Foundations for the logic of questions and commands

Recent interest in logics for questions and commands has been prompted partly by a recognition that reasoned argument often involves moves that are not truth-evaluable, and partly by the use of questions and commands in most procedural programming. The authors argue that certain methodological issues must be addressed before we can agree on the purpose and nature of logics for questions and commands. They deny that formulas in such logics should correspond to sentences in ordinary language. They consider how formulas should be interpreted, focusing especially on questions. The authors argue that logics designed to capture the conditions for correct reasoning involving questions require a semantics that treats question-answer pairs as values. This emphasis brings to the fore issues about questions in premise-conclusion arguments. In both premise-conclusion and dialogical argumentation, the authors argue that logic should aim to capture moves in reasoning, not facts about sentences