Inquisitive semantics¶

A semantic framework in which a sentence denotes a downward-closed set of information states, capturing both information conveyed and issues raised.

Version: v2 · 2026-09-19 · History
Domain-specific #: 5046
Domain group: Humanities
Origin domain: Linguistics & Semiotics
Subdomain: Formal Semantics → Linguistics & Semiotics

Core Idea¶

The framework has propositional, first-order and dynamic variants, alternatives are semantic objects rather than merely pragmatic answers and classical propositions form a special non-inquisitive case. Possible worlds form information states, support conditions evaluate sentences on states and downward closure plus maximal alternatives represent what information would resolve the sentence’s issue. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

How would you explain it like I'm…

What Settles It?

Some sentences tell you something, like 'It's raining.' Other sentences ask something, like 'Is it raining?' People who study word meanings came up with a way to say what a question means: it's all the different answers that would settle it, like 'yes it is' or 'no it isn't.' That way telling and asking can be measured with the same ruler.

What Would Settle It

Inquisitive semantics is a way of describing what sentences mean that works for both statements and questions. Picture all the ways the world could be. What you know is a group of those possibilities that you haven't ruled out yet. A statement shrinks that group by giving information. A question raises an issue, and its meaning is the set of pieces of information that would settle it — for 'Is it raining?', knowing it is raining or knowing it isn't. Ordinary statements turn out to be the special case that raises no issue at all.

Meaning as Support and Alternatives

Inquisitive semantics is a formal theory of meaning in which sentences can both give information and raise issues. It starts from possible worlds; an information state is a set of worlds still considered possible. Instead of asking whether a sentence is true in a world, it asks whether an information state supports the sentence — whether that state contains enough information to establish it or settle it. A sentence's meaning is the collection of states that support it, and this collection is downward closed: if a state supports it, any more informed state does too. The largest such states are the alternatives, the basic ways of resolving the issue. Ordinary statements are the special non-inquisitive case with a single alternative, and the theory treats these alternatives as part of meaning itself, not just as conversational extras.

Inquisitive semantics is a formal-semantic framework, with propositional, first-order, and dynamic versions, that treats statements and questions uniformly. Its carrier is a space of possible worlds; information states are sets of worlds; and meaning is given by a support relation saying which information states settle a sentence. An inquisitive proposition is a downward-closed set of information states — if a state settles the issue, any more informed state does too — and its maximal elements are the alternatives, the minimal pieces of information that resolve the issue. This yields separate informative content (which worlds are ruled out) and inquisitive content (which issue is raised). Connectives get semantics in this setting, so disjunction, for example, can raise an issue among alternatives. Classical propositions emerge as the non-inquisitive special case, and alternatives are semantic objects rather than merely pragmatic answer-sets. A careful analysis keeps explicit the world space, states, support relation, and comparison with classical and pragmatic treatments.

Scope of Application¶

Inquisitive semantics belongs to formal semantics and is useful where the analyst can specify the typed formal semantics carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, then evaluate the language and possible-world space, information states, support relation, downward-closed inquisitive propositions, alternatives and resolutions, informative and inquisitive content, semantics of statements questions and connectives and classical and pragmatic comparison are explicit. The scope is broad within that domain but bounded by the need for the language and possible-world space, information states, support relation, downward-closed inquisitive propositions, alternatives and resolutions, informative and inquisitive content, semantics of statements questions and connectives and classical and pragmatic comparison are explicit.

Clarity¶

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making the language and possible-world space, information states, support relation, downward-closed inquisitive propositions, alternatives and resolutions, informative and inquisitive content, semantics of statements questions and connectives and classical and pragmatic comparison are explicit the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test.

Manages Complexity¶

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to Inquisitive semantics. Inquisitive semantics compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

Abstract Reasoning¶

Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: the typed formal semantics carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem.
Lock the constitutive rule. Express the language and possible-world space, information states, support relation, downward-closed inquisitive propositions, alternatives and resolutions, informative and inquisitive content, semantics of statements questions and connectives and classical and pragmatic comparison are explicit independently of one notation or implementation.

Knowledge Transfer¶

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of formal semantics because they reuse the typed formal semantics carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, Possible worlds form information states, support conditions evaluate sentences on states and downward closure plus maximal alternatives represent what information would resolve the sentence’s issue., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the language and possible-world space, information states, support relation, downward-closed inquisitive propositions, alternatives and resolutions, informative and inquisitive content, semantics of statements questions and connectives and classical and pragmatic comparison are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction Inquisitive semantics Domain-specific

Parents (1) — outgoing typed relations

Inquisitive semantics is a kind of Representation Prime

It remains its own entry because its identity is fixed by the language and possible-world space, information states, support relation, downward-closed inquisitive propositions, alternatives and resolutions, informative and inquisitive content, semantics of statements questions and connectives and classical and pragmatic comparison.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Inquisitive semantics → is a kind of Representation → presupposes Abstraction

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

Inquisitive semantics sits in a crowded region of the domain-specific corpus (2^nd percentile for distinctiveness): several abstractions share nearly its structure, so a description that fits it tends to fit its neighbors too.

Family — Truth, Meaning & Argumentation (37 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Veridicality — 0.95
Semantic holism — 0.94
Proof-theoretic semantics — 0.94
Knowledge representation and reasoning — 0.93
Quantificational variability effect — 0.93

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-25