Lexical Meaning

Author	Title	Year	Journal/Proceedings	Reftype	DOI/URL
Mayol, L. and Castroviejo, E.	(Non)Integrated Evaluative Adverbs in Questions: A Cross-Romance Study [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Language Vol. 89(2), pp. 195-230	article	URL
Abstract: The goal of this article is to analyze the semantic contribution of evaluative adverbs (EAs) such as unfortunately in several languages of the Romance family, namely French, Catalan, and Spanish. Following Bonami and Godard (2008), we propose to analyze EAs as items that convey projective meaning in order to explain their peculiar semantic behavior (they cannot be directly denied, do not change the truth conditions of the proposition they evaluate, and are not factive) and their unacceptability in negative assertions. Unlike what has been claimed for many other languages, French allows EAs in questions, and we show that Catalan and Spanish do too, as long as some conditions are met. We propose an account that derives their interpretation in both assertions and questions: integrated French EAs take the proposition to their right, and if they appear in a WH-question, their interpretation is similar to that of unconditionals. In contrast, nonintegrated EAs in Catalan and Spanish have scope over a set of propositions, and are acceptable in questions only if the speaker is biased toward one of the propositions in the set denoted by the question. The acceptability of EAs in such questions, rejected by previous literature, is confirmed by an experimental study.
BibTeX: @article{10.2307/24671860, author = {Laia Mayol and Elena Castroviejo}, title = {(Non)Integrated Evaluative Adverbs in Questions: A Cross-Romance Study}, journal = {Language}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2013}, volume = {89}, number = {2}, pages = {195--230}, url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/24671860} }
AnderBois, S.	A QUD-Based Account of the Discourse Particle naman in Tagalog [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	The Proceedings of AFLA 23	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Although the Tagalog second position particle naman is often regarded as marking contrast, we show that it also has plainly non-contrastive uses including to convey obviousness. We develop a unified account of contrastive and non-contrastive uses of naman in a QUD-framework as marking the closure of the prior immediate QUD. While the focus here is on naman in declaratives, we briefly explore the prospects of extending the account to its use in imperatives and with predicate adjectives.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{AnderBois2016a, author = {Scott AnderBois}, title = {A QUD-Based Account of the Discourse Particle naman in Tagalog}, booktitle = {The Proceedings of AFLA 23}, year = {2016}, url = {https://research.clps.brown.edu/anderbois/PDFs/AFLA23_AnderBois.pdf} }
Carrus, S.	Slurs: At-issueness and Semantic Normativity [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Phenomenology and Mind(12), pp. 84-97	article	URL
Abstract: In the first part of the article, we present the main approaches to analyze slurs’ content and we investigate the interaction between an assertion containing a slur and a denial (‘It’s not true that P’ / P is false’) showing to what extent a “neutral counterpart account” works better than a “dual account”. Additionally, the analysis offers the opportunity to discuss the usefulness of the notion of “at-issueness” for a debate on the lexical semantics of slurs. In the second part, we use our apparatus to analyze a real case of non-standard use of ‘frocio’ (‘faggot’). Our conclusion is that even if a family resemblance conception of category membership could account for these uses, it cannot account for the related semantic normativity problem.
BibTeX: @article{Carrus2017, author = {Carrus, Simone}, title = {Slurs: At-issueness and Semantic Normativity}, journal = {Phenomenology and Mind}, year = {2017}, number = {12}, pages = {84--97}, url = {https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=4219102&publisher=FF3888#page=86} }
Chen, S.Y. and van Tiel, B.	Every ambiguity isn't syntactic in nature: Testing the Rational Speech Act model of scope ambiguity [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Vol. 4Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics, pp. 254-263	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Utterances like ‘Every guest didn’t leave’ are ambiguous between a reading according to which no guest left and a reading according to which not all of the guests left. This ambiguity is often explained by assuming that ‘every-not’ utterances have two different syntactic parses. However, experimental studies have shown that pragmatic factors, such as prior probabilities and the question under discussion, also play an important role in the interpretation of ambiguous ‘every-not’ utterances. Recently, Scontras and Pearl (2020) put forward a probabilistic model of ambiguity resolution that makes it possible to quantify the relative contribution of syntactic and pragmatic factors. Here, we present three experiments aimed at testing this model and measuring the division of labor between syntax and pragmatics. Our results suggest that variability in the interpretation of ‘every-not’ utterances can be explained almost entirely in terms of pragmatics, suggesting only a marginal role for syntax.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Chen2021, author = {Chen, Sherry Yong and van Tiel, Bob}, title = {Every ambiguity isn't syntactic in nature: Testing the Rational Speech Act model of scope ambiguity}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics}, year = {2021}, volume = {4}, pages = {254-263}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.7275/H3RP-M711} }
Constant, N.	Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	School: University of Massachusets, Amherst	phdthesis	DOI
Abstract: This dissertation develops a theory of contrastive topics (CTs)—what they mean, and how they are realized. I give a compositional semantics for CT constructions, built on the idea that CT marks anaphora to a complex question in the discourse. The account allows us to maintain an inclusive view of what counts as a contrastive topic, making reasonable predictions about sentences with CT phrases of difference types, in various combinations, and across various speech acts. Empirically, the dissertation focuses on contrastive topic marking in English and Mandarin Chinese. In English, CT phrases are typically realized with a “rising” prosody. I offer an explicit model that predicts the intonational features of English sentences containing contrastive topics. In Mandarin, sentences with CTs often exhibit the discourse particle -ne. I provide a detailed description of the particle’s distribution, and offer the first sustained argument that -ne is a CT marker.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Constant2014, author = {Noah Constant}, title = {Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations}, school = {University of Massachusets, Amherst}, year = {2014}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.7275/5694973.0} }
Lassiter, D. and Goodman, N.D.	Context and scale structure and statistics in the interpretation of and positive-form adjectives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SALT 23	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Relative adjectives in the positive form exhibit vagueness and context-sensitivity. We suggest that these phenomena can be explained by the interaction of a free threshold variable in the meaning of the positive form with a probabilistic model of pragmatic inference. We describe a formal model of utterance interpretation as coordination, which jointly infers the value of the threshold variable and the intended meaning of the sentence. We report simulations exploring the effect of background statistical knowledge on adjective interpretation in this model. Motivated by these simulation results, we suggest that this approach can account for the correlation between scale structure and the relative/absolute distinction while also allowing for exceptions noted in previous work. Finally, we argue for a probabilistic explanation of why the sorites paradox is compelling with relative adjectives even though the second premise is false on a universal interpretation, and show that this account predicts Kennedy's (2007) observation that the sorites paradox is more compelling with relative than with absolute adjectives.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Context2013, author = {Daniel Lassiter and Noah D Goodman}, title = {Context and scale structure and statistics in the interpretation of and positive-form adjectives}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 23}, year = {2013}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2658} }
Cooper, R. and Ginzburg, J.	Negative inquisitiveness and alternatives-basednegation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	Logic, Language and Meaning, pp. 32-41	incollection	URL
Abstract: We propose some fundamental requirements for the treatment of negative particles, positive/negative polar questions, and negative propositions, as they occur in dialogue with questions. We offer a view of negation that combines aspects of alternative semantics, intuitionist negation, and situation semantics. We formalize the account in TTR (a version of type theory with records) [7, 9]. Central to our claim is that negative and positive propositions should be distinguished and that in order to do this they should be defined in terms of types rather than possible worlds. This is in contrast to [11] where negative propositions are identified in terms of the syntactic or morphological properties of the sentences which introduce them.
BibTeX: @incollection{Cooper2011, author = {Robin Cooper and Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Negative inquisitiveness and alternatives-basednegation}, booktitle = {Logic, Language and Meaning}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2011}, pages = {32-41}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/ams11-proceedings.pdf?attredirects=0} }
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D.I.	Principles of the Exclusive Muddle [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Journal of Semantics Vol. 31(3), pp. 371-432	article	DOI URL
Abstract: This paper provides a lexical entry schema for exclusives covering the adverbs only, just, exclusively, merely, purely, solely, simply, and the adjectives only, sole, pure, exclusive and alone. We argue, on the basis of inter-paraphrasability relations among these exclusives and entailments involving at least and at most, that all of these items make an at-issue contribution of an upper bound on the viable answers to the current question under discussion (expressible with at most), and signal that a lower bound on those answers (expressible with at least) is taken for granted. The lexical entry schema accommodates two main points of variation, which makes it possible to capture the differences in meaning among these terms: (i) semantic type (restricted to the class of modifiers), and (ii) constraints on the current question under discussion or the strength ranking over its alternative possible answers. We propose 22 different specific instantiations of the schema for exclusives in English.
BibTeX: @article{Coppock2014, author = {Coppock, Elizabeth and Beaver, David I.}, title = {Principles of the Exclusive Muddle}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2014}, volume = {31}, number = {3}, pages = {371-432}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007} }
Davis, C.	Decisions, dynamics, and the Japanese particle yo [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Journal of Semantics Vol. 26(4), pp. 329-366	article	DOI
Abstract: I provide an account of the Japanese sentence-final particle yo within a dynamic semantics framework. I argue that yo is used with one of two intonational morphemes, corresponding to sentence-final rising or falling tunes. These intonational morphemes modify a sentence's illocutionary force head, adding an addressee-directed update semantics to the utterance. The different intonational contours specify whether this update is monotonic or non-monotonic. The use of yo is then argued to contribute a pragmatic presupposition to the utterance saying that the post-update discourse context is one in which the addressee's contextual decision problem is resolved. This proposal is shown to account for a range of constraints on the felicitous use of yo, including its restriction to addressee-new and addressee-relevant information in assertions, as well as its behaviour in imperatives and interrogatives.
BibTeX: @article{Davis2009, author = {Christopher Davis}, title = {Decisions, dynamics, and the Japanese particle yo}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2009}, volume = {26}, number = {4}, pages = {329-366}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp007} }
Davis, C.	Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	School: UMass Amherst	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: This dissertation is concerned with how pragmatic particles interact with sentential force and with general pragmatic constraints to derive optimal dynamic interpretations. The primary empirical focus of the dissertation is the Japanese sentence final particle yo and its intonational associates. These right-peripheral elements are argued to interact semantically with sentential force in specifying the set of contextual transitions compatible with an utterance. In this way, they semantically constrain the pragmatic interpretation of the utterances in which they occur. These conventional constraints on interpretation are wedded with general pragmatic constraints which provide a further filter on the road to optimal interpretation.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Davis2011, author = {Christopher Davis}, title = {Constraining Interpretation: Sentence Final Particles in Japanese}, school = {UMass Amherst}, year = {2011}, url = {https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/constraining-interpretation-sentence-final/docview/883077085/se-2?accountid=9783} }
DeVault, D. and Stone, M.	Scorekeeping in an uncertain language game [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2006	Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial-10), pp. 139-146	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Received views of utterance context in pragmatic theory characterize the occurrent subjective states of interlocutors using notions like common knowledge or mutual belief. We argue that these views are not compatible with the uncertainty and robustness of context-dependence in human–human dialogue. We present an alternative characterization of utterance context as objective and normative. This view reconciles the need for uncertainty with received intuitions about coordination and meaning in context, and can directly inform computational approaches to dialogue.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{DeVault2006, author = {David DeVault and Matthew Stone}, title = {Scorekeeping in an uncertain language game}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial-10)}, year = {2006}, pages = {139-146}, url = {https://people.cs.rutgers.edu/ mdstone/pubs/devault-brandial06.pdf} }
DeVault, D. and Stone, M.	Managing ambiguities across utterances in dialogue [BibTeX]	2007	DECALOG: The 2007 Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue	inproceedings	URL
BibTeX: @inproceedings{DeVault2007, author = {David DeVault and Matthew Stone}, title = {Managing ambiguities across utterances in dialogue}, booktitle = {DECALOG: The 2007 Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue}, year = {2007}, url = {https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/ mdstone/pubs/decalog07.pdf} }
Gast, V. and Rzymski, C.	Towards a corpus-based analysis of evaluative scales associated with even [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Linguistik Online Vol. 71(2)	article	DOI
Abstract: Scalar focus operators like even, only, etc. interact with scales, i. e., ordered sets of alternatives that are referenced by focus structure. The scaling dimensions interacting with focus operators have been argued to be semantic (e. g. entailment relations, probability) in earlier work, but it has been shown that purely semantic analyses are too restrictive, and that the specific scale that a given operator interacts with is often pragmatic, in the sense of being a function of the context. If that is true, the question arises what exactly determines the (types of) scales interacting with focus operators. The present study addresses this question by investigating the distributional behaviour of the additive scalar particle even relative to scales whose focus alternatives are ordered in terms of evaluative attitudes (positive, negative). Our hypothesis is that such evaluative attitudinal scales are at least partially functions of the lexical material in the sentential environment. This hypothesis is tested by determining correlations between sentence-level attitudes and lexically encoded attitudes in the relevant sentences. We use data from the Europarl corpus, a corpus of scripted and highly elaborated political speech, which is rich in argumentative discourse and thus lends itself to the study of attitudes in context. Our results show that there are in fact significant correlations between (manual) sentence-level evaluations and lexical evaluations (determined through machine learning) in the textual environment of the relevant operators. We conclude with an outlook on possible extensions of the method applied in the present study by identifying attitudinal patterns beyond the sentence, showing that positively and negatively connotated instances of even differ in terms of their argumentative function, with positive even often marking the climax and endpoint of an argument, while negative even often occurs in qualifying insertions like concessive parentheses. While we regard our results as valid, some refinements and extensions of the method are pointed out as necessary steps towards the establishment of an empirical sentence semantics, in the domain of scalar additive operators as well as more generally speaking.
BibTeX: @article{Gast2015, author = {Volker Gast and Christoph Rzymski}, title = {Towards a corpus-based analysis of evaluative scales associated with even}, journal = {Linguistik Online}, publisher = {University of Bern}, year = {2015}, volume = {71}, number = {2}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.71.1782} }
Ginzburg, J., Cooper, R. and Fernando, T.	Propositions, Questions, and Adjectives: a rich type theoretic approach [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS), pp. 89-96	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: We consider how to develop types corresponding to propositions and questions. Starting with the conception of Propositions as Types, we consider two empirical challenges for this doctrine. The first relates to the putative need for a single type encompassing questions and propositions in order to deal with Boolean operations. The second relates to adjectival modification of question and propositional entities. We partly defuse the Boolean challenge by showing that the data actually argue against a single type covering questions and propositions. We show that by analyzing both propositions and questions as records within Type Theory with Records (TTR), we can define Boolean operations over these distinct semantic types. We account for the adjectival challenge by embedding the record types defined to deal with Boolean operations within a theory of semantic frames formulated within TTR.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ginzburg2014a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Robin Cooper and Tim Fernando}, title = {Propositions, Questions, and Adjectives: a rich type theoretic approach}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the EACL 2014 Workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics (TTNLS)}, year = {2014}, pages = {89-96}, url = {http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W14/W14-1411.pdf} }
Goodman, N.	Grounding Lexical Meaning in Core Cognition [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013		unpublished	URL
Abstract: Words are potentially one of the clearest windows on human knowledge and conceptual structure. But what do words mean? In this project we aim to construct and explore a formal model of lexical semantics grounded, via pragmatic inference, in core conceptual structures. Flexible human cognition is derived in large part from our ability to imagine possible worlds. A rich set of concepts, intuitive theories, and other mental representations support imagining and reasoning about possible worlds—together we call these core cognition. Here we posit that the collection of core concepts also forms the set of primitive elements available for lexical semantics: word meanings are built from pieces of core cognition. We propose to study lexical semantics in the setting of an architecture for language understanding that integrates literal meaning with pragmatic inference. This architecture supports underspecified and uncertain lexical meaning, leading to subtle interactions between meaning, conceptual structure, and context. We will explore several cases of lexical semantics where these interactions are particularly important: indexicals, scalar adjectives, generics, and modals. We formalize both core cognition and the natural language architecture using the Church probabilistic programming language. In this project we aim to contribute to our understanding of the connection between words and mental representations; from this we expect to gain critical insights into many aspects of psychology, to construct vastly more useful thinking machines, and to interface natural and artificial intelligences more efficiently.
BibTeX: @unpublished{Goodman2013, author = {Noah Goodman}, title = {Grounding Lexical Meaning in Core Cognition}, year = {2013}, url = {https://web.stanford.edu/ ngoodman/papers/LexSemSquibb.pdf} }
Grubic, M.	Two strategies of reopening QUDs: Evidence from German auch and noch [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Vol. 21Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper argues for a domain restriction account for wh-words in questions using resource situations, in parallel with the domain restriction of quantifiers proposed in Kratzer (2011). It is argued that under a situation semantic account assuming resource situations, the different behaviour of additive particles can be explained: Under a question under discussion account, additive particles like too and also are used when a (possibly covert) question is ‘reopened’ in order to add a further true answer (Beaver and Clark 2008, i.a.). This paper suggests that there are two ways in which a question can be re-addressed: it can either be reopened with (i) a different resource situation or (ii) with a different topic situation. This can explain the different behaviour of the additive particles auch and noch in German.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Grubic2018, author = {Mira Grubic}, title = {Two strategies of reopening QUDs: Evidence from German auch and noch}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2018}, volume = {21}, url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/152} }
Harris, J.	Interjective ‘what' [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SALT 23	inproceedings
Abstract: Discourse particles and interjectives allow a speaker to signal how information presented in an utterance relates to her epistemic or emotive state. I present a semantics for one such interjective: the English particle what. In addition, I provide evidence that it carries multiple discourse functions, and propose that these distinct uses are best captured by their relation to the central discourse topic.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Harris2013, author = {Jesse Harris}, title = {Interjective ‘what'}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 23}, year = {2013} }
Hautli-Janisz, A. and El-Assady, M.	Rhetorical strategies in German argumentative dialogs [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Argument and Computation Vol. 8, pp. 153-174	article	DOI
Abstract: An important factor of argument mining in dialog or multilog data is the framing with which interlocutors put forth their arguments. By using rhetorical devices such as hedging or reference to the Common Ground, speakers relate themselves to their interlocutors, their arguments, and the ongoing discourse. Capitalizing on theoretical linguistic insights into the semantics and pragmatics of discourse particles in German, we propose a categorization of rhetorical information that is highly relevant in natural transcribed speech. In order to shed light on the rhetorical strategies of different interlocutors in large amounts of real mediation data, we use a method from Visual Analytics which allows for an exploration of the rhetorical patterns via an interactive visual interface. With this innovative combination of theoretical linguistics, argument mining and information visualization, we offer a novel way of analyzing framing strategies in large amounts of multi-party argumentative discourse in German.
BibTeX: @article{HautliJanisz2017, author = {Annette Hautli-Janisz and Mennatallah El-Assady}, title = {Rhetorical strategies in German argumentative dialogs}, journal = {Argument and Computation}, year = {2017}, volume = {8}, pages = {153-174}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170022} }
Herbstritt, M.	Experimental investigations of probability expressions: a first step in the (probably) right direction [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Proceedings of ESSLLI, pp. 77-88	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the semantics of probability expressions such as probably and likely. According to a recent theory proposed by [6], the meaning of a sentence such as probably ϕ is sensitive to its context of utterance, and in particular to the set of ϕ’s contextually salient alternative outcomes. We report the results of three experiments specifically designed to investigate this context-sensitivity. On the basis of our results, we discuss possible directions for both experimental and theoretical future work.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Herbstritt2015, author = {Herbstritt, Michele}, title = {Experimental investigations of probability expressions: a first step in the (probably) right direction}, booktitle = {Proceedings of ESSLLI}, year = {2015}, pages = {77--88}, url = {http://esslli-stus-2015.phil.hhu.de/esslli-stus-2015-proceedings.pdf#page=83} }
Hinterwimmer, S. and Ebert, C.	A Comparison of fei and aber [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2018	Vol. 22Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper compares the modal particle fei (Schlieben-Lange, 1979; Thoma, 2009) with the modal particle/sentence adverb aber (not to be confused with the conjunction aber, ‘but’). Intuitively, both items express some form of contrast and correction. We will show that both are special among discourse particles in the following sense: They make a contribution that is interpreted at a level distinct from the level where at-issue content (Potts, 2005) is interpreted, as is standard for modal particles (see Gutzmann, 2015 and the references therein). But more interestingly, they exclusively relate to propositions that have not entered the Common Ground via being the at-issue content of an assertion made by the addressee.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Hinterwimmer2018, author = {Stefan Hinterwimmer and Cornelia Ebert}, title = {A Comparison of fei and aber}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2018}, volume = {22}, url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/101} }
Horvitz, E. and Paek, T.	Harnessing models of users’ goals to mediate clarification dialog in spoken language systems [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2001	User Modeling Conference, pp. 3-13	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: Speaker-independent speech recognition systems are being used with increasing frequency for command and control applications. To date, users of such systems must contend with their fragility to subtle changes in language usage and environmental acoustics. We describe work on coupling speech recognition systems with temporal probabilistic user models that provide inferences about the intentions associated with utterances. The methods can be employed to enhance the robustness of speech recognition by endowing systems with an ability to reason about the costs and benefits of action in a setting and to make decisions about the best action to take given uncertainty about the meaning behind acoustic signals. The methods have been implemented in the form of a dialog clarification module that can be integrated with legacy spoken language systems. We describe representation and inference procedures and present details on the operation of an implemented spoken command and control development environment called DeepListener.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Horvitz2001, author = {Eric Horvitz and Tim Paek}, title = {Harnessing models of users’ goals to mediate clarification dialog in spoken language systems}, booktitle = {User Modeling Conference}, year = {2001}, pages = {3-13}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44566-8_1} }
Jasinskaja, E. and Zeevat, H.	Explaining Conjunction Systems: Russian, English, German [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2009	Vol. 13Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, pp. 231-245	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: The paper analyses the Russian conjunctions i, a and no, the English conjunctions and and but and the German conjunctions und, aber and sondern in terms of specialised additivity: special cases of the relation between sentences expressed by too and also. The first section gives an overview of the analysis, the second section tries to give an explicit characterisation of additivity and its specialisations. The third section uses an OT-like framework to explain the complementary distribution of the conjunctions and the blocking effects that result.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Jasinskaja2009, author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja and Henk Zeevat}, title = {Explaining Conjunction Systems: Russian, English, German}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2009}, volume = {13}, pages = {231-245}, url = {https://dslc.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/dslc/katja_files/jasinskaja_zeevat_2009.pdf} }
Jasinskaja, E.	Corrective Contrast in Russian, in Contrast [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Russian in Contrast Vol. 2(2), pp. 433-466	article	DOI
Abstract: In many languages markers of contrast, such as the English 'but', are also used to express correction: John didn't go to Paris, but to Berlin. The present paper tries to explain this cross-linguistic pattern and represents correction as a special case of contrast. It focuses on the Russian contrastive conjunction 'a' and argues that its corrective uses in combination with negation 'ne ... a' / 'a ne', which are traditionally viewed as a fixed collocation, are in fact co-occurrences of a general contrastive 'a' with constituent negation.
BibTeX: @article{Jasinskaja2010, author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {Corrective Contrast in Russian, in Contrast}, journal = {Russian in Contrast}, year = {2010}, volume = {2}, number = {2}, pages = {433-466}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.85} }
Jayez, J. and Winterstein, G.	Additivity and probability [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Lingua Vol. 132, pp. 85-102	article	DOI
Abstract: In this work, we give a new semantics to the notion of additivity as embodied by several discourse markers and particles in French: et, de plus and d’ailleurs. The common property of these different elements is the notion of independence of their arguments. We show that existing accounts of additive particles fail to do full justice to this notion of independence, and we propose a new semantics for and that captures this notion in a Bayesian fashion. We then evaluate the applicability of this analysis to de plus and d’ailleurs and show that, unlike et, these elements are strongly argumentative: they make an explicit reference to an external issue that is disputed in the current conversation.
BibTeX: @article{Jayez2013, author = {Jacques Jayez and Grégoire Winterstein}, title = {Additivity and probability}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2013}, volume = {132}, pages = {85--102}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.004} }
Jivanyan, H.	At-Issue or Not-At-Issue Discourse Contribution by Puisque (F ‘Since’)? Information Structure and Discourse Structure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Fresh Perspectives on Major Issues in Pragmatics	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: The main goal of this chapter is to study the discourse contribution of the clauses linked by the discourse connective puisque (‘since’, PSQ) in French, in terms of (not-)at-issue meaning. This question constitutes the novelty of this chapter, since it has not been addressed with respect to PSQ, or even with respect to discourse connectives, to my knowledge. This new question implies a specific methodological framework providing new theoretical instruments to answer it: The analysis is carried out within a formal discourse-pragmatic model based on the notion of Question Under Discussion (QUD; cf. Roberts 1996; Velleman & Beaver 2015). Thus, an important outcome of this chapter is that it puts the study of discourse connectives in general, and of PSQ in particular, in a new theoretical framework. In order to evaluate the discourse contribution of PSQ-clauses, I take into consideration several aspects of PSQ-usages: i) the information structure of the relation PSQ establishes, ii) the type of coherence relation expressed, and, crucially, iii) the clause-linking specificities of PSQ. The first two aspects are widely studied in discourse-analytical models. The third one is traditionally well attested (Groupe Lambda-L 1975; Ducrot 1983), however, it has not been questioned from the point of view of the theoretical implications it bears on discourse progression or the discourse-level information structure of PSQ-clauses. The study of the latter will be the main import of this chapter, captured in terms of (not-)at-issueness. The analysis of PSQ-usage with respect to the question of how the PSQ-clause contributes to discourse progression reveals that PSQ is not homogeneous in its usages. Limiting the analysis on medial positions of PSQ, two types of PSQ-usages are distinguished. These two types are different with respect to the information status of the PSQ-clause, the type of coherence relation expressed, as well as the way the PSQ-clause contributes to discourse progression, either as at-issue or not-at-issue content.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Jivanyan2020, author = {Hasmik Jivanyan}, title = {At-Issue or Not-At-Issue Discourse Contribution by Puisque (F ‘Since’)? Information Structure and Discourse Structure}, booktitle = {Fresh Perspectives on Major Issues in Pragmatics}, publisher = {Routledge}, year = {2020}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003017462-8} }
Karagjosova, E.	Discourse Particles, Discourse Relations and Information Structure: The Case of Nämlich [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	International Review of Pragmatics Vol. 3(1), pp. 33-58	article	DOI
Abstract: The paper presents an analysis of the meaning and discourse effects of the German discourse particle nämlich that unifies its different readings and explains its distributional properties. I suggest that nämlich is most adequately analysed in terms of it indicating a specificational relation between its host and the preceding sentence, which in a question-based framework can be implemented as indicating an answer to a "specifying question", a discourse question requiring an answer that provides a more detailed description of some aspect of the preceding utterance. The analysis represents a refinement and extension of the question-based analysis of nämlich developed in Onea and Volodina (2009) where nämlich is analysed in terms of indicating that its host is a short answer to an implicit constituent question or a Why-discourse question. The approach I provide suggests solutions to several puzzles related to the distributional properties of nämlich.
BibTeX: @article{Karagjosova2011, author = {Elena Karagjosova}, title = {Discourse Particles, Discourse Relations and Information Structure: The Case of Nämlich}, journal = {International Review of Pragmatics}, year = {2011}, volume = {3}, number = {1}, pages = {33-58}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561018} }
Karvovskaya, L.	'Also' in Ishkashimi : additive particle and sentence connector [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013		inproceedings	URL
Abstract: The paper discusses the distribution and meaning of the additive particle -mes in Ishkashimi. -mes receives different semantic associations while staying in the same syntactic position. Thus, structurally combined with an object, it can semantically associate with the focused object or with the whole focused VP; similarly, combined with the subject it can semantically associate with the focused subject and with the whole focused sentence.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Karvovskaya2013, author = {Lena Karvovskaya}, title = {'Also' in Ishkashimi : additive particle and sentence connector}, year = {2013}, url = {https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/6382/file/karv_75_97.pdf} }
Koev, T.	Strong beliefs, weak commitments [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Vol. 23(2)Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: The standard Hintikkan semantics views believe as a universal quantifier over possible worlds (Hintikka, 1969). This semantics (i) fails to capture the fact that believe is gradable (cf. partially believe or fully believe) and (ii) makes no predictions about the degree of certainty of the belief agent toward the prejacent. To remedy these problems, I propose a scalar semantics along the lines of Kennedy and McNally’s (2005) analysis of gradable adjectives, arguing that believe is a maximum-degree predicate. While belief attributions are sometimes interpreted as hedges (e.g., I believe it’s raining can be taken as a statement of uncertainty), I point out that such uses are restricted to contexts in which the belief component is not relevant to the question under discussion. Following up on a suggestion made in Chemla (2008), I propose that the weak sense of believe arises as an antipresupposition, a scalar inference derived through competition with a presuppositionally stronger know-competitor. Contra Hawthorne et al. (2016), I argue that the intuition of weakness is due not to reduced modal force but rather to the subjectivity of modal content, amounting to a situation in which the agent has full subjective confidence in the prejacent but fails to publicly commit to it.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Koev2019, author = {Todor Koev}, title = {Strong beliefs, weak commitments}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung}, year = {2019}, volume = {23}, number = {2}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23i2.595} }
McCready, E.	The Dynamics of Particles [BibTeX]	2005	School: UTexas-Austin	phdthesis
BibTeX: @phdthesis{McCready2005, author = {Eric McCready}, title = {The Dynamics of Particles}, school = {UTexas-Austin}, year = {2005} }
McCready, E.	Japanese yo: Its semantics and pragmatics [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2006	Sprache und Datenverarbeitung Vol. 30, pp. 25-34	article
Abstract: This paper presents an analysis of the Japanese sentence-final particle yo in a dynamic modal semantics. The particle is argued to have an underspecified meaning dependent in part on discourse structure and causal relations.
BibTeX: @article{McCready2006, author = {Eric McCready}, title = {Japanese yo: Its semantics and pragmatics}, journal = {Sprache und Datenverarbeitung}, year = {2006}, volume = {30}, pages = {25-34} }
McCready, E.	What Man Does [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 31(6), pp. 671-724	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper considers the meaning and use of the English particle man. It is shown that the particle does quite different things when it appears in sentence-initial and sentence-final position; the first use involves expression of an emotional attitude as well as, on a particular intonation, intensification; this use is analyzed using a semantics for degree predicates along with a separate dimension for the expressive aspect. Further restrictions on modification with the sentence-initial particle involving monotonicity and evidence are introduced and analyzed. The sentence-final use can be viewed as strengthening the action performed by the sentence. A formal semantics is given by making use of dynamic techniques and, in a sense, dynamically simulating the modification of certain speech acts. Some empirical and theoretical extensions of the analyses are proposed and some consequences discussed.
BibTeX: @article{McCready2008, author = {Eric McCready}, title = {What Man Does}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2008}, volume = {31}, number = {6}, pages = {671-724}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7} }
McCready, E.	Particles: Dynamics vs. Utility [BibTeX]	2009	Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16	inproceedings
BibTeX: @inproceedings{McCready2009, author = {Eric McCready}, title = {Particles: Dynamics vs. Utility}, booktitle = {Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16}, publisher = {CSLI Publications}, year = {2009} }
Onea, E. and Volodina, A.	Between Specification and Explanation: About a German Discourse Particle [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2011	International Review of Pragmatics Vol. 3, pp. 3-32	article	DOI
Abstract: Th is paper provides a unified semantic and discourse pragmatic analysis of the German particle nämlich , traditionally described as having a specificational and an explanative reading. Our claim is that nämlich is a discourse marker which signals that the expression it is attached to is a short (elliptic) answer to a salient implicit question about the previous utterance. We show how both the explanative and the specifi cational reading can be derived from this more general semantic contribution. In addition we discuss some cross linguistic consequences of our analysis.
BibTeX: @article{Onea2011, author = {Edgar Onea and Anna Volodina}, title = {Between Specification and Explanation: About a German Discourse Particle}, journal = {International Review of Pragmatics}, year = {2011}, volume = {3}, pages = {3-32}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X561036} }
Onea, E.	Potential questions in discourse and grammar [BibTeX]	2013	School: University of Göttingen	phdthesis	DOI
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Onea2013, author = {Edgar Onea}, title = {Potential questions in discourse and grammar}, school = {University of Göttingen}, year = {2013}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1888.1128} }
Potts, C.	The Expressive Dimension [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2007	Theoretical Linguistics Vol. 33, pp. 165-198	article	DOI
Abstract: Expressives like damn and bastard have, when uttered, an immediate and powerful impact on the context. They are performative, often destructively so. They are revealing of the perspective from which the utterance is made, and they can have a dramatic impact on how current and future utterances are perceived. This, despite the fact that speakers are invariably hard-pressed to articulate what they mean. I develop a general theory of these volatile, indispensable meanings. The theory is built around a class of expressive indices. These determine the expressive setting of the context of interpretation. Expressives morphemes act on that context, actively changing its expressive setting. The theory is multidimensional in the sense that descriptives and expressives are fundamentally different but receive a unified logical treatment.
BibTeX: @article{Potts2007, author = {Chris Potts}, title = {The Expressive Dimension}, journal = {Theoretical Linguistics}, year = {2007}, volume = {33}, pages = {165-198}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011} }
Rojas-Esponada, T.	Patterns and Symmetries for Discourse Particles [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	School: Stanford University	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: Discourse particles provide important signals in conversation, by helping speakers and hearers coordinate on the course of an interaction. Therefore, a precise understanding of discourse particles will provide new insights into the pragmatics of conversation. In this thesis, I will present a framework based on questions under discussion that allows us to capture the key information-theoretic structures in conversation that seem to affect the use of discourse particles: the presence or absence of presuppositions, the issues guiding a conversation, and how interlocutors move between these issues. I present two case studies of German discourse particles that highlight central aspects of the QUD framework: überhaupt and doch. These raise a challenge found in particle systems in many languages: lexicalized focus. Many languages possess particles that can occur with or without focus, and the meanings associated with the unfocused and focused variants are often very different. Since intonation can have discourse-managing functions similar to that of discourse particles, the effect of having or lacking focus marking directly on a particle is different from the effect of focus on regular content words. I will identify patterns that allow us to systematically distinguish the meanings of focused and unfocused particles in a focused/unfocused pair. This serves as a stepping stone towards understanding the interplay of grammar, intonation, and interaction.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{RojasEsponada2015, author = {Tania Rojas-Esponada}, title = {Patterns and Symmetries for Discourse Particles}, school = {Stanford University}, year = {2015}, url = {https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/patterns-symmetries-discourse-particles/docview/2459631050/se-2?accountid=9783} }
Rojas-Esponda, T.	The Roadsigns of Communication [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue - Full Papers	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Special intonation and discourse particles can act as pragmatic roadsigns that signal specific moves in conversation. By making the nature of a conversational move explicit, these devices can aid in pragmatic processing. I make this idea precise using a Question under Discussion framework. Several case studies are presented.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{RojasEsponda2013, author = {Rojas-Esponda, Tania}, title = {The Roadsigns of Communication}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue - Full Papers}, publisher = {SEMDIAL}, year = {2013}, url = {http://semdial.org/anthology/Z13-Rojas-Esponda_semdial_0017.pdf} }
Rojas-Esponda, T.	A discourse model for überhaupt [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 7	article	DOI
Abstract: The German particle "überhaupt" exhibits a variety of uses with seemingly unrelated meanings. Correspondingly, only partial and non-unified theoretical accounts have been proposed. I show how the various intuitions and ostensibly different meanings can be derived from a unified characterization of "überhaupt" as a move to a higher-level question under discussion. The account explains how "überhaupt" could correspond to a single word in German, and it provides additional support for questions under discussion as an important aspect of contexts.
BibTeX: @article{RojasEsponda2014, author = {Tania Rojas-Esponda}, title = {A discourse model for überhaupt}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2014}, volume = {7}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.1} }
Rojas-Esponda, T.	A QUD account of German doch [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Vol. 18Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, pp. 359-376	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper proposes an analysis of the unfocused and focused discourse particle uses of doch in terms of questions under discussion. The particle doch is analyzed as signaling that a question under discussion was previously closed (i.e. answered or invalidated). Unfocused doch is used to re-answer this previously closed QUD in the same way as before; focused doch is used to re-answer this previously closed QUD in a new way. This account works for both contrastive and non-contrastive uses of doch. Even though, unlike most previous accounts, the analysis is not built directly on the notion of contrast, the relevant intuitions can be recovered from the account via highlighting. The formalism further allows us to distinguish two distinct flavors of contrast, where they arise. One type of contrast arises through propositional contrast between the sentence containing doch and a highlighted alternative. The other type of contrast arises through the switching of the QUD-answer (focused doch).
BibTeX: @inproceedings{RojasEsponda2014a, author = {Tania Rojas-Esponda}, title = {A QUD account of German doch}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2014}, volume = {18}, pages = {359-376}, url = {https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/322} }
Simin, X.	A QUD Account For The Mandarin Discourse Marker ‘zaishuo’ [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	ICU Working Papers in Linguistics(ICUWPL)	inproceedings	DOI
Abstract: The Mandarin discourse marker zaishuo is often considered to connect two utterances that may not have obvious logic connection and help the listener to identify the relevance between these two utterances and the topic (Zheng 2001, Zhou 2005, Lou & Leng 2016). I argue that zaishuo must connect two reasons that can provide an answer to a why-question, which the QUD (Question Under Discussion, Roberts 2012) or a question that is relevant to the QUD. In addition, the use of zaishuo indicates a potential disagreement between the discourse participants. The current analysis has the advantage of being more precise, which can distinguish the use of zaishuo from other regular conjunctions such as erqie ‘and’.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Simin2021, author = {Simin, Xiong}, title = {A QUD Account For The Mandarin Discourse Marker ‘zaishuo’}, booktitle = {ICU Working Papers in Linguistics(ICUWPL)}, year = {2021}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.34577/00004838} }
Smith, D.A. and Lieberman, H.	Interpreting Vague and Ambiguous Referring Expressions by Dynamically Binding to Properties of the Context Set [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	CONTEXT 2013: Modeling and Using Context, pp. 15-30	incollection	DOI
Abstract: Referring expressions with vague and ambiguous modifiers, such as ”a quick visit” and ”the big meeting”, are difficult for computers to interpret because their words’ meanings are in part defined by context, which changes throughout the course of an interpretation. In this paper, we present an approach to interpreting context-dependent referring expressions that uses dynamic binding. During the incremental interpretation of a referring expression, a word’s meaning can be defined in part by properties from the current candidate referents—its denotation up to the previous word for the tentative interpretation.
BibTeX: @incollection{Smith2013, author = {Dustin A. Smith and Henry Lieberman}, title = {Interpreting Vague and Ambiguous Referring Expressions by Dynamically Binding to Properties of the Context Set}, booktitle = {CONTEXT 2013: Modeling and Using Context}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2013}, pages = {15-30}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40972-1_2} }
Solt, S. and Waldon, B.	Numerals under negation: Empirical findings [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Glossa: a journal of general linguistics Vol. 4(1), pp. 113	article	DOI
Abstract: Despite a vast literature on the semantics and pragmatics of cardinal numerals, it has gone largely unnoticed that they exhibit a variety of polarity sensitivity, in that they require contextual support to occur felicitously in the scope of sentential negation. We present the results of a corpus analysis and two experiments that demonstrate that negated cardinals are acceptable when the negated value has been asserted or otherwise explicitly mentioned in the preceding discourse context, but unacceptable when such a value is neither mentioned nor inferable from that context. In this, bare cardinals exhibit both similarities to and differences from other types of numerical expressions. We propose an account of our findings based on the notion of convexity of linguistic meanings (Gärdenfors 2004) and discuss the implications for the semantics of numerical expressions more generally.
BibTeX: @article{Solt2019, author = {Stephanie Solt and Brandon Waldon}, title = {Numerals under negation: Empirical findings}, journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics}, publisher = {Open Library of the Humanities}, year = {2019}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {113}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.736} }
Song, Y., Jimenez, A.H. and Scontras, G.	Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: An investigation of English, Spanish, and Mandarin [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2021	Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Vol. 6(1), pp. 572	article	DOI
Abstract: Faced with a sentence like Every horse didn't jump over the fence as a description of a scenario in which one out of two horses jumped, adults readily endorse the utterance as a good description, while children overwhelmingly reject it. However, systematic changes to the task setup lead to marked increases in children's endorsement rates (Musolino & Lidz 2006; Viau et al. 2010). Savinelli et al.(2017) use a computational cognitive model of utterance endorsement in truth-value judgment tasks to analytically demonstrate that both children and adults' interpretation behavior is affected by pragmatic manipulations. We test a clear prediction of these models: manipulating the conversational goal (or Question Under Discussion) should lead to clear effects on utterance endorsement. In addition to investigating the predictions for English, we also investigate Spanish and Mandarin, where the status of the relevant ambiguity may be less clear.
BibTeX: @article{Song2021, author = {Yongjia Song and Abimael Hernandez Jimenez and Gregory Scontras}, title = {Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: An investigation of English, Spanish, and Mandarin}, journal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2021}, volume = {6}, number = {1}, pages = {572}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4992} }
Tawilapakul, U.	Counter-Expectation in Thai [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	School: University of York	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: This study is dedicated to the reinvestigation of the role of the particle lɛɛw45 in Thai. It raises speculations over the conventional claims according to which lɛɛw45 plays a role in temporality as a perfective aspect marker (Kanchanawan, 1978; Boonyapatipark, 1983; among others). The reappraisal of the role of lɛɛw45 in this study, which is based on the use of it in present day Thai, offers an argument against these claims. The addition of lɛɛw45 to a sentence is not mainly aimed at temporal effects. When it appears in a sentence, lɛɛw45 does not necessarily denote the perfective aspect of the event. Moreover, it can be omitted in the sentence in which perfectivity is already inherited through the lexical aspect of the verb and the temporal structure of the predicate. Lɛɛw45 in fact plays a role as a marker of counter-expectation. It represents a previous expectation about the subject and its opposition to the asserted proposition. Examining the nature of lɛɛw45's implications thoroughly, the study has found that even though the definiteness of the subject behaves like a standard presupposition, the implicated expectation does not project in all cases. This is revealed in the results from Tonhauser et al.’s (2013) projection tests. Lɛɛw45 is context-sensitive and imposes a Strong Contextual Felicity constraint. Nonetheless, it is actually not bound to Obligatory Local Effect and its presence in the context where the projective contents are not entailed is also felicitous. Counter-expectations also involve coherence and relevance, which are determined by the interrelationship between common ground, context, and focus. The asserted proposition is required to correspond to the common ground knowledge and context designated by the expected proposition. Additionally, the expression and interpretation of lɛɛw45's counter-expectations rely on the association of lɛɛw45 with the focused element in its scope. In a particular case, the common ground knowledge, context, and focus can be identified with the assistance of Question Under Discussion (Roberts 1996, 2012). The mechanism also accounts for the production and interpretation processes proceeding in accordance with the conversational moves.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Tawilapakul2013, author = {Tawilapakul, Upsorn}, title = {Counter-Expectation in Thai}, school = {University of York}, year = {2013}, url = {https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/9560/} }
Toosarvandani, M.	Contrast and the structure of discourse [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 7	article	DOI
Abstract: The semantics of the coordinator but does not fit neatly into the traditional distinction between entailments and conversational implicatures. In its counterexpectational use, but can convey an implication relating its two conjuncts, which Grice (1975) classifies as a conventional implicature because its behavior diverges from both entailments and conversational implicatures. I propose that this meaning component arises from but’s interaction with the discourse context – specifically, how it makes conventional reference to the question under discussion (QUD) in the sense of Roberts (1996/2012, 2004). This derives the variable interpretation of the implication in the counterexpectational use, as well as its absence in the corrective and semantic opposition uses of but. This account provides a new perspective on the relationship between the different uses of but as a type of modal polysemy (Kratzer 1981, 1991), and it suggests that other expressions that have been argued to have conventional implicatures might also make conventional reference to the QUD.
BibTeX: @article{Toosarvandani2014, author = {Maziar Toosarvandani}, title = {Contrast and the structure of discourse}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2014}, volume = {7}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.4} }
Umbach, C.	On the Notion of Contrast in Information Structure and Discourse Structure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2004	Journal of Semantics Vol. 21(2), pp. 155-175	article	DOI
Abstract: The idea of contrast plays an important role in the analysis of information structure and discourse structure. There is, however, some confusion as to what is meant by the notion of contrast. First, focus in general is held to establish a kind of contrast. Moreover, there is the notion of contrastive focus and of contrastive topic. Finally, English but is assumed to establish a discourse relation of contrast. In this paper contrastive phenomena in information structure and discourse structure are investigated with respect to the question of what they have in common and how they interact. The resulting picture is surprisingly systematic. First, there is contrast in the sense of similarity plus dissimilarity, which is the source of the contrastiveness of focus in general and is also a prerequisite for any type of coordination. On top of this, we find two varieties of exclusion. The first one results in substituting one item for another one and is realized by contrastive focus and also by the correction use of but. The second one excludes items occuring in addition and is realized by exclusive adverbs such as only and also by the contrast use of but.
BibTeX: @article{Umbach2004, author = {Carla Umbach}, title = {On the Notion of Contrast in Information Structure and Discourse Structure}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2004}, volume = {21}, number = {2}, pages = {155-175}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.155} }
Umbach, C.	Contrast and Information Structure: A focus-based analysis of but [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2005	Linguistics Vol. 43(1), pp. 207-232	article	DOI
Abstract: This article presents a novel analysis of the contrastive connector but based on the observation that (i) the contrast induced by but relates to the information structure of the conjuncts, and (ii) the use of but requires a denial with respect to an implicit question. It is shown that but combines additivity, as in and/also, and exclusion, as in only. This analysis provides a uniform basis to explain the apparently different uses of but, including semantic opposition, denial-of-expectation, and topic change. Moreover, it sheds new light on the concessive us of but.
BibTeX: @article{Umbach2005, author = {Carla Umbach}, title = {Contrast and Information Structure: A focus-based analysis of but}, journal = {Linguistics}, year = {2005}, volume = {43}, number = {1}, pages = {207-232}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207} }
van Elswyk, P.	What the metasemantics of know is not [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 43(1), pp. 69-82	article	DOI
Abstract: Epistemic contextualism in the style of Lewis (in Aust J Philos 74:549–567, 1996) maintains that ascriptions of knowledge to a subject vary in truth with the alternatives that can be eliminated by the subject’s evidence in a context. Schaffer (in Philos Stud 119:73–103, 2004, in Oxford Stud Epistemol 1:235–271, 2005, in Philos Phenomenol Res 75:383–403, 2007, in Philos Issues 18(1):1–19, 2008, in: Schaffer, Loewer (eds) A companion to David Lewis, pp 473–490. Wiley, Hoboken, 2015), Schaffer and Knobe (in Noûs 46:675–708, 2012), and Schaffer and Szabó (in Philos Stud 168(2):491–543, 2014) hold that the question under discussion or QUD always determines these alternatives in a context. This paper shows that the QUD does not perform such a role for know and uses this result to draw a few lessons about the metasemantics of context-sensitivity.
BibTeX: @article{vanElswyk2020, author = {Peter van Elswyk}, title = {What the metasemantics of know is not}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, year = {2020}, volume = {43}, number = {1}, pages = {69--82}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09263-w} }
Viesel, Y.	Discourse structure and syntactic embedding : the German discourse particle 'ja' [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 418-427	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: German discourse particles (DiPs) do not add truth-conditionally relevant meaning but are elements of speaker attitude and indicate a relation between the information in their scope (p) and another piece of information (q) in the context. The DiP ‘ja’ (literally ‘yes’) was claimed to be felicitous with a proposition p that the speaker believes common to both speaker and hearer, or immediately verifiable. However, formalizations modeling this into the use conditions of ‘ja’ fall short on the DiP's discourse function, which is to indicate that p is not used to address the current Question under Discussion but stands in a relation to q (pRq), where q is the information that the speaker makes another context update, pRq is intuitively explanatory, and p is not necessarily known to anyone but the speaker. Regarding prerequisite grammatical properties of the DiP's host constructions, data show that ‘ja’ is not restricted to assertive, root-like environments and defies predictions about not being able to appear in the scope of descriptive operators. Instead the data suggest that the DiP's licitness in surprising positions depends on information-structural factors.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Viesel2015, author = {Viesel, Yvonne}, title = {Discourse structure and syntactic embedding : the German discourse particle 'ja'}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium}, year = {2015}, pages = {418--427}, url = {http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf} }
Viesel, Y.	Discourse particles “embedded”: German ja in adjectival phrases [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, pp. 173-202	incollection	DOI URL
Abstract: The article is concerned with the German discourse particle ja (lit. ‘yes’) in adjectival phrases. Data shows that ja may appear embedded even if its host construction does not comprise an independent illocutionary force domain, e.g. in restrictive adnominal modifiers in indefinite DPs with specific interpretation. As in main clauses, ja signals that information in its scope supplements related information, thus being indirectly Relevant to the Question under Discussion. Corresponding to this discourse function, corpus evidence suggests that the particle requires a clear indication of focus in its scope even in non-restrictive modifiers which are associated with root properties.
BibTeX: @incollection{Viesel2016, author = {Yvonne Viesel}, title = {Discourse particles “embedded”: German ja in adjectival phrases}, booktitle = {Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, year = {2016}, pages = {173--202}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110497151-008}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110497151-008} }
Zeevat, H.	A dynamic approach to discourse particles [BibTeX]	2005	Vol. 1Approaches to Discourse Particles, pp. 133-148	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Zeevat2005, author = {Henk Zeevat}, title = {A dynamic approach to discourse particles}, booktitle = {Approaches to Discourse Particles}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2005}, volume = {1}, pages = {133-148} }
Zeevat, H. and Jasinskaja, E.	'And' as an Additive Particle [BibTeX]	2007	Language, Representation and Reasoning. Memorial volume to Isabel Gómez Txurruka, pp. 315-340	incollection	URL
BibTeX: @incollection{Zeevat2007a, author = {Henk Zeevat and Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {'And' as an Additive Particle}, booktitle = {Language, Representation and Reasoning. Memorial volume to Isabel Gómez Txurruka}, publisher = {University of the Basque Country Press}, year = {2007}, pages = {315-340}, url = {https://idsl1.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/IDSLI/dozentenseiten/Jasinskaja/zeevat_jasinskaja_2007.pdf} }
Zeevat, H. and Jasinskaja, E.	Explaining Additive, Adversative and Contrast Marking in Russian and English [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique Vol. 24, pp. 65-91	article	URL
Abstract: The functional space covered by the conjunctions and and but in English is divided between three conjunctions in Russian: i ‘and,’ a ‘and, but’ and no ‘but.’ We analyse these markers as topic management devices, i.e. they impose different kinds of constraints on the discourse topics (questions under discussion) addressed by their conjuncts. This paper gives a detailed review of the observations from descriptive literature on the distribution of these markers in light of the proposed underlying classification of questions, and shows that our theoretical approach provides a uniform explanation to a large variety of their uses, as well as to the existing equivalences and nonequivalences between the Russian and the English counterparts.
BibTeX: @article{Zeevat2008, author = {Henk Zeevat and Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {Explaining Additive, Adversative and Contrast Marking in Russian and English}, journal = {Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique}, year = {2008}, volume = {24}, pages = {65-91}, url = {https://dslc.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/dslc/katja_files/jasinskaja_zeevat_2008.pdf} }
Zimmermann, M.	Discourse Particles [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2011	Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning	incollection	URL
Abstract: The article gives an overview of the distribution and interpretation of discourse particles. Semantically, these expressions contribute only to the expressive content of an utterance, and not to its core propositional content. The expressive nature of discourse particles accounts for their taking scope over question and imperative operators and over structured propositions, setting them apart from modal auxiliaries and adverbs. Discourse particles are distinguished from other discourse-structuring elements by their specifi c semantic function of conveying information concerning the epistemic states of discourse participants. A discussion of German discourse particles identifi es three semantic core functions: (i.) the proposition expressed is marked as part of the Common Ground (ja); (ii.) it is marked as not activated with one of the discourse participants (doch); (iii.) the commitment to the proposition expressed is weakened (wohl). Further topics discussed are the interaction of discourse-particles with sentence types, secondary pragmatic effects (politeness, surprise, indirect speech acts), and the feasibility of a surface-compositional analysis and its problems. The article concludes with a brief cross-linguistic survey that shows that discourse particles are in languages across the world.
Comment: Check the page numbers in the physical copy!
BibTeX: @incollection{Zimmermann2011, author = {Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Discourse Particles}, booktitle = {Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning}, publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter}, year = {2011}, url = {https://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/ zimmermann/papers/MZ2011-Particles-HSK.pdf} }
Zimmermann, M.	Contrastive discourse particles in German: Effects of information-structure and modality [Comment] [BibTeX]	2011	Talk Handout	misc
Comment: No further publications
BibTeX: @misc{Zimmermann2011a, author = {Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Contrastive discourse particles in German: Effects of information-structure and modality}, year = {2011}, note = {Handout from a talk at MOSS 2, Institute of Russian Language at the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow} }