@cite{groenendijk-stokhof-1984}: Yes and No are T⁰ (sentence adverbs, category S/S). @cite{fox-katzir-2011}
- yes ~ λp.p(a) (affirms the proposition)
- no ~ λp.¬p(a) (negates the proposition)
This makes sentential interrogatives derivable by the same IA-rule as constituent interrogatives, with AB⁰ = S and T⁰ = S/S.
- question : String
The polar question
- answer : String
The answer (yes/no form)
- positive : Bool
Is this positive or negative?
- meaning : String
The proposition expressed by the answer
- source : String
Source
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
G&S p. 321: "Does John walk?"
Equations
- Phenomena.Questions.PolarAnswers.doesJohnWalk_yes = { question := "Does John walk?", answer := "Yes", positive := true, meaning := "John walks", source := "G&S 1984, p. 321" }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Questions.PolarAnswers.doesJohnWalk_no = { question := "Does John walk?", answer := "No", positive := false, meaning := "John doesn't walk", source := "G&S 1984, p. 322" }
Instances For
@cite{groenendijk-stokhof-1984}, p. 324-326: A conditional answer to a polar question receives a BICONDITIONAL interpretation via exhaustification.
"Does John walk?" → "If Mary walks" means: John walks IFF Mary walks (not just: John walks IF Mary walks)
- question : String
The polar question
- conditionalAnswer : String
The conditional answer
- surfaceMeaning : String
Surface form (what was said)
- exhaustifiedMeaning : String
Exhaustified meaning (what was understood)
- source : String
Source
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
G&S p. 324: Conditional becomes biconditional in answer context
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
When the question itself is about a conditional, no strengthening occurs
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Conditional vs biconditional reading depends on whether the question targets the conditional itself or its consequent.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{groenendijk-stokhof-1984}, p. 327: Similar to conditionals, disjunctions in answers receive exclusive interpretation via exhaustification.
- question : String
The polar question
- disjunctiveAnswer : String
The disjunctive answer
- exclusive : Bool
Inclusive or exclusive reading?
- explanation : String
Explanation
- source : String
Source
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Disjunction becomes exclusive when answering about disjunct
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Disjunction stays inclusive when answering about disjunction itself
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Equations
Instances For
@cite{groenendijk-stokhof-1984}, p. 331-334: Negation in interrogatives does NOT contribute to semantic content. Instead, it marks a doxastic attitude: the questioner expects a negative answer.
"Doesn't John walk?" asks the SAME question as "Does John walk?" but marks that the questioner expects "No" as the answer.
Note: sameQuestion encodes the G&S 1984 analysis. @cite{holmberg-2016}
argues that positive and negative polar questions are NOT the same question:
the negative question's primary proposition (the one the speaker expects)
is ¬p, producing different discourse effects and cross-linguistic answer
patterns. The value here reflects only the G&S view.
- positiveForm : String
The positive form of the question
- negativeForm : String
The negative form of the question
- sameQuestion : Bool
Do they express the same question semantically? Note: this is the @cite{groenendijk-stokhof-1984} analysis; @cite{holmberg-2016} argues they differ.
- noMeaning : String
What does "No" mean as an answer to the negative form?
- doxasticAttitude : String
What attitude does the negative form mark?
- source : String
Source
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
G&S p. 331: "Doesn't John walk?" vs "Does John walk?"
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
When answering against the questioner's expected polarity, the answer must be MARKED (emphatic stress, do-support).
- question : String
The question
- expectedPolarity : Bool
Expected answer polarity based on question form
- unmarkedAnswer : String
Unmarked answer (goes with expectation)
- markedAnswer : String
Marked answer (goes against expectation)
- source : String
Source
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Negative interrogative expects negative; positive answer needs marking
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Positive interrogative with positive marking expects positive
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
G&S p. 333: Clear evidence that negation in interrogatives is not semantic: "Are you not happy?" vs "Are you unhappy?" have different answer patterns.
- negatedForm : String
Interrogative with negation
- antonymForm : String
Interrogative with antonym
- noMeaning_negated : String
What "No" means for negated form
- noMeaning_antonym : String
What "No" means for antonym form
- sameQuestion : Bool
Are these the same question?
- source : String
Source
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
G&S's explanation for why negation can be used non-semantically: In the semantics of interrogatives, "Does John walk?" and "Does John not walk?" express the SAME question (same partition). This opens up negation for non-semantic (doxastic) use.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Turk, Hirsch & İnce (2026) observe that deontic modal answers are infelicitous responses to Turkish polar questions formed with mI.
"Ali uyuyor mu?" ("Does Ali sleep?")
→ "Evet" / "Hayır" — felicitous (polar answer)
→ "Ali uyumalı" ("Ali must sleep") — infelicitous (modal answer)
This is unexpected under Rooth-style type-theoretic alternative
computation, where □p has the same type as p and should be an
alternative. @cite{fox-katzir-2011} category match explains why:
*mI* is a particle (PART), modals are auxiliaries (AUX), so
category match excludes □p from the alternative set.
"Ali uyuyor mu?" → "Evet" (yes) — felicitous.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Ali uyuyor mu?" → "Hayır" (no) — felicitous.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Ali uyuyor mu?" → "Ali uyumalı" (Ali must sleep) — infelicitous. A deontic modal answer does not address the polar question.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Modal answers are infelicitous to Turkish polar questions.