Retrieving Meaning

Author	Title	Year	Journal/Proceedings	Reftype	DOI/URL
Asher, N.	Discourse Topic [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Theoretical Linguistics Vol. 30, pp. 163-202	article	DOI
Comment: Asher is critical of the idea that there is a given Topic of discourse (intuitively serving the role of the QUD in Roberts 1996. See the replies by Kehler, Oberlander, Stede and Zeevat (listed here), and Ashers response Asher2004b. Asher’s work with Alex Lascarides (see Asher & Lascarides 2003 and other papers cited in section 6.1) represents one of the most detailed, extended investigations of pragmatic phenomena in the literature, based on a wedding of Rhetorical Structure Theory with Structured Discourse Representation Theory, and worked out in careful formal detail.
BibTeX: @article{Asher2004, author = {Nicholas Asher}, title = {Discourse Topic}, journal = {Theoretical Linguistics}, year = {2004}, volume = {30}, pages = {163-202}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.163} }
Asher, N.	Troubles with Topics: Comments on Kehler, Oberlander, Stede and Zeevat [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2004	Theoretical Linguistics Vol. 30, pp. 255-262	article	DOI
Abstract: I am very honored and very grateful to receive the peer commentaries by Andy Kehler, Jon Oberlander, Manfred Stede and Henk Zeevat. on my article, ‘Discourse Topic’. My comments on their replies divide neatly into two parts: Topic and Anti-Topic. Since most of my commentators are critical of discourse topics, the second section will be a lot longer than the first.
BibTeX: @article{Asher2004b, author = {Nicholas Asher}, title = {Troubles with Topics: Comments on Kehler, Oberlander, Stede and Zeevat}, journal = {Theoretical Linguistics}, year = {2004}, volume = {30}, pages = {255-262}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.255} }
Benz, A. and Jasinskaja, K.	Questions Under Discussion: From Sentence to Discourse [Comment] [BibTeX]	2017	Discourse Processes Vol. 54(3), pp. 177-186	article	DOI URL
Comment: Introduction to the 2017 Special Issue of Discourse Processes on the QUD.
BibTeX: @article{Benz2017, author = {Anton Benz and Katja Jasinskaja}, title = {Questions Under Discussion: From Sentence to Discourse}, journal = {Discourse Processes}, publisher = {Routledge}, year = {2017}, volume = {54}, number = {3}, pages = {177-186}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1316038} }
Biezma, M.	Only One At Least: Refining the Role of Discourse in Building Alternatives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 19(1)	article	URL
Abstract: In this paper I provide an analysis of at least that derives the epistemic and concessive interpretations of utterances containing at least (discussed in Nakanishi & Rullmann 2009) from a single denotation. I propose that the presence of at least merely indicates that the prejacent is considered within a scale in which there are higher alternatives (which may or may not be true given what we know) and lower alternatives. I further argue that the different alternatives in the scale as well as the ordering relation need not be lexically generated but can be contextually provided. This is cashed out by making use of a discourse model.
BibTeX: @article{Biezma2013, author = {Mará Biezma}, title = {Only One At Least: Refining the Role of Discourse in Building Alternatives}, journal = {University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics}, year = {2013}, volume = {19}, number = {1}, url = {https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol19/iss1/3} }
Champollion, L., Bumford, D. and Henderson, R.	Donkeys under discussion [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 12(1), pp. 1-50	article	DOI
Abstract: Donkey sentences have existential and universal readings, but they are not often perceived as ambiguous. We extend the pragmatic theory of non-maximality in plural definites by Križ (2016) to explain how hearers use Questions under Discussion to fix the interpretation of donkey sentences in context. We propose that the denotations of such sentences involve truth-value gaps — in certain scenarios the sentences are neither true nor false — and demonstrate that Križ’s pragmatic theory fills these gaps to generate the standard judgments of the literature. Building on Muskens’s (1996) Compositional Discourse Representation Theory and on ideas from supervaluation semantics, we define a general schema for dynamic quantification that delivers the required truth-value gaps. Given the independently motivated pragmatic theory of Križ 2016, we argue that mixed readings of donkey sentences require neither plural information states, contra Brasoveanu 2008, 2010, nor error states, contra Champollion 2016, nor singular donkey pronouns with plural referents, contra Krifka 1996, Yoon 1996. We also show that the pragmatic account improves over alternatives like Kanazawa 1994 that attribute the readings of donkey sentences to the monotonicity properties of the embedding quantifier.
BibTeX: @article{Champollion2019, author = {Lucas Champollion and Dylan Bumford and Robert Henderson}, title = {Donkeys under discussion}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2019}, volume = {12}, number = {1}, pages = {1--50}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.1} }
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} }
Cummins, C.	Contextual Causes of Implicature Failure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2017	Discourse Processes Vol. 54(3), pp. 207-218	article	DOI URL
Abstract: Theoretical and empirical research on quantity implicature has concurred that pragmatically strengthened, richer readings are not available when they are not relevant to the discourse purpose. However, this claim relies on an appeal to a notion of “relevance” that has proved difficult to make precise. In this article I discuss and contrast two potential contributory factors to relevance: adherence to the Question Under Discussion, and form-based priming effects. The former can be considered to operate at a relatively high level of analysis, from the speaker's perspective, and influences the semantic content that the speaker should be attempting to convey, whereas the latter is assumed to reflect low-level psychological preferences and influences the form of words that the speaker should use. I argue that pragmatics, and specifically implicature, constitutes a useful testbed for distinguishing these effects—the availability of an implicature can be used as an indicator that a particular stronger alternative would also have been an acceptable utterance, whereas its unavailability suggests that the stronger alternative would not necessarily have been acceptable. I discuss recent experimental data from this perspective and argue that both Question Under Discussion and priming effects are customarily at play. I conclude by exploring the implications of this for our view of pragmatics and its interfaces.
BibTeX: @article{Cummins2017, author = {Chris Cummins}, title = {Contextual Causes of Implicature Failure}, journal = {Discourse Processes}, publisher = {Routledge}, year = {2017}, volume = {54}, number = {3}, pages = {207-218}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1142331}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1142331} }
Espinal, M. and Tubau, S.	Response Systems: The Syntax and Semantics of Fragment Answers and Response Particles [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Annual Review of Linguistics Vol. 5, pp. 261-287	article	DOI
Abstract: This article critically reviews the main research issues raised in the study of response systems in natural languages by addressing the syntax and semantics of fragment answers and yes/no response particles. Fragment answers include replies that do not have a sentential form, whereas response particles consist solely of an affirmative or a negative adverb. While the main research question in the syntax of fragments and response particles has been whether these contain more syntactic structure than what is actually pronounced, the key issues in the study of their semantics are question–answer congruence, the anaphoric potential of response particles, and the meaning of fragments in relation to positive and negative questions. In connection to these issues, this review suggests some interesting avenues for further research: (a) providing an analysis of particles other than yes/no, (b) choosing between echoic versus nonechoic forms as answers to polar questions, and (c) deciding whether some non-lexically-based or nonverbal responses are systematically used in combination with polar particles to express (dis)agreement.
BibTeX: @article{Espinal2019, author = {M.Teresa Espinal and Susagna Tubau}, title = {Response Systems: The Syntax and Semantics of Fragment Answers and Response Particles}, journal = {Annual Review of Linguistics}, year = {2019}, volume = {5}, pages = {261-287}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012613} }
García-Carpintero, M.	Contexts as Shared Commitments [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 6	article	DOI
Abstract: Contemporary semantics assumes two influential notions of context: one coming from Kaplan (1989), on which contexts are sets of predetermined parameters, and another originating in Stalnaker (1978), on which contexts are sets of propositions that are “common ground.” The latter is deservedly more popular, given its flexibility in accounting for context-dependent aspects of language beyond manifest indexicals, such as epistemic modals, predicates of taste, and so on and so forth; in fact, properly dealing with demonstratives (perhaps ultimately all indexicals) requires that further flexibility. Even if we acknowledge Lewis (1980)'s point that, in a sense, Kaplanian contexts already include common ground contexts, it is better to be clear and explicit about what contexts constitutively are. Now, Stalnaker (1978, 2002, 2014) defines context-as-common-ground as a set of propositions, but recent work shows that this is not an accurate conception. The paper explains why, and provides an alternative. The main reason is that several phenomena (presuppositional treatments of pejoratives and predicates of taste, forces other than assertion) require that the common ground includes non-doxastic attitudes such as appraisals, emotions, etc. Hence the common ground should not be taken to include merely contents (propositions), but those together with attitudes concerning them: shared commitments, as I will defend.
BibTeX: @article{GarciaCarpintero2015, author = {Manuel García-Carpintero}, title = {Contexts as Shared Commitments}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, year = {2015}, volume = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01932} }
Ginzburg, J.	An Update Semantics for Dialogue [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	1994	Proceedings of the Tilburg International Wokshop on Computational Semantics	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: In this paper I provide a situation theoretic update semantics for dialogue motivated, in part, by concerns of ellipsis resolution in phrasal utterances, and based on the notion of a dialogue game (Hamblin 1970, Carlson 1983, Houghton and Isard 1986). I offer arguments that the rules for dialogue updating need to make reference to the existence of distinct versions of the conversational scoreboard (Stalnaker 1978, Lewis 1979), relativised to each dialogue participant. The leading idea is that taking a sufficiently structured view of the common ground enables us to characterize the potential for discussion at any given point in the conversation. In particular, I show how the potential for grounding moves (Clark and Schaefer 1989) and side sequences (Sacks and Schegloff 1973) can be explained from principles characterising assertion and querying.
Comment: Ginzburg independently proposes that the question under discussion is an organizing factor in discourse. This idea is extended in the other papers listed just below, and especially in Ginzburg (2012), where he focuses on the ramifications for this approach in the treatment of non-sentential utterances.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ginzburg1994, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {An Update Semantics for Dialogue}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the Tilburg International Wokshop on Computational Semantics}, year = {1994}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/comp-sem94.pdf?attredirects=0} }
Ginzburg, J.	Resolving Questions, I [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1995	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 18(5), pp. 459-527	article	DOI
Abstract: The paper is in two parts. In Part I, a semantics for embedded and query uses of interrogatives is put forward, couched within a situation semantics framework. Unlike many previous analyses, questions are not reductively analysed in terms of their answers. This enables us to provide a notion of an answer that resolves a question which varies across contexts relative to parameters such as goals and inferential capabilities. In Part II of the paper, extensive motivation is provided for an ontology that distinguishes propositions, questions, and facts, while at the same time the semantics provided captures an important commonality between questions and propositions: facts prove propositions and resolve questions. This commonality is exploited to provide an explanation for why predicates such as 'know' carry presuppositions such as factivity and for a novel account of the behaviour of adverbially modified predicates with interrogative, declarative and fact-nominal arguments.
BibTeX: @article{Ginzburg1995a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Resolving Questions, I}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {1995}, volume = {18}, number = {5}, pages = {459-527}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985365} }
Ginzburg, J.	Resolving Questions, II [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1995	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 18(6), pp. 567-609	article	DOI
Abstract: The paper is in two parts. In Part I, a semantics for embedded and query uses of interrogatives is put forward, couched within a situation semantics framework. Unlike many previous analyses, questions are not reductively analysed in terms of their answers. This enables us to provide a notion of an answer that resolves a question which varies across contexts relative to parameters such as goals and inferential capabilities. In Part II of the paper, extensive motivation is provided for an ontology that distinguishes propositions, questions, and facts, while at the same time the semantics provided captures an important commonality between questions and propositions: facts prove propositions and resolve questions. This commonality is exploited to provide an explanation for why predicates such as 'know' carry presuppositions such as factivity and for a novel account of the behaviour of adverbially modified predicates with interrogative, declarative and fact-nominal arguments.
BibTeX: @article{Ginzburg1995b, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Resolving Questions, II}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {1995}, volume = {18}, number = {6}, pages = {567-609}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00983299} }
Ginzburg, J.	Dynamics and the Semantics of Dialogue [Comment] [BibTeX]	1996	Vol. 1Language, Logic, and Computation	inproceedings
Comment: Can't access
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ginzburg1996, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Dynamics and the Semantics of Dialogue}, booktitle = {Language, Logic, and Computation}, publisher = {University of Chicago Press}, year = {1996}, volume = {1} }
Ginzburg, J.	Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue [Abstract] [BibTeX]	1996	Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory	incollection
Abstract: This paper focuses on the semantics of interrogative sentences and has three main parts. The first critically reviews some basic issues drawing on the recent literature. In the second, I present and motivate the outlines of a theory of questions and semantics for interrogatives. Both sections are based on work presented in much fuller detail in Ginzburg 1994a. The third section offers a dialogue setting for the theory developed in the second part.
BibTeX: @incollection{Ginzburg1996a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue}, booktitle = {Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {1996} }
Ginzburg, J.	Fragmenting Meaning: Clarification Ellipsis and Nominal Anaphora [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2001	Computing Meaning, Vol 2	incollection	URL
Abstract: In this paper, I propose to relate and effect progress in performing two tasks: first, I show how the process of utterance clarification licenses a form of ellipsis which requires meanings to be stored in the context in a highly structured fashion and to encode presuppositions concerning the structure of previously occurring utterances. With this as some motivation for a particular form of representation of the updates effected by utterances, I will turn to nominal anaphora and suggest that this can offer a basis for a view of anaphora resolution which circumvents a number of significant puzzles which plague formal semantic approaches originally designed to process text/monologue.
BibTeX: @incollection{Ginzburg2001a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Fragmenting Meaning: Clarification Ellipsis and Nominal Anaphora}, booktitle = {Computing Meaning, Vol 2}, publisher = {Kluwer}, year = {2001}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/til-iwcs3-fin.pdf?attredirects=0} }
Ginzburg, J.	Abstraction and Ontology: questions as propositional abstracts in type theory with records [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2005	Journal of Logic and Computation Vol. 15(2), pp. 113-130	article	URL
Abstract: The paper considers how to scale up dialogue protocols to multilogue, settings with multiple conversationalists. We extract two benchmarks to evaluate scaled up protocols based on the long distance resolution possibilities of nonsentential utterances in dialogue and multilogue in the British National Corpus. In light of these benchmarks, we then consider three possible transformations to dialogue protocols, inspired by Goffman’s audience taxonomy and formulated within an issue-based approach to dialogue management. We show that one such transformation yields protocols for querying and assertion that fulfill these benchmarks. We indicate how these protocols can be implemented in terms of conversational update rules.
BibTeX: @article{Ginzburg2005, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Abstraction and Ontology: questions as propositional abstracts in type theory with records}, journal = {Journal of Logic and Computation}, year = {2005}, volume = {15}, number = {2}, pages = {113-130}, url = {https://sites.google.com/site/jonathanginzburgswebsite/publications/jg-jolc05.pdf?attredirects=0} }
Ginzburg, J. and Fernández, R.	Computational Models of Dialogue [Comment] [BibTeX]	2010	Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing	incollection	URL
Comment: A description of the main issues surrounding dialogue processing, a survey of existing computational systems, and a sketch of solutions within KoS.
BibTeX: @incollection{Ginzburg2010, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Raquel Fernández}, title = {Computational Models of Dialogue}, booktitle = {Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {2010}, url = {https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/r.fernandezrovira/papers/2010/gf09.pdf} }
Ginzburg, J.	Questions: Logic and Interaction [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd Edition	incollection	URL
Abstract: This update to Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof’s 1997 article focuses on the two main areas of logico-linguistic research on questions recently: first, the logic and ontology of questions—what are questions and how do they relate to other semantic entities? Second, questions in interaction— issues such as how questions affect context, why questions get asked, what range of responses—not just answers—do questions give rise to. The boundaries between these two areas is somewhat artificial and, therefore, not easy to demarcate, particularly in an era where meanings are often explicated in terms of context change. A brief indication of other research in the area is provided before the concluding remarks.
BibTeX: @incollection{Ginzburg2010a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {Questions: Logic and Interaction}, booktitle = {Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd Edition}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2010}, url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259810798_Questions_logic_and_interaction} }
Ginzburg, J.	How to resolve how to [BibTeX]	2011	Knowing How: Essays on Mind, Knowledge, and Action	incollection	DOI
BibTeX: @incollection{Ginzburg2011, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {How to resolve how to}, booktitle = {Knowing How: Essays on Mind, Knowledge, and Action}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195389364.003.0009} }
Ginzburg, J.	The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2012		book	DOI
Abstract: This book presents one of the first attempts at developing a precise, grammatically rooted, theory of conversation motivated by data from real conversations. The theory has descriptive reach from the micro-conversational -- e.g. self-repair at the word level -- to macro-level phenomena such as multi-party conversation and the characterization of distinct conversational genres. It draws on extensive corpus studies of the British National Corpus, on evidence from language acquisition, and on computer simulations of language evolution. The theory provides accounts of the opening, middle game, and closing stages of conversation. It also offers a new perspective on traditional semantic concerns such as quantification and anaphora. The Interactive Stance challenges orthodox views of grammar by arguing that, unless we wish to exclude from analysis a large body of frequently occurring words and constructions, the right way to construe grammar is as a system that characterizes types of talk in interaction.
BibTeX: @book{Ginzburg2012, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg}, title = {The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2012}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001} }
Ginzburg, J. and Moradlou, S.	The Earliest Utterances in Dialogue: Towards a Formal Theory of Parent/Child Talk in Interaction [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Proceedings of SemDial 2013 (DialDam)	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: Early, initial utterances by children have received relatively little attention from researchers on language acquisition and almost no attempts to describe them using a formal grammar. In this paper we develop a taxonomy for such utterances, inspired by a study of the Providence corpus from CHILDES and driven by the need to describe how the contents of early child utterances arise from an interaction of form and dialogical context. The results of our corpus study demonstrate that even at this early stage quite intricate semantic mechanisms are in play, including non-referential meaning, akin to non–specific readings of quantifiers. We sketch a formal framework for describing the dialogue context and grammar that underlies such utterances. We consider very briefly and informally how some such utterances emerge from parent/child interaction.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ginzburg2013a, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Sara Moradlou}, title = {The Earliest Utterances in Dialogue: Towards a Formal Theory of Parent/Child Talk in Interaction}, booktitle = {Proceedings of SemDial 2013 (DialDam)}, year = {2013}, url = {http://www.illc.uva.nl/semdial/dialdam/papers/GinzburgMoradlou_dialdam.pdf} }
Glanzberg, M.	About Convention and Grammar [BibTeX]	2018	Vol. 2018Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics, pp. 230-260	incollection
BibTeX: @incollection{Glanzberg2018, author = {Glanzberg, Michael}, title = {About Convention and Grammar}, booktitle = {Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, year = {2018}, volume = {2018}, pages = {230--260} }
Grindrod, J. and Borg, E.	Questions Under Discussion and the Semantics/Pragmatics Divide [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 69(275), pp. 418-426	article	DOI URL
Abstract: The ‘question under discussion’ (or ‘QUD’) framework is a pragmatic framework that draws on work in the semantics of questions to provide an appealing account of a range of pragmatic phenomena, including the use of prosodic focus in English and restrictions on acceptable discourse moves. More recently, however, a number of proposals have attempted to use the framework to help to settle issues at the semantics/pragmatics boundary, fixing the truth-conditions of what is said by a speaker (which many theorists take to be a semantic matter). In this discussion piece, we suggest that this kind of putative extension of the work to be done by the QUD framework is illegitimate, as the framework ultimately seems to depend on a prior grip on semantic content. To see this, we first outline the QUD framework and then raise our concern.
BibTeX: @article{Grindrod2019, author = {Grindrod, Jumbly and Borg, Emma}, title = {Questions Under Discussion and the Semantics/Pragmatics Divide}, journal = {The Philosophical Quarterly}, year = {2019}, volume = {69}, number = {275}, pages = {418-426}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqy058}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqy058} }
Groenendijk, J. and Roelofsen, F.	Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2009	Meaning, Content, and Argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric.	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: This paper starts with an informal introduction to inquisitive semantics. After that, we present a formal definition of the semantics, and introduce the basic semantic notions of inquisitiveness and informativeness, in terms of wich we define the semantic categories of questions, assertions, and hybrid sentences. The focus of this paper will be on the logical pragmatical notions that the semantics gives rise to. We introduce and motivate inquisitive versions of principles of cooperation, which direct a conversation towards enhancement of the common ground. We define a notion of compliance, which judges relatedness of one utterance to another, and a notion of homogeneity, which enables quantitative comparison of compliant moves. We end the paper with an illustration of the cooperative way in which implicatures are established, or cancelled, in inquisitive pragmatics.
Comment: Groenendijk and his colleagues are exploring the logical structure of the relationships between questions and assertions in discourse, assuming that questions are central, much as in Roberts (1996). See also many related papers at: www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Groenendijk2009, author = {Jeroen Groenendijk and Floris Roelofsen}, title = {Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics}, booktitle = {Meaning, Content, and Argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric.}, year = {2009}, url = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/348/1/PP-2009-18.text.pdf} }
Grosz, B. and Sidner, C.	Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	1986	Computational Linguistics Vol. 12, pp. 175-204	article	URL
Abstract: In this paper we explore a new theory of discourse structure that stresses the role of purpose and processing in discourse. In this theory, discourse structure is composed of three separate but interrelated components: the structure of the sequence of utterances (called the linguistic structure), a structure of purposes (called the intentional structure), and the state of focus of attention (called the attentional state). The linguistic structure consists of segments of the discourse into which the utterances naturally aggregate. The intentional structure captures the discourse-relevant purposes, expressed in each of the linguistic segments as well as relationships among them. The attentional state is an abstraction of the focus of attention of the participants as the discourse unfolds. The attentional state, being dynamic, records the objects, properties, and relations that are salient at each point of the discourse. The distinction among these components is essential to provide an adequate explanation of such discourse phenomena as cue phrases, referring expressions, and interruptions. The theory of attention, intention, and aggregation of utterances is illustrated in the paper with a number of example discourses. Various properties of discourse are described, and explanations for the behavior of cue phrases, referring expressions, and interruptions are explored. This theory provides a framework for describing the processing of utterances in a discourse. Discourse processing requires recognizing how the utterances of the discourse aggregate into segments, recognizing the intentions expressed in the discourse and the relationships among intentions, and tracking the discourse through the operation of the mechanisms associated with attentional state. This processing description specifies in these recognition tasks the role of information from the discourse and from the participants' knowledge of the domain.
Comment: Grosz and Sidner’s conception of the intentional structure of discourse was an important source for the intentional structure for the context of utterance proposed by Roberts 1996, 2004, 2011.
BibTeX: @article{Grosz1986, author = {Barbara Grosz and Candice Sidner}, title = {Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse}, journal = {Computational Linguistics}, year = {1986}, volume = {12}, pages = {175-204}, url = {https://aclanthology.org/J86-3001.pdf} }
von Heusinger, K., Gaspar, V.O. and Zimmermann, M.	Questions in Discourse: Volume 1: Semantics [BibTeX]	2019		book	DOI URL
BibTeX: @book{Heusinger2019, author = {Klaus von Heusinger and V.Edgar Onea Gaspar and Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Questions in Discourse: Volume 1: Semantics}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, url = {https://brill.com/view/title/38728}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378308} }
Ippolito, M.	How similar is similar enough? [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2016	Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 9(6)	article	DOI
Abstract: I investigate the issue of the context-dependence of counterfactual conditionals and how the context constrains similarity in selecting the right set of worlds necessary to arrive at the correct truth-conditions. I propose that similarity is constrained by what I call Consistency and Non-Triviality. Assuming a model of the discourse along the lines proposed by Roberts (2012) and Büring (2003), according to which conversational moves are answers to often implicit questions under discussion, the idea behind Non-Triviality is that a counterfactual statement answers a conditional question under discussion and, therefore, is required to make a non-trivial assertion. I show that non-accidental generalizations which have often been taken to play an important role in the interpretation of counterfactuals, are crucial in selecting which conditional question is under discussion, and I propose a formal mechanism to identify the relevant question under discussion.
BibTeX: @article{Ippolito2016, author = {Michela Ippolito}, title = {How similar is similar enough?}, journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics}, publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}, year = {2016}, volume = {9}, number = {6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.6} }
Jasinkaja, E.	Pragmatics and Prosody of Implicit Discourse Relations [Comment] [BibTeX]	2007	School: University of Tübingen	phdthesis	URL
Comment: Jasinskaja proposes that we can derive rhetorical relations via mediation by the topical (QUD) structure of discourse. She investigates this idea in detail, considering a variety of cues to and defaults for this structure that determine the defaults in rhetorical relations, as well as constraining what the topical structure itself can felicitously be. The next paper presents an abbreviated version of this approach.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Jasinkaja2007, author = {Ekaterina Jasinkaja}, title = {Pragmatics and Prosody of Implicit Discourse Relations}, school = {University of Tübingen}, year = {2007}, url = {https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/46380/pdf/thesis_5.04.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y} }
Jasinkaja, E.	Modelling Discourse Relations by Topics and Implicatures: The Elaboration Default [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2010	Constraints in Discourse 2	incollection	DOI
Abstract: This paper develops a theoretical approach that derives the semantic effects of discourse relations from the general pragmatic default priciples of exhaustivity—a kind of Gricean Quantity implicature—and topic continuity. In particular, these defaults lead to the inference of relations such as Elaboration, while other discourse relations, e.g. Narration and List are predicted to be ‘non-default’ and must be signalled, which contrasts with common assumptions in discourse theory. The present paper discusses some observations on the use of connectives and intonation in spontaneous speech which suggest that at least intonational signalling of such relations is obligatory.
BibTeX: @incollection{Jasinkaja2010, author = {Ekaterina Jasinkaja}, title = {Modelling Discourse Relations by Topics and Implicatures: The Elaboration Default}, booktitle = {Constraints in Discourse 2}, publisher = {John Benjamins}, year = {2010}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.194.04jas} }
Kadmon, N.	Formal Pragmatics [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2001		book
Abstract: Formal Pragmatics addresses issues that are on the borderline of semantics and pragmatics of natural language, from the point of view of a model-theoretic semanticist. This up-to-date resource covers a substantial body of formal work on linguistic phenomena, and presents the way the semantics-pragmatics interface has come to be viewed today.
Comment: Kadmon works through the basics of Heim’s File Change Semantics and Kamp’s Discourse Representation Theory, using them as the foundations of a general formal theory of pragmatics. She illustrates this approach with detailed discussions of scalar implicature, presupposition projection and the role of prosodic focus in interpretation.
BibTeX: @book{Kadmon2001, author = {Nirit Kadmon}, title = {Formal Pragmatics}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, year = {2001} }
Kehler, A.	Discourse Topics, Sentence Topics, and Coherence [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Theoretical Linguistics Vol. 30(2-3), pp. 227-240	article	DOI
Comment: A response to Asher (2004). Kehler questions whether the notion of discourse topic is emergent from discourse coherence.
BibTeX: @article{Kehler2004, author = {Andrew Kehler}, title = {Discourse Topics, Sentence Topics, and Coherence}, journal = {Theoretical Linguistics}, year = {2004}, volume = {30}, number = {2-3}, pages = {227-240}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.227} }
Krifka, M.	Basic Notions of Information Structure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2008	Acta Linguistica Hungarica Vol. 55, pp. 243-276	article
Abstract: This article takes stock of the basic notions of Information Structure (IS). It first provides a general characterization of IS—following Chafe (1976)—within a communicative model of Common Ground (CG), which distinguishes between CG content and CG management. IS is concerned with those features of language that affect the local CG. Second, this paper defines and discusses the notions of Focus (as indicating alternatives) and its various uses, Givenness (as indicating that a denotation is already present in the CG), and Topic (as specifying what a statement is about). It also proposes a new notion, Delimitation, which comprises contrastive topics and frame setters, and indicates that the current conversational move does not entirely satisfy the local communicative needs. It also points out that rhetorical structuring partly belongs to IS.
BibTeX: @article{Krifka2008, author = {Manfred Krifka}, title = {Basic Notions of Information Structure}, journal = {Acta Linguistica Hungarica}, year = {2008}, volume = {55}, pages = {243-276} }
Martin, F.	Restrictive vs. nonrestrictive modification and evaluative predicates [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2014	Lingua Vol. 149, pp. 34-54	article	DOI
Abstract: Evaluative adjectives have often been claimed to manifest a strong, and even exclusive, preference for the nonrestrictive reading (henceforth the ‘nonrestrictive bias’ of evaluative adjectives). For those languages like French that allow both the post and pre-head positions for at least a subset of their adjectives, a frequent observation reported in support of this claim is that evaluative adjectives are often odd in post-nominal position. The argument relies on what has been called the complementarity hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that pre-head modifiers receive a nonrestrictive interpretation in Romance, while post-head modifiers receive a restrictive interpretation. An immediate problem for this argument is that evaluatives do appear in postnominal positions in corpora. One of the goals of this paper is to reconcile these data with the nonrestrictive bias and the complementarity hypothesis. The idea pursued is that a modifier can either be (non)restrictive according to the standard definitions, which are purely extensional, or be (non)restrictive with respect to a particular modal base α (thus, α-restrictive vs. α-nonrestrictive). Being restrictive or α- restrictive (respectively nonrestrictive or α-nonrestrictive) allows the modifier to appear in the post-head (respectively pre-head) position. In section 2, we recall the standard (purely extensional) definitions of (non)restrictivity. We then show that these definitions cannot distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers in a number of contexts, e.g. in non-partitive indefinites. In section 2.3, we introduce modal definitions of (non)restrictivity that solve the problem. Section 3 identifies the contexts in which evaluative adjectives can appear in post-nominal position and explains why, on the basis of the definitions of (α)-(non)restrictivity built in previous sections. The analysis proposed is compared with two previous accounts of the nonrestrictive bias of evaluative predicates.
BibTeX: @article{Martin2014, author = {Fabienne Martin}, title = {Restrictive vs. nonrestrictive modification and evaluative predicates}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2014}, volume = {149}, pages = {34--54}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.002} }
de Moura Menuzzi, S., Silva, M.C.F. and Doetjes, J.	Subject Bare Singulars in Brazilian Portuguese and Information Structure [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Journal of Portuguese Linguistics Vol. 14	article	DOI
Abstract: This paper contributes to the debate on the semantics of bare singular nouns (BSNs) in Brazilian Portuguese by looking at the restrictions on their use as subjects. After a reassessment of the literature (e.g., Schmitt & Munn 1999, Müller 2000, Pires et al. 2010), we propose the following descriptive picture: BSN subjects are unconstrained in generic sentences, and somehow constrained with kind predicates and in episodic sentences. The literature has suggested that the constraints in episodic sentences have to do with information structure (e.g., Pires de Oliveira & Mariano 2010, Pires de Oliveira 2012). We submit this suggestion to scrutiny and demonstrate it is not information structure itself that is crucial. Episodic sentences with BSN subjects are utterances about kinds (under an “incompletely involved reading”, cf. Landman 1989) and must be ‘contextually relevant’ (cf. Roberts 1996). We then investigate BSN subjects of generic sentences, argued to be necessarily topics, which would support their analysis as unselective bound indefinites (Müller 2002a, 2004). We show that BSN subjects of generic sentences are not necessarily topics; moreover, they can actually have “incompletely involved kind readings”. We conclude that our results provide support to a kind-denoting analysis of BSNs in Brazilian Portuguese, as proposed by Pires de Oliveira & Rothstein (2011).
BibTeX: @article{MouraMenuzzi2015, author = {Sérgio de Moura Menuzzi and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva and Jenny Doetjes}, title = {Subject Bare Singulars in Brazilian Portuguese and Information Structure}, journal = {Journal of Portuguese Linguistics}, year = {2015}, volume = {14}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.56} }
Oberlander, J.	On the Reduction of Discourse Topic [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Theoretical Linguistics Vol. 30(2-3), pp. 213-225	article	DOI
Comment: This paper explores the possibility of minimising the role of discourse topic. It is a response to Asher (2004).
BibTeX: @article{Oberlander2004, author = {Jon Oberlander}, title = {On the Reduction of Discourse Topic}, journal = {Theoretical Linguistics}, year = {2004}, volume = {30}, number = {2-3}, pages = {213-225}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.213} }
Agha, O. and Warstadt, A.	Non-resolving responses to polar questions: A revision to the QUD theory of relevance [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2020	Vol. 24(1)Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung	inproceedings
Abstract: The influential Question Under Discussion (QUD) theory of discourse (Roberts, 2012) formalizes Grice’s notion of relevance. In this paper, we identify a class of relevant discourse moves where Roberts’s account undergenerates, and propose a more inclusive definition of relevance. For example, if asked Should we cancel the picnic?, one can reply If it rains without fully resolving the question. However, in Roberts’s theory, all relevant responses to polar questions are predicted to fully resolve the question because a relevant answer must eliminate at least one alternative in the QUD. We propose that a non-resolving response to a polar question is relevant if it eliminates a set of worlds that overlaps with only some alternatives in the QUD. The new account turns out to make good predictions in the domain of polar questions, and beyond.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Omar2020, author = {Omar Agha and Alex Warstadt}, title = {Non-resolving responses to polar questions: A revision to the QUD theory of relevance}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2020}, volume = {24}, number = {1} }
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} }
Onea, E. and Zimmermann, M.	Questions in Discourse: an Overview [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Questions in Discourse, pp. 5 - 117	incollection	DOI URL
Abstract: Recently, questions have become a very prominent topic at the semantics-pragmatics interface. A wide range of papers on the semantics and pragmatics of natural language as well as discourse structure have been published that – in some way or another – use or presuppose important assumptions about questions. With this background, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the recent literature concerning the semantics and pragmatics of questions. In particular, the paper provides a short introduction to the formal semantic analysis of questions and it gives an overview and critical evaluation of the main topics of current research on questions at the semantics-pragmatics interface. The central purpose of this overview is to make it easier for readers to access current research on the semantics and pragmatics of question, information structure and discourse structure, projection and at-issueness as well as the semantics and pragmatics of discourse particles, and to situate these within the current state-of-the-art in question research. We expect this overview to be of particular use to scholars new to the field, but because of its wide coverage of empirical phenomena and analytical tools, the overview should provide useful for experts in the field as well.
BibTeX: @incollection{Onea2019, author = {Edgar Onea and Malte Zimmermann}, title = {Questions in Discourse: an Overview}, booktitle = {Questions in Discourse}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, pages = {5 - 117}, url = {https://brill.com/view/book/9789004378308/BP000002.xml}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378308_003} }
Ott, D. and Onea, E.	On the form and meaning of appositives [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Vol. 45Proceedings of NELS, pp. 203-212	inproceedings	URL
Abstract: [Summary from Introduction] First, we show that NAPs come in two basic types: specificational and predicational. We then argue that NAPs of either type are elliptical root clauses. The internal syntax of NAPs is thus equivalent to other ellipsis fragments, such as short answers or the tag in split questions (Merchant 2004, Arregi 2010). Concerning their external syntax, we argue that NAPs bear no syntactic relation to their host clauses; rather, they are interpolated into their hosts only in expression in discourse, where they function as answers to potential questions. That is, NAPs are not structurally related to their hosts (pace Potts 2005, De Vries 2007, O’Connor 2008, Heringa 2012), but rhetorically in discourse.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Ott2015, author = {Ott, Dennis and Onea, Edgar}, title = {On the form and meaning of appositives}, booktitle = {Proceedings of NELS}, year = {2015}, volume = {45}, pages = {203--212}, url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edgar-Onea/publication/321304042_On_the_form_and_meaning_of_appositives/links/5a1b028da6fdcc50adec7d90/On-the-form-and-meaning-of-appositives.pdf} }
Rawlins, K.	(Un)conditionals [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Natural Language Semantics Vol. 21(2), pp. 111-178	article	DOI
Abstract: I give an account of the compositional semantics of unconditionals (e.g. Whoever goes to the party, it will be fun) that explains their relationship to if -conditionals in the Lewis/Kratzer/Heim tradition. Unconditionals involve an alternative-denoting adjunct (in English in particular, a question-denoting adjunct) that supplies domain restrictions pointwise (in the sense of Hamblin) to a main-clause operator such as a modal. The differences from if -clauses follow from the structure of the adjuncts; both are conditionals in the Lewisian sense. In the course of treating unconditionals, I provide a concrete implementation of conditionals where conditional adjuncts in general are a species of correlative, and show what detaching this hypothesis from if involves.
BibTeX: @article{Rawlins2013, author = {Kyle Rawlins}, title = {(Un)conditionals}, journal = {Natural Language Semantics}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2013}, volume = {21}, number = {2}, pages = {111--178}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0} }
Riester, A.	Constructing QUD Trees [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2019	Questions in Discourse, pp. 164 - 193	incollection	DOI URL
Abstract: We discuss and combine representation formats for discourse structure, in particular ‘d-trees’ from QUD theory and SDRT graphs. QUD trees are derived from SDRT graphs, while changes must apply to QUD theory in order to allow for representations of naturalistic data. We discuss whether QUD s can replace discourse relations. We apply a new method for the identification of implicit Questions under Discussion (QUD s) to examples from an interview, and we address the status of non-at-issue content within our framework.
BibTeX: @incollection{Riester2019, author = {Arndt Riester}, title = {Constructing QUD Trees}, booktitle = {Questions in Discourse}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, pages = {164 - 193}, url = {https://brill.com/view/book/9789004378322/BP000006.xml}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_007} }
Roberts, C.	Context in Dynamic Interpretation [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2004	Handbook of Contemporary Pragmatic Theory, pp. 197-220	incollection	URL
Abstract: Here I argued for the generalized intentional structure of discourse presented in the Afterword to the 2012 version of Roberts 1996, and proposed that rhetorical relations might be thought of as particular types of strategy of inquiry.
BibTeX: @incollection{Roberts2004, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Context in Dynamic Interpretation}, booktitle = {Handbook of Contemporary Pragmatic Theory}, publisher = {Blackwell}, year = {2004}, pages = {197-220}, url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Context_in_Dynamic_Interpretation.pdf} }
Roberts, C.	Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2012	Semantics & Pragmatics Vol. 5, pp. 1-69	article	DOI
Abstract: A framework for pragmatic analysis is proposed which treats discourse as a game, with context as a scoreboard organized around the questions under discussion by the interlocutors. The framework is intended to be coordinated with a dynamic compositional semantics. Accordingly, the context of utterance is modeled as a tuple of different types of information, and the questions therein— modeled, as is usual in formal semantics, as alternative sets of propositions — constrain the felicitous flow of discourse. A requirement of Relevance is satisfied by an utterance (whether an assertion, a question or a suggestion) iff it addresses the question under discussion. Finally, it is argued that the prosodic focus of an utterance canonically serves to reflect the question under discussion (at least in English), placing additional constraints on felicity in context.
Comment: Originally published in (1996) Jae-Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol (eds.) Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 49. Published in the revised form in (1998) in Semantics and Pragmatics. This (2012) is a re-issue of the (1998) version and was followed with an afterword. A translation into Japanese was published in the Journal of the Institute of Language Research (2020) by Wataru Okubo and Hiroki Nomoto. Link here: http://www.tufs.ac.jp/common/fs/ilr/contents/ronshuu/25/jilr25_Translateion_Roberts2012-jpn.pdf
BibTeX: @article{Roberts2012, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics}, journal = {Semantics & Pragmatics}, year = {2012}, volume = {5}, pages = {1-69}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6} }
van Rooij, R.	Questioning to Resolve Decision Problems [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2003	Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 26, pp. 727-763	article	DOI
Abstract: Why do we ask questions? Because we want to have some information. But why this particular kind of information? Because only information of this particular kind is helpful to resolve the decision problem that the agent faces. In this paper I argue that questions are asked because their answers help to resolve the questioner’s decision problem, and that this assumption helps us to interpret interrogative sentences. Interrogative sentences are claimed to have a semantically underspecified meaning and this underspecification is resolved by means of the decision problem.
Comment: van Rooij’s general approach to interpretation in discourse is based on Game Theory, and the assumption that interlocutors in discourse are engaged in a game. The overall body of work offers an extended exploration of the utility of game theory in the investigation of pragmatic issues. See references to the work of van Rooij and his colleagues in all of sections 2-9 below.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2003, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Questioning to Resolve Decision Problems}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {2003}, volume = {26}, pages = {727-763}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000004548.98658.8f} }
van Rooij, R.	Asserting to Resolve Decision Problems [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 35, pp. 1161-1179	article	DOI
Abstract: Decision theory is used to define a notion of ‘relevance’ in terms of decision problems. Decision problems are also used to explain why attitude attributions are made. Assuming that belief attributions are made to explain unexpected actions, and that assertions have to be relevant, it is shown that potentially ambiguous, or underspecified, de re belief attributions can be disambiguated by context. The last part of the paper shows how decision problems can be used to derive conversational implicatures.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2003a, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Asserting to Resolve Decision Problems}, journal = {Journal of Pragmatics}, year = {2003}, volume = {35}, pages = {1161-1179}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00186-8} }
van Rooij, R.	Negative Polarity Items in Questions, Strength as Relevance [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Journal of Semantics Vol. 20, pp. 239-273	article	DOI
Abstract: The traditional approach towards (negative) polarity items is to answer the question in which contexts NPIs are licensed. The inspiring approaches of Kadmon & Landman (1990, 1993) (K&L) and Krifka (1990, 1992, 1995) go a major step further: they also seek to answer the question of why these contexts license NPIs. To explain the appropriate use of polarity items in questions, however, we need to answer an even more challenging question: why is a NPI used in a particular utterance in the first place? Kadmon & Landman and Krifka go some way to answer this question as well in terms of an entailment‐based notion of strength, but I seek to give the question a somewhat ‘deeper’ explanation. Strength will be though of as ‘relevance’ or ‘utility’, which only in special cases reduces to entailment. In questions, the information theoretical notion of ‘entropy’ will play a crucial role: NPIs are used in a question to increase the average informativity of its answers. To account for the rhetorical effect of the use of some NPIs in questions, I propose a domain widening analysis of so‐called ‘even NPIs’.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2003b, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Negative Polarity Items in Questions, Strength as Relevance}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2003}, volume = {20}, pages = {239-273}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/20.3.239} }
van Rooij, R.	Relevance and Bidirectional OT [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2003	Pragmatics in Optimailty Theory, pp. 173-210	incollection	DOI
Abstract: According to optimality theoretic semantics (e.g., Hendriks and de Hoop, 2001), there exists a gap between the semantic representations of sentences and the thoughts actually communicated by utterances. How should this gap be filled? The obvious answer (Grice, 1957) seems to be that the hearer should recognize what the speaker thinks that the listener understands. Because this depends in turn, in a circular way, on what the listener thinks that the speaker has in mind, a game-theoretical framework seems natural to account for such situations. Intuitively, what goes on here is a game between a speaker and a hearer, where the former chooses a form to express the intended meaning, and the latter chooses a meaning corresponding to the form. Blutner’s Bidirectional Optimality Theory (OT), based on the assumption that both speaker and hearer optimize their conversational actions seems perfectly suitable to implement this. But how can a hearer recognize the speaker’s intentions? Gricean pragmatics (1975) suggests that she can do so by assuming that the speaker is cooperative and thus obeys the conversational maxims. Sperber and Wilson (1986) have suggested that these four conversational maxims can be reduced to the single principle of optimal relevance. In this chapter I will discuss how far this can be done. I will argue that conversation involves resolving one of the participants’ decision problems.
BibTeX: @incollection{Rooij2003c, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Relevance and Bidirectional OT}, booktitle = {Pragmatics in Optimailty Theory}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, year = {2003}, pages = {173-210}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501409_8} }
van Rooij, R.	Utility of Mention-Some Questions [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2004	Research on Language and Computation Vol. 2, pp. 401-416	article	DOI
Abstract: In this paper, I argue that the ‘ambiguity’ between mention-all and mention-some readings of questions can be resolved when we relate it to the decision problem of the questioner. By relating questions to decision problems, I (i) show how we can measure the utilities of both mention-all and mention-some readings of questions, and (ii) give a natural explanation under which circumstances the mention-some reading is preferred.
BibTeX: @article{Rooij2004, author = {Robert van Rooij}, title = {Utility of Mention-Some Questions}, journal = {Research on Language and Computation}, year = {2004}, volume = {2}, pages = {401-416}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-004-1975-0} }
Sawada, O.	The degree of the speaker’s negative attitude in a goal-shifting comparison [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015	Proceedings of the 15th Texas Linguistics Society Conference	inproceedings
Abstract: The Japanese comparative expression sore-yori ‘than it’ can be used for shifting the goal of a conversation. What is interesting about goal-shifting via sore-yori is that, unlike ordinary goal-shifting with expressions like tokorode ‘by the way,’ using sore-yori often signals the speaker’s negative attitude toward the addressee. In this paper, I will investigate the meaning and use of goal-shifting comparison and consider the mechanism by which the speaker’s emotion is expressed. I will claim that the meaning of the pragmatic sore-yori conventionally implicates that the at-issue utterance is preferable to the previous utterance (cf. metalinguistic comparison (e.g. (Giannakidou & Yoon 2011))) and that the meaning of goal-shifting is derived if the goal associated with the at-issue utterance is considered irrelevant to the goal associated with the previous utterance. Moreover, I will argue that the speaker’s negative attitude is shown by the competition between the speaker’s goal and the hearer’s goal, and a strong negativity emerges if the goals are assumed to be not shared. I will also compare sore-yori to sonna koto-yori ‘than such a thing’ and show that sonna koto-yori directly expresses a strong negative attitude toward the previous utterance. This paper shows that shifting the goal (without accomplishing the previous goal) is negative/offensive in nature, and a speaker expresses various degrees of negative emotion toward a hearer in different ways, i.e., by indirect evaluation (via contrast) or direct evaluation.
BibTeX: @inproceedings{Sawada2015, author = {Osamu Sawada}, title = {The degree of the speaker’s negative attitude in a goal-shifting comparison}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 15th Texas Linguistics Society Conference}, year = {2015} }
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} }
Stede, M.	Does Discourse Processing Need Discourse Topics [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Theoretical LInguistics Vol. 30(2-3), pp. 241-253	article	DOI
Comment: A response to Asher 2004. Through considerations about explicit topics, thematic continuity, and aboutness, Stede looks at 4 potential candidates for fleshing out the notion of discourse topic.
BibTeX: @article{Stede2004, author = {Manfred Stede}, title = {Does Discourse Processing Need Discourse Topics}, journal = {Theoretical LInguistics}, year = {2004}, volume = {30}, number = {2-3}, pages = {241-253}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.241} }
Stone, M.	Communicative intentions and conversational processes in human-human and humancomputer dialogue [Abstract] [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Wold-Situated Language Use, pp. 39-70	incollection
Abstract: This chapter investigates the computational consequences of a broadly Gricean view of language use as intentional activity. In this view, dialogue rests on coordinated reasoning about communicative intentions. The speaker produces each utterance by formulating a suitable communicative intention. The hearer understands it by recognizing the communicative intention behind it. When this coordination is successful, interlocutors succeed in considering the same intentions— that is, the same representations of utterance meaning—as the dialogue proceeds. In this paper, I emphasize that these intentions can be formalized; we can provide abstract but systematic representations that spell out what a speaker is trying to do with an utterance. Such representations describe utterances simultaneously as the product of our knowledge of grammar and as actions chosen for a reason. In particular, they must characterize the speaker’s utterance in grammatical terms, provide the links to the context that the grammar requires, and so arrive at a contribution that the speaker aims to achieve. Because I have implemented this formalism, we can regard it as a possible analysis of conversational processes at the level of computational theory. Nevertheless, this analysis leaves open what the nature of the biological computation involved in inference to intentions is, and what regularities in language use support this computation.
Comment: Stone is a computer scientist who works on artificial intelligence with a special focus on how agents collaborate in linguistic interpretation. He uses tools from planning theory to show how tasks and goals come to bear on interpretation. See his work with DeVault and Thomason on presupposition accommodation (section 8 and 9 of this bibliography) and the rich body of published work on interpretation on his website: http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/ mdstone/publist-by-date.html.
BibTeX: @incollection{Stone2004, author = {Matthew Stone}, title = {Communicative intentions and conversational processes in human-human and humancomputer dialogue}, booktitle = {Wold-Situated Language Use}, publisher = {MIT Press}, year = {2004}, pages = {39-70} }
Stone, M.	Intention, Interpretation and the Computational Structure of Language [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2004	Cognitive Science Vol. 28(5), pp. 781-809	article	DOI
Abstract: I show how a conversational process that takes simple, intuitively meaningful steps may be understood as a sophisticated computation that derives the richly detailed, complex representations implicit in our knowledge of language. To develop the account, I argue that natural language is structured in a way that lets us formalize grammatical knowledge precisely in terms of rich primitives of interpretation. Primitives of interpretation can be correctly viewed intentionally, as explanations of our choices of linguistic actions; the model therefore fits our intuitions about meaning in conversation. Nevertheless, interpretations for complex utterances can be built from these primitives by simple operations of grammatical derivation. In bridging analyses of meaning at semantic and symbol-processing levels, this account underscores the fundamental place for computation in the cognitive science of language use.
BibTeX: @article{Stone2004a, author = {Matthew Stone}, title = {Intention, Interpretation and the Computational Structure of Language}, journal = {Cognitive Science}, year = {2004}, volume = {28}, number = {5}, pages = {781-809}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2805_7} }
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/} }
Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Simons, M. and Roberts, C.	Towards a Taxonomy of Projective Content [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	Language Vol. 89(1), pp. 66-109	article	URL
Abstract: Projective contents, which include presuppositional inferences and Potts’ (2005) conventional implicatures, are meanings which are projected when a construction is embedded, as standardly identified by the “Family of Sentences” diagnostic (e.g. Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet 1990). This paper establishes distinctions among projective contents on the basis of a series of diagnostics (including a variant of the Family of Sentences diagnostic) that can be used with linguistically untrained consultants. This methodological advance allows validity of generalizations to be examined cross-linguistically. We apply the diagnostics in two languages, focussing on Paraguayan Guaraní (Tupí-Guaraní), and comparing the results to those for English. Our study of Paraguayan Guaraní is the first systematic exploration of projective content in a language other than English. Based on the application of our diagnostics to a wide range of constructions, three meaningful subclasses of projective contents emerge. The resulting taxonomy of projective content has strong implications for contemporary theories of projection (e.g. Karttunen 1974; Heim 1983; van der Sandt 1992; Potts 2005; Schlenker 2009), which were developed for the projective properties of subclasses and fail to generalize to the full set of projective contents.
BibTeX: @article{Tonhauser2013, author = {Judith Tonhauser and David Beaver and Mandy Simons and Craige Roberts}, title = {Towards a Taxonomy of Projective Content}, journal = {Language}, year = {2013}, volume = {89}, number = {1}, pages = {66-109}, url = {https://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/horn/Tonhauser_etal_2011.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} }
Yanovich, I.	Four pieces for modality, context and usage [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2013	School: MIT	phdthesis	URL
Abstract: The main part of this dissertation consists of four loosely connected chapters on the semantics of modals. The chapters inform each other and employ similar methods, but generally each one is self-contained and can be read in isolation. Chapter 2 introduces new semantics for epistemic modality. I argue that the epistemic modal base consists of the propositions that can be obtained by the interlocutors early enough to affect their resolution of their current practical goal. Integrated into the standard contextualist semantics, the new definition successfully accounts for two sets of data that have been claimed to falsify standard contextualism, namely from disagreement dialogues and complements of attitude verbs. Chapter 3 traces the historical rise of the may-under-hope construction, as in I hope we may succeed. In that construction, the modal does not contribute its normal existential modal force. It turns out that despite the construction's archaic flavor in Present-Day English, it is a very recent innovation that arose not earlier than the 16th century. I put forward a hypothesis that the may-under-hope construction arose as the replacement of an earlier construction where the inflectional subjunctive under verbs of hoping was used to mark a specific type of formal hopes about good health. Chapter 4 proposes that O(ld) E(nglish) motan, the ancestor of Modern English must, was a variable-force modal somewhat similar to the variable-force modals of the American Pacific Northwest. I argue that in Alfredian OE, motan(p) presupposed that if p gets a chance to actualize, it will. I also argue that several centuries later, in the 'AB' dialect, Early Middle English moten is was genuinely ambiguous between possibility and necessity. Thus a new trajectory of semantic change is discovered: variable force, to ambiguity between possibility and necessity, to regular necessity. Chapter 5 argues that, first, restrictions on the relative scope of deontics and clausemate negation can hardly be all captured within the syntactic component, and second, that capturing some of them can be due to semantic filters on representations. I support the second claim by showing how such semantic filters on scope may arise historically, using Russian stoit 'should' and English have to as examples.
BibTeX: @phdthesis{Yanovich2013, author = {Igor Yanovich}, title = {Four pieces for modality, context and usage}, school = {MIT}, year = {2013}, url = {https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/84422} }
Zeevat, H.	Asher on Discourse Topic [Comment] [BibTeX]	2004	Theoretical Linguistics Vol. 30(2-3), pp. -211	article	DOI
Comment: A response to Asher (2004). Zeevat aims to address the question of what discourse topic could be, give an analysis of some cases of contrastive topics, and look at protagonists and anaphora.
BibTeX: @article{Zeevat2004, author = {Henk Zeevat}, title = {Asher on Discourse Topic}, journal = {Theoretical Linguistics}, year = {2004}, volume = {30}, number = {2-3}, pages = {-211}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.203} }
Zimmermann, M., von Heusinger, K. and Gaspar, V.O.	Questions in Discourse: Volume 2: Pragmatics [BibTeX]	2019		book	DOI URL
BibTeX: @book{Zimmermann2019, author = {Malte Zimmermann and Klaus von Heusinger and V.Edgar Onea Gaspar}, title = {Questions in Discourse: Volume 2: Pragmatics}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2019}, url = {https://brill.com/view/title/38729}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322} }
Tonhauser, J. and Matthewson, L.	Empirical evidence in research on meaning [Abstract] [BibTeX]	2015		unpublished	URL
Abstract: Empirical evidence is at the heart of research on natural language meaning. Surprisingly, however, discussions of what constitutes evidence in research on meaning are almost non-existent. The goal of this paper is to open the discussion by advancing a proposal about the nature of empirical evidence in research on meaning. Our proposal is based primarily on insights we and our colleagues have gained in research on under-studied languages and in quantitative research using offline measures, but we intend the proposal to cover research on natural language meaning more broadly, including research on wellstudied languages that the researcher may even control natively. Our proposal has three parts. First, we argue that a complete piece of data in research on meaning consists of a linguistic expression, a context in which the expression is uttered, a response by a native speaker to a task involving the expression in that context, and information about the native speakers that provided the responses. Incomplete pieces of data fail to satisfy our three proposed objectives that data be stable, replicable and transparent. Second, we argue that some response tasks, namely acceptability and implication judgment tasks, are better suited than others (e.g., paraphrase and translation tasks) for yielding stable, replicable and transparent pieces of data. Finally, we argue that empirical evidence for a hypothesis about meaning consists of one positive piece of data, or two pieces in minimal pair form, plus a linking hypothesis about how the piece(s) of data provide support for the meaning hypothesis. We show that different types of minimal pairs provide evidence for different types of meaning hypotheses.
BibTeX: @unpublished{, author = {Judith Tonhauser and Lisa Matthewson}, title = {Empirical evidence in research on meaning}, year = {2015}, url = {https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.730.2636&rep=rep1&type=pdf} }