ABSTRACT
I n c h a p t e r s I I t o 1 V we have c o n s i d e r e d t h r e e p r o p o s a l s a b o u t t h e meaning o f q u e s t i o n s . Hausser and Z a e f f e r e r (1976) t r e a t d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s as d e n o t i n g " s e t s c o n t a i n i n g o r d e r e d sequences o f t h e i r q u e s t i o n e d e lements ' ' ( ~ a u s s e r , 1978: 209) ; Hausser (1978) a rgues t h a t i n d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s a r e open s e n t e n t i a l complements, and K a r t t u n e n (1978a,b) a n a l y z e s b o t h d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s as d e n o t i n g s e t s o f t r u e p r o p o s i t i o n s . H a u s s e r ' s a n a l y s i s o f i n d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s i s c l e a r l y inadequa te and I h a v i n g n o t h i n g more t o say a b o u t i t . We have ex tended Hausser and Z a e f f e r e r ' s a n a l y s i s t o i n d i r e c t q u e s t i o n s . T h i s a n a l y s i s and K a r t t u n e n ' s f a c e d i f f e r e n t p rob lems. 1 w o n ' t s p e c u l a t e on how i m p o r t a n t and damaging f o r each approach t h e s e problems may t u r n o u t t o b e and l e a v e i t t o f u t u r e r e s e a r c h t o t e l l us whe ther t h e y can b e overcome o r whe ther s t i l l o t h e r a n a l y s e s a r e p r e f e r a b l e . The two a n a l y s e s have some f e a t u r e s i n common, one o f w h i c h seems p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g t o me. I n b o t h cases, i t i s necessary t o adop t some v e r s i o n o f t h e p e r f o r m a t i v e a n a l y s i s i n o r d e r t o accoun t f o r t h e meaning o f ( 1 ) a p a r a p h r a s e d by ( 1 ) b :
(1 ) a . What g r a d e does e v e r y s t u d e n t deserve?
