685
edits
Indirect question: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (don't forget tıo) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* The theory that top-level questions (''Which boat is yours?'') are reduceable to an imperative statement with an indirect question (Bring it about that I know which boat is yours!) is known as the '''imperative-epistemic theory of wh-questions''', and seems to be pretty widely accepted. | * The theory that top-level questions (''Which boat is yours?'') are reduceable to an imperative statement with an indirect question (Bring it about that I know which boat is yours!) is known as the '''imperative-epistemic theory of wh-questions''', and seems to be pretty widely accepted. | ||
* The issue that questions that happen to have the same answer shouldn't be considered equivalent (e.g. I know which boat is his vs. I know who owns the SS Toaq), is known as the '''problem of convergent knowledge'''. | * The issue that questions that happen to have the same answer shouldn't be considered equivalent (e.g. I know which boat is his vs. I know who owns the SS Toaq), is known as the '''problem of convergent knowledge'''. | ||
== Semantics == | |||
A popular starting point is that an indirect question denotes a set of possible answers, correct or not: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
⟦{{t|tîshaı hı}}⟧ = {‘{{t|tỉshaı mí A}}’, ‘{{t|tỉshaı mí B}}’, ‘{{t|tỉshaı mí C}}’, …} | |||
</blockquote> | |||
=== Exhaustivity === | |||
The first question is: what counts as an answer? When we say “I know who left”, what knowledge are we purporting to have? | |||
There are various levels of '''exhaustivity''' one could demand of an answer. Suppose that only A and B left. Then increasingly exhaustive answers to the question “who left” are the following: | |||
# '''Mention-some answers''': ‘A left’ | |||
# '''Weakly-exhaustive answer''': ‘A left and B left’ | |||
# '''Strongly-exhaustive answer''': ‘A left and B left, and no one else left.’ | |||
=== Predicates === | |||
How can the second slot of {{t|dua}} accept both a regular content clause, which denotes a proposition, and an interrogative clause that denotes a whole set of propositions? Doesn't this make {{t|dua}} polysemous? | |||
There are a few possible answers to this question: | |||
* Maybe {{t|dua}} is really a family of predicates, and {{t|dua}}<sub>P</sub> “to know a fact” is a different predicate from {{t|dua}}<sub>Q</sub> “to know the answer to a question”, and Toaq's grammar selects the right one automatically. | |||
* Maybe {{t|dua}} in its purest form takes propositions, and there is some reduction from question complements to proposition complements. This is '''Q-to-P reduction'''. | |||
* Maybe {{t|dua}} in its purest form takes questions, and there is a '''P-to-Q reduction'''. | |||
The Wataru Uegaki (2019) paper in [[#See also]] is all about this. | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||