**1. Introduction**

Queries are essential for retrieving information. For those who surf the net they can play a crucial role. But the relationship between questions and answers involves many classical topics, not only in the language sciences, especially in pragmatics, but also in philosophy. It would be surprising if the results of such an old, even ancient, inquiry did not inspire interesting solutions to present-day research.

In fact, semantics was born at the beginning of philosophical enquiry, for its own sake. Philosophy, conceived as a demand of wisdom and truth requesting the exercise of thought (and good will), has the *logos* as its specific resource. Given that *logos* is both uttered thought and thoughtful word, the mood of reflecting upon speeches and their role in finding and telling the truth, asking questions and giving answers, has been present since the beginning. As is often the case, an important motivation to meditate and speculate upon logos came out of a crisis, with its attacks and instrumental claims about language and human discourse. We could identify the Sophist movement, during the development of democracy in the Greek *poleis*, in the fifth century B.C., as such a factor.

Plato and Aristotle are the obvious significant responses to the Sophists' extraordinary argumentation skills, resting upon relativistic claims. Dialogue between master and disciple as well as an inspection of *organon* structures emerged as conditions which granted a positive and safe attitude towards truth, knowledge, virtue… in short, a good life.

What was Aristotelic Organon about? The name, meaning instrument, designated, according to Andronicus of Rhodes (40 B.C.), Aristotle's works on logic, philosophy of language and of sciences, valid arguments and fallacies. These treatises were so specifically designed as *praeambula* to assuring a self-conscious and self-controlled intellectual activity, that they constituted a basic *corpus* providing safe methodological – deontological premises to those who wanted to cultivate philosophy, or simply true knowledge, concerning good and happiness in personal and socio-political life, moral virtues or human skills such as art, persuasion, the creation of laws and cathartic tragedies. Even more fundamentally, however, they concerned being in the physical world and beyond it: through living beings (animals and humans) and celestial bodies, up to their first causes to their final end.

How could this huge scenario disclose its secrets and reveal its hidden structure without a self-confident appeal to human powers, and above all to the capacities of human knowledge? How was it possible to observe the human way of proceeding from thought to

Queries and Predicate – Argument Relationship 47

sciences were born and developed while sharing the same basic area but seen from quite

What characterises philosophical semantics above all is the triangular relation among signs, thoughts, things (states of affaires, events, situations): whereas linguistic semantics has mainly dealt with, and still deals with, intra-linguistic relations. Referential semantics has thus become central to the philosophy of language, going from existential judgements (does what is spoken about exist?) to the role of determinants (definite vs. indefinite descriptions, indexicality, singular vs. plural reference), up to the different ways of referring (proper names vs. common nouns), or to the scope of operators such as quantifiers or negation etc. Cognitive semantics is devoted rather to the skills and performances involved in processing

Very often, in semantic inquiries, the order of magnitude has gone from the minimum of single words (searched as terms of synonymic or antonymic relations, for instance) to the maximum of propositional units evaluable as true or false. Only gradually and rather recently have intermediate structures such as noun- and verb phrases with their determinants, syntactic relations, nominal or pronominal substitutions, up to single speech

A question is a sort of speech act, with its particular illocutionary force and standard structure. In ordinary language, it is marked either by a typical intonation (in oral communication) or by a dedicated interpunction, a question mark (in written communication), often together with further markers, such as introductory interrogative lexical items (pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, such as the 5 *wh*), a typical word order (e.g. VSO vs. SVO etc.), some special devices (auxiliary verbs, correlated adverbial or adjectival forms, such as, in English, 'to do', 'ever'

'Query' is the term used to define what users enter into a web search engine, in order to retrieve information. Its normal form is that of an item being identified as a query by being placed in a special field designed to be filled in with some subject, key-word or quotation in the context of a search-engine interface. Such a context helps the authors of queries to save time and energy in the self-activation of their queries as such. Formats for queries already

In computing, a query language is a language in which queries are passed to and

different perspectives.

semantic information.

**2. The structure of a query** 

vs. 'never', 'any' vs. 'some' etc. ).

acts or conversational turns become objects of inquiry. In the following paragraphs we shall see how and why.

**2.1 Questions … about queries, questions and /or queries** 

Let us begin by stating whether a question and a query are the same.

serve as devices to make the subject of a query recognisable as such.

**2.2 The problem of ranking and the struggle for escaping carelessness**  Usually, grammars introduce interrogative structures after the affirmative ones.

information retrieved from a database or information system.

truth without observing those "observable forms of thought" which were human discourse, arguments, propositions and their constituents? Was it even conceivable to grasp the inner organisation of thoughts without articulating them into nouns and verbs, premises and conclusions, while inquiring into their mutual relations? After Plato's evaluation of dialogue as the genuine path to remembering apparently unknown truths and to conquering uncontroversial knowledge, it was Aristotle's enterprise to direct attention to that objectmaking of our thinking activity which, during his day, was particularly evidenced by the wide diffusion of writing. Written words meant linguistically shaped thoughts.

To follow a human way of thinking meant following a human way of speech. This is why semantics entered the heart of human inquiry about human pretention of truth. The same pretention which motivates queries expecting answers. A kind of tension towards avoiding mistaken and misleading steps which caused another great philosophical movement, that of the Stoics, who cultivated logic in order to argue about ethics. Many of us are unaware that most of the grammatical tools through which we still analyse language today come from the Stoics: the names of cases (nominative, genitive …), of verbal diatheses (active, passive, reflexive) etc.

This speculative attitude towards language did not only occur in the philosophical schools of the classical world.

For the same reasons – the unavoidable relations between the adventures of thought, especially the most audacious and universal on one side and its linguistic expression and importance for communication and dialectic argumentation on the other – semantics was also considered highly important in the Medieval universities. This took the form of *gramaticae speculativae* and grammars *de modis significandi*, and the relationships between *modi essendi, intelligendi* and *significandi* were explored.

Another crisis marked a new historical turn, from the Middle Ages to the modern era. The multiplication of national languages, the progressive neglect of Latin as a common language, the scientific revolution together with political conflicts led to another crisis. It was a semiotic crisis together with a new semantic demand. From Locke to Leibniz, from Port-Royal to the *Encyclopédie*, many new questions arose: about the affordability of ideas linking words and world, or – from a reduced horizon - about connections between words and thoughts and their invariant structures in spite of the diversity of idioms, or otherwise about the possibility of building artificial languages to provide good demonstrations, to allow the construction of *machines à penser.*

It would be sufficient to look at the categories of ancient grammars to see how heavily they were charged with semantic functions: nouns called substantives, adjectives characterised as qualifiers, possessives, demonstratives, conjunctions labelled as final, causal, concessive etc.

One of the permanent aims animating linguistics as a science over the last two centuries remains the distinction, if not a separation between form and function, between the description (or generation, or historical reconstruction) of formal linguistic devices (often conceived as a sufficient task) and the ascription of prototypical, but not unexceptionable functions.

Over the last two centuries, in fact, language has been a focus of attention for a multitude of disciplines: linguistics, semiotics, philosophy of language, psycholinguistics and cognitive 46 Semantics – Advances in Theories and Mathematical Models

truth without observing those "observable forms of thought" which were human discourse, arguments, propositions and their constituents? Was it even conceivable to grasp the inner organisation of thoughts without articulating them into nouns and verbs, premises and conclusions, while inquiring into their mutual relations? After Plato's evaluation of dialogue as the genuine path to remembering apparently unknown truths and to conquering uncontroversial knowledge, it was Aristotle's enterprise to direct attention to that objectmaking of our thinking activity which, during his day, was particularly evidenced by the

To follow a human way of thinking meant following a human way of speech. This is why semantics entered the heart of human inquiry about human pretention of truth. The same pretention which motivates queries expecting answers. A kind of tension towards avoiding mistaken and misleading steps which caused another great philosophical movement, that of the Stoics, who cultivated logic in order to argue about ethics. Many of us are unaware that most of the grammatical tools through which we still analyse language today come from the Stoics: the names of cases (nominative, genitive …), of verbal diatheses (active, passive,

This speculative attitude towards language did not only occur in the philosophical schools

For the same reasons – the unavoidable relations between the adventures of thought, especially the most audacious and universal on one side and its linguistic expression and importance for communication and dialectic argumentation on the other – semantics was also considered highly important in the Medieval universities. This took the form of *gramaticae speculativae* and grammars *de modis significandi*, and the relationships between

Another crisis marked a new historical turn, from the Middle Ages to the modern era. The multiplication of national languages, the progressive neglect of Latin as a common language, the scientific revolution together with political conflicts led to another crisis. It was a semiotic crisis together with a new semantic demand. From Locke to Leibniz, from Port-Royal to the *Encyclopédie*, many new questions arose: about the affordability of ideas linking words and world, or – from a reduced horizon - about connections between words and thoughts and their invariant structures in spite of the diversity of idioms, or otherwise about the possibility of building artificial languages to provide good demonstrations, to

It would be sufficient to look at the categories of ancient grammars to see how heavily they were charged with semantic functions: nouns called substantives, adjectives characterised as qualifiers, possessives, demonstratives, conjunctions labelled as final, causal, concessive etc. One of the permanent aims animating linguistics as a science over the last two centuries remains the distinction, if not a separation between form and function, between the description (or generation, or historical reconstruction) of formal linguistic devices (often conceived as a sufficient task) and the ascription of prototypical, but not unexceptionable

Over the last two centuries, in fact, language has been a focus of attention for a multitude of disciplines: linguistics, semiotics, philosophy of language, psycholinguistics and cognitive

wide diffusion of writing. Written words meant linguistically shaped thoughts.

reflexive) etc.

functions.

of the classical world.

*modi essendi, intelligendi* and *significandi* were explored.

allow the construction of *machines à penser.*

sciences were born and developed while sharing the same basic area but seen from quite different perspectives.

What characterises philosophical semantics above all is the triangular relation among signs, thoughts, things (states of affaires, events, situations): whereas linguistic semantics has mainly dealt with, and still deals with, intra-linguistic relations. Referential semantics has thus become central to the philosophy of language, going from existential judgements (does what is spoken about exist?) to the role of determinants (definite vs. indefinite descriptions, indexicality, singular vs. plural reference), up to the different ways of referring (proper names vs. common nouns), or to the scope of operators such as quantifiers or negation etc.

Cognitive semantics is devoted rather to the skills and performances involved in processing semantic information.

Very often, in semantic inquiries, the order of magnitude has gone from the minimum of single words (searched as terms of synonymic or antonymic relations, for instance) to the maximum of propositional units evaluable as true or false. Only gradually and rather recently have intermediate structures such as noun- and verb phrases with their determinants, syntactic relations, nominal or pronominal substitutions, up to single speech acts or conversational turns become objects of inquiry.

In the following paragraphs we shall see how and why.
