Abstract
This paper examines distinctive discourse properties of preposed negative yes/no questions (NPQs), such as Isn’t Jane coming too?. Unlike with other yes/no questions, using an NPQ ∼ p? invariably conveys a bias toward a particular answer, where the polarity of the bias is opposite of the polarity of the question: using the negative question ∼ p? invariably expresses that the speaker previously expected the positive answer p to be correct. A prominent approach— what I call the context-management approach, developed most extensively by Romero and Han (Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 609-658 2004)— attempts to capture speaker expectation biases by treating NPQs fundamentally as epistemic questions about the proper discourse status of a proposition. I raise challenges for existing context-managing accounts to provide more adequate formalizations of the posited context-managing content, its implementation in the compositional semantics and discourse dynamics, and its role in generating the observed biases. New data regarding discourse differences between NPQs and associated epistemic modal questions are introduced. I argue that we can capture the roles of NPQs in expressing speakers’ states of mind and managing the discourse common ground without positing special context-managing operators or treating NPQs as questions directly about the context. I suggest that we treat the operator introduced with preposed negation as having an ordinary semantics of epistemic necessity, though lexically associated with a general kind of endorsing use observed with modal expressions. The expressive and context-managing roles of NPQs are explained in terms of a general kind of discourse-oriented use of context-sensitive language. The distinctive expectation biases and discourse properties observed with NPQs are derived from the proposed semantics and a general principle of Discourse Relevance.
Highlights
This paper examines certain distinctive discourse properties of yes/no questions with preposed negation — negative polar questions (NPQs) — such as (1).(1) Isn’t Jane coming to the party later?Unlike with positive yes/no questions, uttering an NPQ such as (1) necessarily conveys the speaker’s prior expectation that the positive answer is correct (Ladd [33], Buring and Gunlogson [10], Romero and Han [57]) — here, that Jane is coming to the party:(2) [Context: We’re wondering who is coming to the party
This section critically examines previous context-management accounts of NPQs. These accounts agree in understanding NPQs fundamentally as questions about the proper discourse status of a proposition; and they agree in implementing this idea by interpreting NPQs with respect to a context-managing operator — an operator which directly targets an element in the representation of the discourse such as the Common Ground (CG)
This paper has examined distinctive discourse properties of preposed negative yes/no questions (NPQs), focusing on speaker expectation biases
Summary
This paper examines certain distinctive discourse properties of yes/no questions with preposed negation — negative polar questions (NPQs) — such as (1). Unlike with positive yes/no questions, uttering an NPQ such as (1) necessarily conveys the speaker’s prior expectation that the positive answer is correct (Ladd [33], Buring and Gunlogson [10], Romero and Han [57]) — here, that Jane is coming to the party:. Principal challenges include to explain linguistic and discourse differences between NPQs and associated epistemic modal questions, and between NPQs and recognized devices of attitude-expression and context-management. These differences haven’t been observed in previous literature. It’s this speaker expectation bias — the bias reflecting the speaker’s individual prior expectation about the correct answer — that will concern us here
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.