Skip to main content
Log in

On Negative Yes/No Questions

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preposed negation yes/no (yn)-questions like Doesn't Johndrink? necessarily carry the implicature that the speaker thinks Johndrinks, whereas non-preposed negation yn-questions like DoesJohn not drink? do not necessarily trigger this implicature. Furthermore,preposed negation yn-questions have a reading “double-checking” pand a reading “double-checking” ≠ p, as in Isn't Jane comingtoo? and in Isn't Jane coming either? respectively. We present otheryn-questions that raise parallel implicatures and argue that, in allthe cases, the presence of an epistemic conversational operator VERUMderives the existence and content of the implicature as well as thep/≠ p-ambiguity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexiadou, Artemis. and Elena Anagnostopoulou: 1998, ‘Parametrizing Agr: Word Order, V-movement and EPP-checking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 491–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, Christine: 1999, Intonation of English Statements and Questions, Garland Publishing, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, Dwight: 1978, ‘Yes-No Questions are not Alternative Questions’, in H. Hiz (ed.), Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, Daniel and Christine Gunlogson: 2000, ‘Aren't Positive and Negative Polar Questions the Same?’, ms. UCSC.

  • Choi, Hye-Won: 1999, Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure, CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, Cassandre: 2000, ‘The Discourse Function of Verum Focus in Wh-Questions’, in: Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistics Society, Vol. 30, GLSA.

  • Ellegård, Alvar: 1953, The Auxiliary Do: the Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English, Vol. II of Gothenburg Studies in English, Göteborg, Stockholm, Almqvist, Wiksell.

  • Gärdenfors, Peter: 1988, Knowledge in Flux, The MIT Press, Cambridge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Herbert Paul: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts, Vol. III of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, NY, pp. 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984, ‘Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • Gunlogson, Christine: 2001, ‘True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English’, Ph.D. thesis, UC Santa Cruz.

  • Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague Grammar’, Foundations of Language 10, 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Chung-hye: 1998, ‘Deriving the Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions’, in E. Curis, J. Lyle, and G. Webster (eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, Vol. 16. Stanford, pp. 237–253, CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Chung-hye: 1999, ‘The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Heim, Irene: 1994, ‘Interrogative semantics and Karttunen's semantics for know’, in Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics.

  • Höhle, T.: 1992, ‘Ueber Verum Fokus in Deutschen’, Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4, 112–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, Lauri: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • É. Kiss, K.: 1981, ‘Structural Relations in Hungarian, a ‘Free’ Word Order Language’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, Robert D.: 1981, ‘A First Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Negative Questions and Tag Questions’, In Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 164–171.

  • Ladusaw, William: 1980, Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Garland Publishing, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, Fred: 1986, Towards a theory of Information. The Status of Partial Objects in Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger, M. C.: 1980, The Grammar of Negative Polarity, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Linebarger, Marcia C.: 1987, ‘Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10(3), 325–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, Martin and Keith Brown: 1979, ‘Tag Questions in Edinburgh Speech’, Linguistische Berichte 60, 24–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet and Julia Hirschberg: 1990, ‘The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse’, in J. M. Philip R. Cohen and M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communications, MIT Press, pp. 271–311.

  • Prince, Ellen: 1998, ‘On the Limits of Syntax, with Reference to Topicalization and Left-Dislocation’, in P. Culicover and L. Mcnally (eds.), The Limits of Syntax, Academic Press, NY, pp. 281–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Ellen: 1999, ‘How Not to Mark Topics: ‘Topicalization’ in English and Yiddish’, in Spoken and Written Texts, Workshop Proceedings, Texas Linguistic Forum, Austin, Chapter 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Progovac, Ljiljana: 1994, Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi: 1997, ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 281–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Craige: 1996, ‘Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics’, in J. Yoon and A. Kathol (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics, Ohio State University, Dept. of Linguistics, pp. 91–136.

  • Romero, Maribel and Chung-hye Han: 2001, ‘On Certain Epistemic Implicatures in Yes/No Questions’, in Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC/Dept. Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, Maribel and Chung-hye Han: 2002, ‘Verum Focus in Negative Yes/No Questions and Ladd's p /¬p Ambiguity’, in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 12, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooy, Robert and Marie Šafářová: 2003, ‘On Polar Questions’, in R. Young and Y. Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 13, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, J. M.: 1971, ‘Queclaratives’, in Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert C.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, Vol. 9 of Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stechov, Arnim von: 1981, ‘Topic, Focus and Local Relevance’, in W. Klein and W. Levelt (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 95–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suñer, Margarita: 1994, ‘V-movement and the Licensing of Argumental wh-phrase in Spanish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 335–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Gregory: 1988, The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, London, 1985 University of Pennsylvania Ph.D. Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romero, M., Han, CH. On Negative Yes/No Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 609–658 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94

Navigation