal builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics, and it also contributes to the further development of this framework by specifying how the inquisitive meaning of a sentence may be built up compositionally.

@unpublished{Roelofsen:16highlighting,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 12:33:17 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,highlighting,attitude predicates,modality,anaphora,handout},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at the 2016 XPrag workshop on questions, answers, and negation in Berlin},
	title = {{Highlighting in discourse and grammar}},
	url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WQ0OWViM/highlighting.pdf},
	year = {2016},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WQ0OWViM/highlighting.pdf}}

@unpublished{Roelofsen:16might,
	annote = {Presented at \emph{Situations, Information, and Semantic Content}, Munich},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:49:37 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,free choice,philosophical logic,attention},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at the 2016 Workshop on Situations, Information, and Semantic Content in Munchen.},
	title = {{Information, issues, and live possibilities: might in conflicts, free choice, and questions}},
	url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zI2YjI4M/handout.pdf},
	year = {2016},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zI2YjI4M/handout.pdf}}

@inproceedings{Theiler:16salt,
	abstract = {Responsive verbs like know embed both declarative and interrogative
complements. Standard accounts of such verbs are reductive: they assume that
whether an individual stands in a knowledge-wh relation to a question is determined
by whether she stands in a knowledge-that relation to some answer to the question. George (2013) observed that knowledge-wh, however, not only depends on
knowledge-that but also on false belief---a fact that reductive accounts can't capture.
We develop an account that is not reductive but uniform: it assumes a single entry
for interrogative-embedding and declarative-embedding uses of a responsive verb.
The key insight that allows us to capture the false-belief dependency of knowledgewh is that verbs like know are sensitive to both true and false answers to the
embedded question. Formally, this is achieved through a novel, fine-grained way
of representing the meaning of a clausal complement in terms of so-called truthful
resolutions. The resulting analysis gives us a unifying perspective, under which
false-answer sensitivity comes out as a general characteristic common to all levels
of exhaustivity.},
	address = {Ithaca, NY},
	author = {Theiler, Nadine and Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:40:32 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v26i0.3791},
	editor = {Moroney, Mary and Little, Carol-Rose and Collard, Jacob and Burgdorf, Dan},
	issn = {2163-5951},
	keywords = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {attitude predicates,inquisitive semantics,modality,questions,theoretical linguistics},
	publisher = {LSA and CLC Publications},
	title = {{Truthful resolutions: a new perspective on false-answer sensitivity}},
	url = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/26.122/3632},
	year = {2016},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/26.122/3632},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3791}}

Responsive verbs like know embed both declarative and interrogative complements. Standard accounts of such verbs are reductive: they assume that whether an individual stands in a knowledge-wh relation to a question is determined by whether she stands in a knowledge-that relation to some answer to the question. George (2013) observed that knowledge-wh, however, not only depends on knowledge-that but also on false belief—a fact that reductive accounts can't capture. We develop an account that is not reductive but uniform: it assumes a single entry for interrogative-embedding and declarative-embedding uses of a responsive verb. The key insight that allows us to capture the false-belief dependency of knowledgewh is that verbs like know are sensitive to both true and false answers to the embedded question. Formally, this is achieved through a novel, fine-grained way of representing the meaning of a clausal complement in terms of so-called truthful resolutions. The resulting analysis gives us a unifying perspective, under which false-answer sensitivity comes out as a general characteristic common to all levels of exhaustivity.

@inproceedings{CiardelliRoelofsen:16sub,
	abstract = {Hamblin (1973) proposed an extension of the basic type-theoretic framework used in formal
semantics, rooted in Montague (1970, 1973). In Hamblin's framework, which has come to
be referred to as alternative semantics, the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a single
proposition, but rather a set of propositions---a set of alternatives. This allows for a more
fine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a wide range of linguistic
phenomena. However, it also faces a number of problems. We focus here on two of these, in
our view the most fundamental ones. The first has to do with how meanings are composed,
i.e., with the type-theoretic operations of function application and abstraction; the second has
to do with how meanings are compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile
what we take to be the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic
framework rooted in Montague's work, in such a way that the solid formal foundations of the
latter are preserved and the observed problems for alternative semantics are overcome. Our
proposal builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli et al., 2013),
and it also further advances this line of work, specifying how the inquisitive meaning of a
sentence, as well as the set of alternatives that it introduces, may be built up compositionally.},
	address = {Goettingen, Germany},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 20)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:45:37 +0200},
	editor = {Csipak, Eva and Zeijlstra, Hedde},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,alternative semantics,compositionality},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {161--178},
	title = {{Alternatives in {Montague} Grammar}},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jQzODVhO/paper.pdf},
	year = {2016},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jQzODVhO/paper.pdf}}

Hamblin (1973) proposed an extension of the basic type-theoretic framework used in formal semantics, rooted in Montague (1970, 1973). In Hamblin's framework, which has come to be referred to as alternative semantics, the meaning of a sentence is not taken to be a single proposition, but rather a set of propositions—a set of alternatives. This allows for a more fine-grained view on meaning, which has led to improved analyses of a wide range of linguistic phenomena. However, it also faces a number of problems. We focus here on two of these, in our view the most fundamental ones. The first has to do with how meanings are composed, i.e., with the type-theoretic operations of function application and abstraction; the second has to do with how meanings are compared, i.e., the notion of entailment. Our aim is to reconcile what we take to be the essence of Hamblin's proposal with the more orthodox type-theoretic framework rooted in Montague's work, in such a way that the solid formal foundations of the latter are preserved and the observed problems for alternative semantics are overcome. Our proposal builds on insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics (Ciardelli et al., 2013), and it also further advances this line of work, specifying how the inquisitive meaning of a sentence, as well as the set of alternatives that it introduces, may be built up compositionally.

@misc{HamamiRoelofsen:15si,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 09:57:07 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:04:12 +0200},
	editor = {Yacin Hamami and Floris Roelofsen},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {Logics of Questions (Special issue of Synthese)},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y}}

@book{Brochhagen:15,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 09:55:16 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:04:35 +0200},
	editor = {Thomas Brochhagen and Floris Roelofsen and Nadine Theiler},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {ILLC Publications},
	title = {Proceedings of the Twentieth Amsterdam Colloquium},
	url = {http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2015/Proceedings},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2015/Proceedings}}

@article{HamamiRoelofsen:15,
	author = {Hamami, Yacin and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-added = {2019-05-08 17:01:19 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:14:27 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y},
	journal = {Synthese},
	keywords = {questions,philosophical logic,inquisitive semantics,survey},
	number = {6},
	pages = {1581-1584},
	title = {Logics of Questions},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0736-y.pdf},
	volume = {192},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0736-y.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0736-y}}

@inproceedings{GroenendijkRoelofsen:15suppositional,
	abstract = {One of the primary usages of language is to exchange information. This can be done directly, as in Will Susan sing? No, she won't,
but it is also often done in a less direct way, as in If Pete plays the piano,
will Susan sing? No, if Pete plays the piano, Susan won't sing. In the latter type of exchange, both participants make a certain supposition, and
exchange information under the assumption that this supposition holds.
This paper develops a semantic framework for the analysis of this kind of
information exchange. Building on earlier work in inquisitive semantics,
it introduces a notion of meaning that captures informative, inquisitive,
and suppositional content, and discusses how such meanings may be assigned in a natural way to sentences in a propositional language. The
focus is on conditionals, which are the only kind of sentences in a propositional language that introduce non-trivial suppositional content.},
	author = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Logic, Language, and Computation: 10th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2013), Revised Selected Papers},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 19:33:55 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-662-46906-4_9},
	editor = {Aher, Martin and Hole, Daniel and Je\v{r}{\'{a}}bek, Emil and Kupke, Clemens},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,conditionals},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {137--156},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {{Towards a suppositional inquisitive semantics}},
	url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DY3ZGE5N/suppositional.pdf},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DY3ZGE5N/suppositional.pdf}}

One of the primary usages of language is to exchange information. This can be done directly, as in Will Susan sing? No, she won't, but it is also often done in a less direct way, as in If Pete plays the piano, will Susan sing? No, if Pete plays the piano, Susan won't sing. In the latter type of exchange, both participants make a certain supposition, and exchange information under the assumption that this supposition holds. This paper develops a semantic framework for the analysis of this kind of information exchange. Building on earlier work in inquisitive semantics, it introduces a notion of meaning that captures informative, inquisitive, and suppositional content, and discusses how such meanings may be assigned in a natural way to sentences in a propositional language. The focus is on conditionals, which are the only kind of sentences in a propositional language that introduce non-trivial suppositional content.

@unpublished{Roelofsen:15lists,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:21:13 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,disjunction,presupposition,compositionality,intonation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Manuscript, ILLC, University of Amsterdam},
	title = {{The semantics of declarative and interrogative lists}},
	url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jdiNjljO/paper.pdf},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jdiNjljO/paper.pdf}}

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:15idel,
	abstract = {Information exchange can be seen as a dynamic process of raising and resolving issues. The goal of this paper is to provide a logical framework to model and reason about this process. We develop an inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic (IDEL), which enriches the standard framework of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL), incorporating insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics. At a static level, IDEL does not only allow us to model the information available to a set of agents, like standard epistemic logic, but also the issues that the agents entertain. At a dynamic level, IDEL does not only allow us to model the effects of communicative actions that provide new information, like standard DEL, but also the effects of actions that raise new issues. Thus, IDEL provides the fundamental tools needed to analyze information exchange as a dynamic process of raising and resolving issues.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:47:31 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11229-014-0404-7},
	journal = {Synthese},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,philosophical logic,dynamic semantics,modality,attitude predicates},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {6},
	pages = {1643--1687},
	title = {{Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic}},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-014-0404-7},
	volume = {192},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0404-7}}

Information exchange can be seen as a dynamic process of raising and resolving issues. The goal of this paper is to provide a logical framework to model and reason about this process. We develop an inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic (IDEL), which enriches the standard framework of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL), incorporating insights from recent work on inquisitive semantics. At a static level, IDEL does not only allow us to model the information available to a set of agents, like standard epistemic logic, but also the issues that the agents entertain. At a dynamic level, IDEL does not only allow us to model the effects of communicative actions that provide new information, like standard DEL, but also the effects of actions that raise new issues. Thus, IDEL provides the fundamental tools needed to analyze information exchange as a dynamic process of raising and resolving issues.

@article{Ciardelli:15inqd,
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 12:32:24 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7},
	journal = {Synthese},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,philosophical logic},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {6},
	pages = {1689--1728},
	title = {{On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0352-7},
	volume = {192},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0352-7},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0352-7}}

@unpublished{Champollion:15somequestions,
	abstract = {ThŒis talk lays out a compositional account of wh-questions in typed inquisitive semantics
(ŒTheiler, 2014; Ciardelli and Roelofsen, 2015). Relevant issues include multiple wh-questions
and de dicto readings of which-questions.},
	author = {Champollion, Lucas and Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:41:00 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,compositionality},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at the 2015 Workshop on Questions in Logic and Semantics in Amsterdam},
	title = {{Some questions in typed inquisitive semantics}},
	url = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/questions-inqsem.pdf},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.nyu.edu/projects/champollion/questions-inqsem.pdf}}

ThŒis talk lays out a compositional account of wh-questions in typed inquisitive semantics (ŒTheiler, 2014; Ciardelli and Roelofsen, 2015). Relevant issues include multiple wh-questions and de dicto readings of which-questions.

@article{RoelofsenFarkas:15,
	abstract = {This article provides an account of the distribution and interpretation of polarity particles in
responses, starting with yes and no in English, and then extending the coverage to their crosslinguistic kin. Polarity particles are used in responses to both declarative and interrogative sentences,
and thus provide a window onto the semantics and discourse effects of such sentences. We argue
that understanding the distribution and interpretation of polarity particles requires a characterization of declaratives and interrogatives that captures a series of challenging similarities and differences across these two sentence types. To meet this challenge we combine and extend insights
from inquisitive semantics, dynamic semantics, and commitment-based models of discourse. We
then provide a full account of the English data that leads to a typology of polarity particles and a
series of crosslinguistic predictions. These predictions are checked against data from Romanian,
Hungarian, French, and German, languages that contrast with English in that they have ternary polarity particle systems, and contrast with one another in further subtle way.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Farkas, Donka F},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 14:55:45 +0200},
	doi = {10.1353/lan.2015.0017},
	journal = {Language},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,highlighting,disjunction,negation,answer particles,anaphora},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {2},
	pages = {359--414},
	title = {{Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions}},
	url = {https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/LanguageFarkasRoelofsen.pdf},
	volume = {91},
	year = {2015},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/LanguageFarkasRoelofsen.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017}}

This article provides an account of the distribution and interpretation of polarity particles in responses, starting with yes and no in English, and then extending the coverage to their crosslinguistic kin. Polarity particles are used in responses to both declarative and interrogative sentences, and thus provide a window onto the semantics and discourse effects of such sentences. We argue that understanding the distribution and interpretation of polarity particles requires a characterization of declaratives and interrogatives that captures a series of challenging similarities and differences across these two sentence types. To meet this challenge we combine and extend insights from inquisitive semantics, dynamic semantics, and commitment-based models of discourse. We then provide a full account of the English data that leads to a typology of polarity particles and a series of crosslinguistic predictions. These predictions are checked against data from Romanian, Hungarian, French, and German, languages that contrast with English in that they have ternary polarity particle systems, and contrast with one another in further subtle way.

@incollection{Ciardelli:14attention,
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:44:06 +0200},
	doi = {10.1163/9789004279377_007},
	editor = {Gutzmann, Daniel and K{\"{o}}pping, Jan and Meier, C{\'{e}}cile},
	keywords = {attention,inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,modality,free choice},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {128--166},
	publisher = {Brill},
	title = {{Information, issues, and attention}},
	url = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/2bds626x8888m8p/Ciardelli-Groenendijk-Roelofsen-2014-attention.pdf},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/2bds626x8888m8p/Ciardelli-Groenendijk-Roelofsen-2014-attention.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279377_007}}

@article{AloniRoelofsen:14nals,
	abstract = {The goal of this paper is to explain the meaning and distribution of indefinites in comparatives, focusing on English some and any and German irgend-indefinites. We consider three competing theories of comparatives in combination with an alternative semantics of some and any, and a novel account of stressed irgend-indefinites. One of the resulting accounts, based on Heim's analysis of comparatives, predicts all the relevant differences in quantificational force, and explains why free choice indefinites are licensed in comparatives.},
	author = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:29:56 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z},
	journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	keywords = {alternative semantics,comparatives,free choice,indefinites,inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {145--167},
	title = {{Indefinites in comparatives}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z},
	volume = {22},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9103-z}}

The goal of this paper is to explain the meaning and distribution of indefinites in comparatives, focusing on English some and any and German irgend-indefinites. We consider three competing theories of comparatives in combination with an alternative semantics of some and any, and a novel account of stressed irgend-indefinites. One of the resulting accounts, based on Heim's analysis of comparatives, predicts all the relevant differences in quantificational force, and explains why free choice indefinites are licensed in comparatives.

@unpublished{CiardelliRoelofsen:14eenm,
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:34:08 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,belief revision,slides},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at a European Epistemology Network Meeting in Madrid.},
	title = {{Issues in epistemic change}},
	url = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/cq7p4y11xii4h5v/epistemology-2014-slides.pdf},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/cq7p4y11xii4h5v/epistemology-2014-slides.pdf}}

@article{BrasoveanuClercqFarkasRoelofsen:14,
	abstract = {This paper presents an experiment that is designed to quantify the negativity of sentences with different types of negative operators (n-words like never and downward entailing operators like rarely) in different syntactic positions (adverb, subject, and direct object). In the experiment, participants were provided with a minimal context, then asked to choose one tag-question out of two; one of questions had a positive tag and the other had a negative tag. Clearly positive sentences (i.e., sentences without any negative operators) and clearly negative sentences (i.e., sentences with overt sentential negation and no other relevant operators present) were used as controls. The relative frequency of positive and negative tags was then taken as a measure of the sentential negativity of each experimental item. Our main finding is that sentential negativity is a graded notion, sensitive to both semantic and syntactic factors. With respect to semantics, we find that n-words contribute more negativity than downward entailing operators, confirming the logical distinction between anti-additivity and downward entailment identified in the previous semantic literature on NPI licensing. With respect to syntactic position, we find that negative items in subject or adverbial position contribute more negativity than negative items in direct object position.},
	author = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and de Clercq, Karen and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:35:33 +0200},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.008},
	journal = {Lingua},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,experimental linguistics,negation,indefinites,ellipsis,tag questions},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {173--193},
	title = {{Question tags and sentential negativity}},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384114000709},
	volume = {145},
	year = {2014},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.03.008}}

This paper presents an experiment that is designed to quantify the negativity of sentences with different types of negative operators (n-words like never and downward entailing operators like rarely) in different syntactic positions (adverb, subject, and direct object). In the experiment, participants were provided with a minimal context, then asked to choose one tag-question out of two; one of questions had a positive tag and the other had a negative tag. Clearly positive sentences (i.e., sentences without any negative operators) and clearly negative sentences (i.e., sentences with overt sentential negation and no other relevant operators present) were used as controls. The relative frequency of positive and negative tags was then taken as a measure of the sentential negativity of each experimental item. Our main finding is that sentential negativity is a graded notion, sensitive to both semantic and syntactic factors. With respect to semantics, we find that n-words contribute more negativity than downward entailing operators, confirming the logical distinction between anti-additivity and downward entailment identified in the previous semantic literature on NPI licensing. With respect to syntactic position, we find that negative items in subject or adverbial position contribute more negativity than negative items in direct object position.

@book{Aloni:13ac,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 10:01:23 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:03:06 +0200},
	editor = {Maria Aloni and Michael Franke and Floris Roelofsen},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {ILLC Publications},
	title = {Proceedings of the Nineteenth Amsterdam Colloquium},
	url = {http://staff.science.uva.nl/~maloni/AC2013/AC_proceedings.pdf},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://staff.science.uva.nl/~maloni/AC2013/AC_proceedings.pdf}}

@book{Aloni:13,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 09:59:06 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:01:17 +0200},
	editor = {Maria Aloni and Michael Franke and Floris Roelofsen},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {ILLC Publications},
	title = {The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of p, whether p, and might p: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman},
	url = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/}}

@article{PruittRoelofsen:13,
	abstract = {Alternative questions differ prosodically from identically worded disjunctive polar questions in their accentual characteristics and their
final pitch contour. Alternative questions are canonically pronounced
with a final fall and with pitch accents on all disjuncts, while disjunctive polar questions are canonically pronounced with a final rise and
generally without pitch accents on every disjunct. This article presents
an experiment investigating the importance of these prosodic features
in disambiguation. The experiment shows that the final contour is the
most informative prosodic feature. Accentual characteristics also play
a significant role, but, contrary to what is often assumed in the literature, cannot force an alternative question interpretation or a polar
question interpretation on their own. Several theories of disjunctive
questions are discussed in the light of these experimental results.},
	author = {Pruitt, Kathryn and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 12:37:59 +0200},
	doi = {10.1162/LING_a_00141},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	keywords = {experimental linguistics,disjunction,questions,intonation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {4},
	pages = {632--650},
	title = {{The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions}},
	url = {http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LING_a_00141},
	volume = {44},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00141}}

Alternative questions differ prosodically from identically worded disjunctive polar questions in their accentual characteristics and their final pitch contour. Alternative questions are canonically pronounced with a final fall and with pitch accents on all disjuncts, while disjunctive polar questions are canonically pronounced with a final rise and generally without pitch accents on every disjunct. This article presents an experiment investigating the importance of these prosodic features in disambiguation. The experiment shows that the final contour is the most informative prosodic feature. Accentual characteristics also play a significant role, but, contrary to what is often assumed in the literature, cannot force an alternative question interpretation or a polar question interpretation on their own. Several theories of disjunctive questions are discussed in the light of these experimental results.

@incollection{Roelofsen:13festschrift,
	abstract = {This paper introduces a semantic framework in which the meaning of a sentence embodies
both its informative and its attentive content. This framework allows for an improved
implementation of the analysis of might proposed in Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen
(2009), which in turn builds on an idea from Groenendijk, Stokhof, and Veltman (1996).
The paper is dedicated to Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, on the
occasion of their upcoming retirement, with deepest respect and gratitude.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of p, whether p, and might p: a festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:51:07 +0200},
	editor = {Aloni, Maria and Franke, Michael and Roelofsen, Floris},
	keywords = {attention,theoretical linguistics,might,modality,free choice,disjunction},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {190--215},
	publisher = {ILLC Publications},
	title = {{A bare bone semantics for attentive might}},
	url = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/25_Roelofsen.pdf},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/25_Roelofsen.pdf}}

This paper introduces a semantic framework in which the meaning of a sentence embodies both its informative and its attentive content. This framework allows for an improved implementation of the analysis of might proposed in Ciardelli, Groenendijk, and Roelofsen (2009), which in turn builds on an idea from Groenendijk, Stokhof, and Veltman (1996). The paper is dedicated to Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, on the occasion of their upcoming retirement, with deepest respect and gratitude.

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:13tbilisi,
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Logic, Language, and Computation: revised selected papers from the Ninth International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 19:34:09 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-36976-6_6},
	editor = {Bezhanishvili, G and Marra, V and L{\"{o}}bner, S and Richter, F},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {51--72},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {{Towards a logic of information exchange: an inquisitive witness semantics}},
	url = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/Witnesses-Tbilisi2012-final.pdf},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/Witnesses-Tbilisi2012-final.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36976-6_6}}

@article{Ciardelli:13compass,
	abstract = {This paper presents a notion of meaning that captures both informative and inquisitive content, which forms the cornerstone of inquisitive semantics. The new notion of meaning is explained and motivated in detail, and compared to previous inquisitive notions of meaning.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:15:12 +0200},
	doi = {10.1111/lnc3.12037},
	journal = {Language and Linguistics Compass},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,survey},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {9},
	pages = {459--476},
	title = {{Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning}},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lnc3.12037},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12037}}

This paper presents a notion of meaning that captures both informative and inquisitive content, which forms the cornerstone of inquisitive semantics. The new notion of meaning is explained and motivated in detail, and compared to previous inquisitive notions of meaning.

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:13sub,
	abstract = {This paper presents a number of experiments assessing the felicity of positive and
negative polar questions in various types of discourse contexts.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Venhuizen, Noortje and {Weidmann Sassoon}, Galit},
	booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 17)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:47:34 +0200},
	editor = {Chemla, Emmanuel and Homer, Vincent and Winterstein, Gregoire},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,questions,experimental linguistics,bias,negation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {455--472},
	title = {{Positive and negative polar questions in discourse}},
	url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/RoelofsenVenhuizenSassoon.pdf},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/RoelofsenVenhuizenSassoon.pdf}}

This paper presents a number of experiments assessing the felicity of positive and negative polar questions in various types of discourse contexts.

@unpublished{BrasoveanuFarkasRoelofsen:13,
	author = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:49:59 +0200},
	keywords = {experimental linguistics,negation,answer particles,tag questions},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at the University of California, January 18, 2013, and Johns Hopkins University, February 13, 2013},
	title = {{Scales of negativity}},
	url = {http://tinyurl.com/dxhuvfh},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://tinyurl.com/dxhuvfh}}

@article{Roelofsen:13,
	abstract = {In classical logic, the proposition expressed by a sentence is construed as a set of possible worlds, capturing the informative content of the sentence. However, sentences in natural language are not only used to provide information, but also to request information. Thus, natural language semantics requires a logical framework whose notion of meaning does not only embody informative content, but also inquisitive content. This paper develops the algebraic foundations for such a framework. We argue that propositions, in order to embody both informative and inquisitive content in a satisfactory way, should be defined as non-empty, downward closed sets of possibilities, where each possibility in turn is a set of possible worlds. We define a natural entailment order over such propositions, capturing when one proposition is at least as informative and inquisitive as another, and we show that this entailment order gives rise to a complete Heyting algebra, with meet, join, and relative pseudo-complement operators. Just as in classical logic, these semantic operators are then associated with the logical constants in a first-order language. We explore the logical properties of the resulting system and discuss its significance for natural language semantics. We show that the system essentially coincides with the simplest and most well-understood existing implementation of inquisitive semantics, and that its treatment of disjunction and existentials also concurs with recent work in alternative semantics. Thus, our algebraic considerations do not lead to a wholly new treatment of the logical constants, but rather provide more solid foundations for some of the existing proposals.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:42:03 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4},
	journal = {Synthese},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,alternative semantics,algebraic semantics,philosophical logic,questions},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {1},
	pages = {79--102},
	title = {{Algebraic foundations for the semantic treatment of inquisitive content}},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-013-0282-4},
	volume = {190},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0282-4}}

In classical logic, the proposition expressed by a sentence is construed as a set of possible worlds, capturing the informative content of the sentence. However, sentences in natural language are not only used to provide information, but also to request information. Thus, natural language semantics requires a logical framework whose notion of meaning does not only embody informative content, but also inquisitive content. This paper develops the algebraic foundations for such a framework. We argue that propositions, in order to embody both informative and inquisitive content in a satisfactory way, should be defined as non-empty, downward closed sets of possibilities, where each possibility in turn is a set of possible worlds. We define a natural entailment order over such propositions, capturing when one proposition is at least as informative and inquisitive as another, and we show that this entailment order gives rise to a complete Heyting algebra, with meet, join, and relative pseudo-complement operators. Just as in classical logic, these semantic operators are then associated with the logical constants in a first-order language. We explore the logical properties of the resulting system and discuss its significance for natural language semantics. We show that the system essentially coincides with the simplest and most well-understood existing implementation of inquisitive semantics, and that its treatment of disjunction and existentials also concurs with recent work in alternative semantics. Thus, our algebraic considerations do not lead to a wholly new treatment of the logical constants, but rather provide more solid foundations for some of the existing proposals.

@article{Brasoveanu:13,
	abstract = {A prominent treatment of n-words such as nobody and never is as indefinite expressions occurring in the scope of a covert sentential negation operator. This paper presents three experiments using two novel strategies based on polarity particles and VP ellipsis to test the predictions of this treatment of n-words. The first experiment tests a particular prediction of recent accounts of polarity particles with respect to agreeing responses to negative assertions. The other two extend the inquiry to cases involving n-words.
},
	author = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:45:25 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/sp.6.7},
	journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,negation,ellipsis,answer particles,indefinites,experimental linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	number = {7},
	pages = {1--33},
	title = {{N-words and sentential negation: Evidence from polarity particles and {VP} ellipsis}},
	url = {http://semprag.org/article/view/sp.6.7},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.7}}

A prominent treatment of n-words such as nobody and never is as indefinite expressions occurring in the scope of a covert sentential negation operator. This paper presents three experiments using two novel strategies based on polarity particles and VP ellipsis to test the predictions of this treatment of n-words. The first experiment tests a particular prediction of recent accounts of polarity particles with respect to agreeing responses to negative assertions. The other two extend the inquiry to cases involving n-words.

@unpublished{Roelofsen:13colloquium,
	annote = {Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, February 2013},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 15:41:47 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,disjunction,questions,slides},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Stanford Linguistics Colloquium.},
	title = {{An inquisitive perspective on meaning: the case of disjunction}},
	url = {https://www.dropbox.com/s/lxb2yujbowol2pm/stuttgart-2013-handout.pdf},
	year = {2013},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics}}

@book{Aloni:12ac,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 10:05:50 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:07:08 +0200},
	editor = {Maria Aloni and Vadim Kimmelman and Floris Roelofsen and Galit Sassoon and Katrin Schulz and Matthijs Westera},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {Logic, Language and Meaning: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Amsterdam Colloquium},
	url = {http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7/page/1},
	year = {2012},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7/page/1}}

@inproceedings{BrasoveanuFarkasRoelofsen:12,
	author = {Brasoveanu, Adrian and Farkas, Donka F and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Sinn und Bedeutung 16},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 16:25:06 +0200},
	editor = {{Aguilar Guevara}, Ana and Chernilovskaya, Anna and Nouwen, Rick},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,experimental linguistics,anaphora,answer particles,indefinites,negation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {99--112},
	publisher = {MITWPL},
	title = {{Polarity particles and the anatomy of n-words}},
	url = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/SuB16_polarity_particles.pdf},
	year = {2012},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/SuB16_polarity_particles.pdf}}

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:11,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Logic, Rationality, and Interaction},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:42:55 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_17},
	editor = {van Ditmarsch, Hans and Lang, Jerome and Shier, Ju},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,algebraic semantics,alternative semantics,questions},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {233--243},
	publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
	title = {{Algebraic foundations for inquisitive semantics}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-24130-7_17.pdf},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-24130-7_17.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_17}}

@article{AloniRoelofsen:11,
	abstract = {Concealed questions are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions (e.g., John knows the capital of Italy ≈ John knows what the capital of Italy is). This paper offers a novel account of the interpretation of concealed questions, which assumes that an entity-denoting expression α may be type-shifted into an expression ?z.P(α), where P is a contextually determined property, and z ranges over a contextually determined domain of individual concepts. Different resolutions of P and the domain of z yield a wide range of concealed question interpretations, some of which were not noted previously. On the other hand, principled constraints on the resolution process prevent overgeneration.},
	author = {Aloni, Maria and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 11:15:40 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9},
	journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
	keywords = {concealed questions,quantification,conceptual covers,questions,theoretical linguistics, conceptual covers, ellipsis},
	mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},
	number = {5},
	pages = {443--478},
	title = {{Interpreting concealed questions}},
	url = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/j50564732g8v3707/},
	volume = {34},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/j50564732g8v3707/},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9102-9}}

Concealed questions are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions (e.g., John knows the capital of Italy ≈ John knows what the capital of Italy is). This paper offers a novel account of the interpretation of concealed questions, which assumes that an entity-denoting expression α may be type-shifted into an expression ?z.P(α), where P is a contextually determined property, and z ranges over a contextually determined domain of individual concepts. Different resolutions of P and the domain of z yield a wide range of concealed question interpretations, some of which were not noted previously. On the other hand, principled constraints on the resolution process prevent overgeneration.

@article{Roelofsen:11li,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:18:53 +0200},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,anaphora,ellipsis,focus,variables},
	number = {4},
	pages = {682--697},
	publisher = {MIT Press},
	title = {{Free variable economy}},
	url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41343770.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A581d61b6eb9895b90300cb52b095e52e},
	volume = {42},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41343770.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A581d61b6eb9895b90300cb52b095e52e}}

@article{CiardelliRoelofsen:11jpl,
	abstract = {This paper investigates a generalized version of inquisitive semantics. A complete axiomatization of the associated logic is established, the connection with intuitionistic logic and several intermediate logics is explored, and the generalized version of inquisitive semantics is argued to have certain advantages over the system that was originally proposed by Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009).},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 16:47:45 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6},
	journal = {Journal of Philosophical Logic},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,philosophical logic},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics},
	number = {1},
	pages = {55--94},
	title = {{Inquisitive logic}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6},
	volume = {40},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6}}

This paper investigates a generalized version of inquisitive semantics. A complete axiomatization of the associated logic is established, the connection with intuitionistic logic and several intermediate logics is explored, and the generalized version of inquisitive semantics is argued to have certain advantages over the system that was originally proposed by Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009).

@unpublished{PruittRoelofsen:11,
	author = {Pruitt, Kathryn and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 12:38:34 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,disjunction,intonation,highlighting,answer particles},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universit{\"{a}}t G{\"{o}}ttingen.},
	title = {{Disjunctive questions: prosody, syntax, and semantics}},
	url = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/goettingen-handout-scaled-up.pdf?attredirects=0},
	year = {2011},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/goettingen-handout-scaled-up.pdf?attredirects=0}}

@article{Roelofsen:10nals,
	abstract = {This paper is concerned with constraints on the interpretation of pronominal anaphora, in particular Condition B effects. It aims to contribute to a particular approach, initiated by Reinhart (Anaphora and semantic interpretation, 1983) and further developed elsewhere. It proposes a modification of Reinhart's Interface Rule, and argues that the resulting theory compares favorably with others, while being compatible with independently motivated general hypotheses about the interaction between different interpretive mechanisms.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 16:47:19 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/s11050-009-9049-3},
	journal = {Natural Language Semantics},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,anaphora},
	mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},
	number = {2},
	pages = {115--140},
	title = {{Condition B effects in two simple steps}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-009-9049-3},
	volume = {18},
	year = {2010},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11050-009-9049-3},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9049-3}}

This paper is concerned with constraints on the interpretation of pronominal anaphora, in particular Condition B effects. It aims to contribute to a particular approach, initiated by Reinhart (Anaphora and semantic interpretation, 1983) and further developed elsewhere. It proposes a modification of Reinhart's Interface Rule, and argues that the resulting theory compares favorably with others, while being compatible with independently motivated general hypotheses about the interaction between different interpretive mechanisms.

@inproceedings{RoelofsenGool:10,
	abstract = {This paper examines how intonation affects the interpretation of disjunctive questions. The semantic effect
of a question is taken to be three-fold. First, it raises an issue. In the tradition of inquisitive semantics, we
model this by assuming that a question proposes several possible updates of the common ground (several
possibilities for short) and invites other participants to help establish at least one of these updates. But apart
from raising an issue, a question may also highlight and/or suggest certain possibilities, and intonation
determines to a large extent which possibilities are highlighted/suggested. We will introduce a compositional version of inquisitive semantics, and extend this framework in order to capture the highlighting- and suggestion potential of sentences. This will lead to a systematic account of the answerhood conditions and
implications of disjunctive questions with different intonation patterns.},
	address = {Berlin},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and van Gool, Sam},
	booktitle = {Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the Seventeenth {Amsterdam Colloquium}},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 19:38:47 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_39},
	editor = {Aloni, Maria and Bastiaanse, Harald and de Jager, Tikitu and Schulz, Katrin},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,highlighting,answer particles,disjunction,questions,intonation},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {384--394},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {{Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting}},
	url = {Disjunctive questions, intonation, and highlighting https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/document/947},
	year = {2010},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {Disjunctive%20questions,%20intonation,%20and%20highlighting%20https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/document/947}}

This paper examines how intonation affects the interpretation of disjunctive questions. The semantic effect of a question is taken to be three-fold. First, it raises an issue. In the tradition of inquisitive semantics, we model this by assuming that a question proposes several possible updates of the common ground (several possibilities for short) and invites other participants to help establish at least one of these updates. But apart from raising an issue, a question may also highlight and/or suggest certain possibilities, and intonation determines to a large extent which possibilities are highlighted/suggested. We will introduce a compositional version of inquisitive semantics, and extend this framework in order to capture the highlighting- and suggestion potential of sentences. This will lead to a systematic account of the answerhood conditions and implications of disjunctive questions with different intonation patterns.

@unpublished{GroenendijkRoelofsen:10ris,
	author = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:56:12 +0200},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,negation,conditionals,questions,manuscript},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	note = {Presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Logic, Cognition, and Communication at the University of Latvia},
	title = {{Radical Inquisitive Semantics}},
	url = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/radical-september2010.pdf},
	year = {2010},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics}}

@inproceedings{GroenendijkRoelofsen:09michigan,
	abstract = {This paper starts with an informal introduction to inquisitive
semantics. After that, we present a formal definition of the semantics,
introduce the semantic notions of inquisitiveness and informativeness,
and define the semantic categories of questions, assertions, and hybrid
sentences.
The focus of the paper will be on the logical pragmatical notions that
the semantics gives rise to. We introduce and motivate inquisitive versions of principles of cooperation, which direct a conversation towards
enhancement of the common ground. We define a notion of compliance,
which judges relatedness of one utterance to another, and a notion of homogeneity, which enables quantitative comparison of compliant moves.
We end the paper with an illustration of the cooperative way in which
implicatures are established, or cancelled, in inquisitive pragmatics.},
	author = {Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Meaning, Content and Argument, Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics and Rhetoric},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 19:43:30 +0200},
	editor = {J.M. Larrazabal and L. Zubeldia},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,questions,inquisitive pragmatics,disjunction},
	pages = {41-72},
	title = {{Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics}},
	url = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/ISP-Stanford-edition.pdf},
	year = {2009},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics}}

This paper starts with an informal introduction to inquisitive semantics. After that, we present a formal definition of the semantics, introduce the semantic notions of inquisitiveness and informativeness, and define the semantic categories of questions, assertions, and hybrid sentences. The focus of the paper will be on the logical pragmatical notions that the semantics gives rise to. We introduce and motivate inquisitive versions of principles of cooperation, which direct a conversation towards enhancement of the common ground. We define a notion of compliance, which judges relatedness of one utterance to another, and a notion of homogeneity, which enables quantitative comparison of compliant moves. We end the paper with an illustration of the cooperative way in which implicatures are established, or cancelled, in inquisitive pragmatics.

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:09lori,
	abstract = {Inquisitive semantics (cf. Groenendijk, 2008) provides a formal framework for reasoning about information exchange. The central logical notion that the semantics gives rise to is compliance. This paper presents an algorithm that computes the set of compliant responses to a given initiative. The algorithm is sound and complete. The implementation is accessible online via www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Cornelisse, Irma and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Logic, Rationality, and Interaction},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 19:44:03 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_5},
	editor = {He, X and Horty, J and Pacuit, E},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,compliance,computational},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {55--65},
	publisher = {Springer},
	title = {{Computing Compliance}},
	url = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/computing-compliance/},
	year = {2009},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/computing-compliance/},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_5}}

Inquisitive semantics (cf. Groenendijk, 2008) provides a formal framework for reasoning about information exchange. The central logical notion that the semantics gives rise to is compliance. This paper presents an algorithm that computes the set of compliant responses to a given initiative. The algorithm is sound and complete. The implementation is accessible online via www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics.

@inproceedings{Ciardelli:09salt,
	abstract = {This paper points out that the notion of meaning propounded by inquisitive semantics is not only suited to capture both informative and inquisitive content, but also a sentence's potential to draw attention to certain possibilities. This gives rise to a novel analysis of 'might'.},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Groenendijk, Jeroen and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 19)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:43:30 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v19i0.2520},
	editor = {Ito, Satoshi and Cormany, Ed},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics,attention,might,modality,free choice},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {91-108},
	publisher = {CLC Publications},
	title = {{Attention! Might in Inquisitive Semantics}},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2520/2268},
	year = {2009},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2520/2268},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2520}}

This paper points out that the notion of meaning propounded by inquisitive semantics is not only suited to capture both informative and inquisitive content, but also a sentence's potential to draw attention to certain possibilities. This gives rise to a novel analysis of 'might'.

@inproceedings{CiardelliRoelofsen:09tark,
	abstract = {This paper investigates a generalized version of inquisitive semantics (Groenendijk, 2008b;
Mascarenhas, 2008). A complete axiomatization of the
associated logic is established. The connection with
intuitionistic logic is clarified and heavily exploited.},
	annote = {Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge},
	author = {Ciardelli, Ivano and Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Theoretical Aspacts of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 12)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 16:40:27 +0200},
	doi = {10.1145/1562814.1562827},
	keywords = {inquisitive semantics,philosophical logic},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	title = {{Generalized Inquisitive Logic: Completeness via Intuitionistic {Kripke} Models}},
	url = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/tark.pdf},
	year = {2009},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/documents/tark.pdf},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1145/1562814.1562827}}

This paper investigates a generalized version of inquisitive semantics (Groenendijk, 2008b; Mascarenhas, 2008). A complete axiomatization of the associated logic is established. The connection with intuitionistic logic is clarified and heavily exploited.

@inproceedings{Roelofsen:08sub,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 11:14:57 +0200},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics},
	mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {415--424},
	title = {{Free variable economy}},
	year = {2008}}

@phdthesis{Roelofsen:08,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 16:47:01 +0200},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,anaphora,ellipsis,pragmatics},
	mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},
	school = {University of Amsterdam},
	title = {{Anaphora Resolved}},
	url = {https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/4292301/57387_thesis.pdf},
	year = {2008},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/4292301/57387_thesis.pdf}}

@inproceedings{RoelofsenAloni:08,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Aloni, Maria},
	booktitle = {Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 18)},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 21:46:18 +0200},
	doi = {10.3765/salt.v18i0.2500},
	editor = {Tova Friedman and Satoshi Ito},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,questions,concealed questions,conceptual covers,quantification,ellipsis},
	mendeley-tags = {theoretical linguistics},
	pages = {619--636},
	title = {{Perspectives on concealed questions}},
	url = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/2500/2249},
	year = {2008},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/2500/2249},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2500}}

@techreport{RCA:08,
	author = {Nesson, Rebecca and Roelofsen, Floris and Grosz, Barbara},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:56:39 +0200},
	institution = {Harvard University},
	keywords = {theoretical linguistics,anaphora,implicatures,centering,referential expressions},
	mendeley-tags = {inquisitive semantics,theoretical linguistics},
	title = {{Rational Coordinated Anaphora Theory}},
	url = {ftp://ftp.deas.harvard.edu/techreports/tr-2008.html},
	year = {2008},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {ftp://ftp.deas.harvard.edu/techreports/tr-2008.html}}

@book{Aloni:07ac,
	date-added = {2019-05-15 10:07:18 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-15 10:08:02 +0200},
	editor = {Maria Aloni and Paul Dekker and Floris Roelofsen},
	keywords = {edited collection},
	publisher = {ILLC Publications},
	title = {Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium},
	url = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2007/uploaded_files/proceedings-AC07.pdf},
	year = {2007},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2007/uploaded_files/proceedings-AC07.pdf}}

@inproceedings{Brewka:2007,
	abstract = {In this paper we introduce a multi-context variant of
Reiter's default logic. The logic provides a syntactical counterpart of Roelofsen and Serafini's information chain approach (IJCAI-05), yet has several
advantages: it is closer to standard ways of representing nonmonotonic inference and a number of
results from that area come `for free'; it is closer
to implementation, in particular the restriction to
logic programming gives us a computationally attractive framework; and it allows us to handle a
problem with the information chain approach related to skeptical reasoning.},
	author = {Brewka, Gerhard and Roelofsen, Floris and Serafini, Luciano},
	booktitle = {International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 07)},
	date-added = {2019-05-08 19:52:57 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-08 19:56:09 +0200},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	pages = {268--273},
	title = {Contextual Default Reasoning},
	url = {https://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-041.pdf},
	year = {2007},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-041.pdf}}

In this paper we introduce a multi-context variant of Reiter's default logic. The logic provides a syntactical counterpart of Roelofsen and Serafini's information chain approach (IJCAI-05), yet has several advantages: it is closer to standard ways of representing nonmonotonic inference and a number of results from that area come `for free'; it is closer to implementation, in particular the restriction to logic programming gives us a computationally attractive framework; and it allows us to handle a problem with the information chain approach related to skeptical reasoning.

@article{Roelofsen:07,
	abstract = {This paper provides a complete characterization of epistemic models in which distributed knowledge complies with the principle of full communication (van der Hoek et al., 1999; Gerbrandy, 1999). It also introduces an extended notion of bisimulation and corresponding model comparison games that match the expressive power of distributed knowledge operators.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-added = {2019-05-08 17:04:52 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:58:30 +0200},
	doi = {10.3166/jancl.17.255-273},
	journal = {Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic},
	keywords = {philosophical logic,epistemic logic,distributed knowledge;artificial intelligence},
	number = {2},
	pages = {255-273},
	title = {Distributed knowledge},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3166/jancl.17.255-273},
	volume = {17},
	year = {2007},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3166/jancl.17.255-273},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.3166/jancl.17.255-273}}

This paper provides a complete characterization of epistemic models in which distributed knowledge complies with the principle of full communication (van der Hoek et al., 1999; Gerbrandy, 1999). It also introduces an extended notion of bisimulation and corresponding model comparison games that match the expressive power of distributed knowledge operators.

@mastersthesis{Roelofsen:05thesis,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-added = {2019-05-09 09:50:27 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 10:00:02 +0200},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	school = {ILLC, University of Amsterdam},
	title = {Exploring Logical Perspectives on Distributed Information and its Dynamics},
	url = {https://froelofs.github.io/documents/thesis05_roelofsen.pdf},
	year = {2005},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {froelofs.github.io/documents/thesis05_roelofsen.pdf}}

@inproceedings{roelofsen2005minimality,
	abstract = {Multi-context systems can be used to represent contextual information and inter-contextual information flow. We show that the local model semantics of a multi-context system is completely determined by the information that is obtained when simulating the information flow specified by the system, in such a way that a minimal amount of information is deduced at each step of the simulation.

The multi-context system framework implicitly presupposes that information flow is deterministic. In many natural situations, this is not a valid assumption. We propose an extension of the framework to account for non-determinism and provide an algorithm to efficiently compute the meaning of non-deterministic systems.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Serafini, Luciano},
	booktitle = {International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context},
	date-added = {2019-05-09 08:58:25 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:04:10 +0200},
	doi = {10.1007/11508373_32},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	organization = {Springer},
	pages = {424--435},
	title = {Minimality and non-determinism in multi-context systems},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11508373_32},
	year = {2005},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11508373_32},
	Bdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.1007/11508373_32}}

Multi-context systems can be used to represent contextual information and inter-contextual information flow. We show that the local model semantics of a multi-context system is completely determined by the information that is obtained when simulating the information flow specified by the system, in such a way that a minimal amount of information is deduced at each step of the simulation. The multi-context system framework implicitly presupposes that information flow is deterministic. In many natural situations, this is not a valid assumption. We propose an extension of the framework to account for non-determinism and provide an algorithm to efficiently compute the meaning of non-deterministic systems.

@inproceedings{RoelofsenSerafini:05,
	abstract = {Multi-context systems (MCS) represent contextual
information flow. We show that the semantics of
an MCS is completely determined by the information that is obtained when simulating the MCS, in
such a way that a minimal amount of information is
deduced at each step of the simulation.
In MCS, the acquisition of new information is
based on the presence of other information only.
We give a generalized account to model situations
in which information can be obtained as a result of
the absence of other information as well.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Serafini, Luciano and others},
	booktitle = {International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 05)},
	date-added = {2019-05-09 08:57:33 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:03:03 +0200},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	pages = {558--563},
	title = {Minimal and absent information in contexts},
	url = {https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/05/Papers/1045.pdf},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2005},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/05/Papers/1045.pdf}}

Multi-context systems (MCS) represent contextual information flow. We show that the semantics of an MCS is completely determined by the information that is obtained when simulating the MCS, in such a way that a minimal amount of information is deduced at each step of the simulation. In MCS, the acquisition of new information is based on the presence of other information only. We give a generalized account to model situations in which information can be obtained as a result of the absence of other information as well.

@mastersthesis{Roelofsen:04thesis,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris},
	date-added = {2019-05-09 09:30:15 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 11:03:51 +0200},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	school = {Department of Computer Science, Twente University},
	title = {Contextual Reasoning: Complexity and Decision Procedures},
	url = {https://froelofs.github.io/documents/thesis04_roelofsen.pdf},
	year = {2004},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://froelofs.github.io/documents/thesis04_roelofsen.pdf}}

@inproceedings{roelofsen2004complexity,
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Serafini, Luciano},
	booktitle = {American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 04)},
	date-added = {2019-05-09 09:01:08 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:07:17 +0200},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	pages = {118--123},
	title = {Complexity of contextual reasoning},
	url = {http://new.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2004/AAAI04-019.pdf},
	year = {2004},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://new.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2004/AAAI04-019.pdf}}

@inproceedings{roelofsen2004many,
	abstract = {In this paper, we tackle the satisfiability problem for
multi-context systems. First, we establish a satisfiability algorithm
based on an encoding into propositional logic. Then, we propose a
distributed decision procedure that maximally exploits the potential
amenity of localizing reasoning and restricting it to relevant contexts.
We show that the latter approach is computationally superior to our
translation-based procedure, and outline how off-the-shelf efficient
reasoning procedures can be used to implement our algorithm.},
	author = {Roelofsen, Floris and Serafini, Luciano and Cimatti, Alessandro},
	booktitle = {European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 04)},
	date-added = {2019-05-09 08:59:14 +0200},
	date-modified = {2019-05-09 09:10:49 +0200},
	keywords = {artificial intelligence,logic},
	pages = {53-57},
	title = {Many hands make light work: Localized satisfiability for multi-context systems},
	url = {http://www.frontiersinai.com/ecai/ecai2004/ecai04/pdf/p0053.pdf},
	year = {2004},
	Bdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.frontiersinai.com/ecai/ecai2004/ecai04/pdf/p0053.pdf}}

In this paper, we tackle the satisfiability problem for multi-context systems. First, we establish a satisfiability algorithm based on an encoding into propositional logic. Then, we propose a distributed decision procedure that maximally exploits the potential amenity of localizing reasoning and restricting it to relevant contexts. We show that the latter approach is computationally superior to our translation-based procedure, and outline how off-the-shelf efficient reasoning procedures can be used to implement our algorithm.