Inquisitive semantics
Inquisitive semantics is a framework in logic and natural language semantics. In inquisitive semantics, the semantic content of a sentence captures both the information that the sentence conveys and the issue that it raises. The framework provides a foundation for the linguistic analysis of statements and questions. It was originally developed by Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, Salvador Mascarenhas, and Floris Roelofsen.
Basic notions
The essential notion in inquisitive semantics is that of an inquisitive proposition.- An information state is a set of possible worlds.
- An inquisitive proposition is a nonempty downward-closed set of information states.
An inquisitive proposition encodes inquisitive content via its maximal elements, known as alternatives. For instance, the inquisitive proposition has two alternatives, namely and. Thus, it raises the issue of whether the actual world is or while conveying the information that it must be one or the other. The inquisitive proposition encodes the same information but does not raise an issue since it contains only one alternative.
The informational content of an inquisitive proposition can be isolated by pooling its constituent information states as shown below.
- The informational content of an inquisitive proposition P is.
Given a model where W is a set of possible worlds and V is a valuation function:
The ?-operator trivializes the information expressed by whatever it applies to, while converting information states that would establish that its issues are unresolvable into states that resolve it. This is very abstract, so consider another example. Imagine that logical space consists of four possible worlds, w1, w2, w3, and w4, and consider a formula such that contains,, and of course. This proposition conveys that the actual world is either w1 or w2 and raises the issue of which of those worlds it actually is. Therefore, the issue it raises would not be resolved if we learned that the actual world is in the information state. Rather, learning this would show that the issue raised by our toy proposition is unresolvable. As a result, the proposition contains all the states of, along with and all of its subsets.