| Author | Title | Year | Journal/Proceedings | Reftype | DOI/URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. | Logics of Conversation | 2003 | book | ||
| Abstract: People often mean more than they say. Grammar on its own is typically insufficient for determining the full meaning of an utterance; the assumption that the discourse is coherent or 'makes sense' has an important role to play in determining meaning as well. Logics of Conversation presents a dynamic semantic framework called Segmented Discourse Representation Theory, or SDRT, where this interaction between discourse coherence and discourse interpretation is explored in a logically precise manner. Combining ideas from dynamic semantics, commonsense reasoning and speech act theory, SDRT uses its analysis of rhetorical relations to capture intuitively compelling implicatures. It provides a computable method for constructing these logical forms and is one of the most formally precise and linguistically grounded accounts of discourse interpretation currently available. The book will be of interest to researchers and students in linguistics and in philosophy of language.
Presents a logically precise theory of discourse interpretation Offers a new way of analysing speech acts Extends dynamic semantics with insights from common sense reasoning and AI |
|||||
BibTeX:
@book{Asher2003,
author = {Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides},
title = {Logics of Conversation},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
year = {2003}
}
|
|||||
| Benz, A., Jasinskaja, K. and Salfner, F. | Implicature and discourse structure: An introduction | 2013 | Lingua Vol. 132, pp. 1-12 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: This special issue brings together two major approaches to implicated, non-literal meaning of an utterance: the Gricean theory of conversational implicature and theories of discourse macro-structure. The main questions addressed by the authors of contributed papers are whether and how implicatures of individual utterances depend on discourse context and vice versa. The purpose of this introduction is to provide the reader with necessary background on Gricean implicature, discourse structure, and the interaction between them. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Benz2013a,
author = {Anton Benz and Katja Jasinskaja and Fabienne Salfner},
title = {Implicature and discourse structure: An introduction},
journal = {Lingua},
publisher = {Elsevier},
year = {2013},
volume = {132},
pages = {1--12},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.02.002}
}
|
|||||
| Büring, D. | On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents | 2003 | Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 26(5), pp. 511-545 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive pragmatic theory ofcontrastive topic and its relation to focus in English.In discussing various constructions involving contrastive topics,it argues that they make reference to complex, hierarchicalaspects of discourse structure. In this, it follows and spellsout a proposal sketched in Roberts (1996, p. 121ff),using the formal tools found in Büring (1994,1997b). It improves on existing accounts in the accuracy with which it predicts the non-occurrence of the accent patterns associated with focus and contrastive topic, and locates the analysis of contrastive topicswithin a broader picture of discourse and information structure. | |||||
| Comment: Buering (2003) offers an influential analysis of contrastive topics like example (6) in Roberts2012a in terms of the QUD framework. He uses tree-structured discourses instead of the QUD stack, but (as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer) it isn’t clear that the distinction makes a difference empirically. See also sections 2 and 3. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Buering2003,
author = {Daniel Büring},
title = {On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents},
journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
year = {2003},
volume = {26},
number = {5},
pages = {511-545},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652}
}
|
|||||
| Castroviejo, E. and Mayol, L. | The connective doncs in dialogue and the QUD | 2011 | Pre-proceedings of Constraints in Discourse 2011 | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: This paper addresses the use in dialogue of the Catalan dis-
course connective doncs (and Spanish pues). We propose that doncs has two different uses (it introduces a reply or it participates in the rhetoric relations of consequence/solutionhood), but we also show that they share a core property, namely the acknowledgment of a previous assertion that does not resolve the current Question Under Discussion. |
|||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Castroviejo2011,
author = {Elena Castroviejo and Laia Mayol},
title = {The connective doncs in dialogue and the QUD},
booktitle = {Pre-proceedings of Constraints in Discourse 2011},
year = {2011},
url = {https://elena-castroviejo-miro.cat/Papers/proceedings-CID-Castroviejo-Mayol.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Castroviejo, E. and Mayol, L. | Conclusion, Consequence, and solutionhood. The Semantics of Three Catalan Connectives [BibTeX] |
2012 | Vol. 16Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung |
inproceedings | |
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Castroviejo2012,
author = {Elena Castroviejo and Laia Mayol},
title = {Conclusion, Consequence, and solutionhood. The Semantics of Three Catalan Connectives},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung},
year = {2012},
volume = {16}
}
|
|||||
| Clifton, C. and Frazier, L. | Discourse integration guided by the `Question under Discussion' | 2012 | Cognitive Psychology Vol. 65(2), pp. 352-379 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: What makes a discourse coherent? One potential factor has been discussed in the linguistic literature in terms of a Question under Discussion (QUD). This approach claims that discourse proceeds by continually raising explicit or implicit questions, viewed as sets of alternatives, or competing descriptions of the world. If the interlocutor accepts the question, it becomes the QUD, a narrowed set of alternatives to be addressed (Roberts, in press). Three eye movement recording studies are reported that investigated the effect of a preceding explicit QUD (Experiment 1) or implicit QUD (Experiments 2 and 3) on the processing of following text. Experiment 1 revealed an effect of whether the question queried alternative propositions or alternative entities. Reading times in the answer were faster when the answer it provided was of the same semantic type as was queried. Experiment 2 tested QUDs implied by the alternative description of reality introduced by a non-actuality implicature trigger such as should X or want to X. The results, when combined with the results of Experiment 3 (which ruled out a possible alternative interpretation) showed disrupted reading of a following verb phrase that failed to resolve the implicit QUD (Did the discourse participant actually X?), compared to reading the same material in the absence of a clear QUD. The findings support an online role for QUDs in guiding readers’ structuring and interpretation of discourse. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Clifton2012,
author = {Charles Clifton and Lyn Frazier},
title = {Discourse integration guided by the `Question under Discussion'},
journal = {Cognitive Psychology},
publisher = {Elsevier BV},
year = {2012},
volume = {65},
number = {2},
pages = {352--379},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.04.001}
}
|
|||||
| Clifton, C. and Frazier, L. | Context Effects in Discourse: The Question Under Discussion | 2018 | Discourse Processes Vol. 55(2), pp. 105-112 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: Linguistic analyses of the Question Under Discussion (QUD) provide an interesting extension to Tony Sanford’s work on discourse coherence (e.g., Sanford & Emmott, 2012). The QUD approach claims that discourse is organized by a series of overt and covert questions and answers to, or comments on, them. In a coherent discourse, material that addresses the current QUD receives focus, and its processing is facilitated. After a brief review of the existing literature showing that the QUD affects discourse processing, we describe several lines of our own published research on the QUD and briefly present two new experiments. We first review the effects of overt questions on sentence comprehension, arguing that sentences that are thematically and syntactically congruent with the bias of an overt preceding question are processed faster than ones that require a syntactic and thematic shift. We present new evidence suggesting that assertions that address the focused element of a preceding question are likely to receive an exhaustive interpretation. Turning to covert questions, we review evidence that modals and other indications of the uncertain possibility of some event introduce a QUD about the occurrence of that event, biasing and facilitating comprehension of sentences that address such a QUD. Finally, we present new evidence suggesting that although sentential assertions in a discourse are likely to be taken to address an implicit QUD introduced by the antecedent of a conditional, elliptical assertions still tend to find their antecedents in a phrase whose structure is readily available. Thus, although satisfying the requirements of the current QUD is one factor that affects discourse comprehension, it is actually just one of many. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Clifton2018,
author = {Charles Clifton and Lyn Frazier},
title = {Context Effects in Discourse: The Question Under Discussion},
journal = {Discourse Processes},
publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
year = {2018},
volume = {55},
number = {2},
pages = {105--112},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2017.1330029}
}
|
|||||
| Franke, M., de Jager, T. and van Rooij, R. | Relevance in Cooperation and Conflict | 2012 | Journal of Logic and Computation Vol. 22(1), pp. 23-54 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: Linguistic pragmatics assumes that conversation is a by-and-large cooperative endeavour. Although clearly reasonable and helpful, this is an idealization and it pays to ask what happens to natural language interpretation if the presumption of cooperativity is dropped, be that entirely or only to some degree. Game theory suggests itself as a formal tool for modelling the different degrees in which speaker and hearer may or may not have common interests, and it is in this game-theoretic light that this article investigates in particular a notion of speaker-relevance and its impact on the question why we communicate cooperatively in most cases and what happens to pragmatic phenomena such as conversational implicatures if full cooperation cannot be assumed. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Franke2012,
author = {Michael Franke and Tikitu de Jager and Robert van Rooij},
title = {Relevance in Cooperation and Conflict},
journal = {Journal of Logic and Computation},
year = {2012},
volume = {22},
number = {1},
pages = {23-54},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exp070}
}
|
|||||
| Hunter, J. and Abrusán, M. | Rhetorical Structure and QUDs | 2017 | New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence | inproceedings | DOI |
| Abstract: We consider two hypotheses about how rhetorical structure and QUD structure might come together to provide a more general pragmatic theory. Taking SDRT ([2]) and some basic principles from [18]’s QUD framework as starting points, we first consider the possibility that rhetorical relations can be modelled as QUDs, and vice versa. We ultimately reject this hypothesis in favor of the possibility that QUDs correspond to topics that bind together the members of complex discourse units. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Hunter2017,
author = {Julie Hunter and Márta Abrusán},
title = {Rhetorical Structure and QUDs},
booktitle = {New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
year = {2017},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2}
}
|
|||||
| Jasinkaja, E. | Modelling Discourse Relations by Topics and Implicatures: The Elaboration Default | 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}
}
|
|||||
| Jasinskaja, E. | Exhaustification and Semantic Relations in Discourse [BibTeX] |
2004 | Proceedings of the Workshop on Implicature and Conversational Meaning | inproceedings | URL |
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Jasinskaja2004,
author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja},
title = {Exhaustification and Semantic Relations in Discourse},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Workshop on Implicature and Conversational Meaning},
year = {2004},
url = {http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/A3_Jasinskaja_2004.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Jasinskaja, E. | Nominal Restatement | 2007 | Vol. 11Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, pp. 346-360 |
inproceedings | DOI |
| Abstract: This paper identifies, explores and provides a formal analysis to a phenomenon that I will call nominal restatement. Nominal restatement (NR) bears a certain similarity to nominal apposition (NA). However, whether an equality sign can be put between these notions depends largely on our assumptions about the range of facts pertaining to apposition, which is not a matter of perfect consensus. This paper shows that NR goes beyond the notion of NA developed by Potts (2005) and is not covered by his analysis. It also presents a purely pragmatic account of NR in terms of the discourse relation of restatement (Jasinskaja 2006b), which both explains the new observations concerning NR (e.g. quantification and scope behaviour) and provides a better explanation to some old observations about NA that are also valid for NR (e.g. case). Finally, I address the question whether the notion of NA can ultimately be done away with by subsuming it under the more general notion of NR and discuss some related problems. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Jasinskaja2007,
author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja},
title = {Nominal Restatement},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung},
year = {2007},
volume = {11},
pages = {346-360},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.650}
}
|
|||||
| Jasinskaja, E. and Karagjosova, E. | Elaboration and Explanation | 2011 | Proceedings of Constraints in Discourse 4 | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: In this paper we study two realisation patterns shared between elaboration and explanation relations: unmarked connection, i.e. juxtaposition of sentences without any explicit marker, and the German marker ‘n¨amlich’ (namely), which must have emerged as a marker of specification but has spread in the direction of explanation. We try to answer the question what is common to elaboration and explanation relations which licenses the use of same expressive patterns, and argue that elaboration and explanation are closely connected in the conceptual
space of discourse relations. |
|||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Jasinskaja2011,
author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja and Elena Karagjosova},
title = {Elaboration and Explanation},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Constraints in Discourse 4},
year = {2011},
url = {https://dslc.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/dslc/katja_files/jasinskaja_karagjosova_ElEx.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Jasinskaja, E. | Correction by adversative and additive markers | 2012 | Lingua Vol. 122(15), pp. 1899-1918 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: Corrective uses of adversative markers like but, as in John isn’t going to Paris, but to Berlin, have proved rather difficult to capture in a unified theory of adversative markers, whereas corrective uses of additive markers, as in John is going to Berlin, and not to Paris, have been almost entirely ignored in theoretical semantics and pragmatics. These uses are taken under closer consideration in this paper, with special focus on the phenomenon I will refer to as (a)symmetric correction. I propose the following generalisation. Adversative markers are asymmetric in their corrective uses (e.g. the English but). That is, the first conjunct of but must be negated, while the second is positive. If the order of the negative and the positive conjunct is reversed, the corrective reading is not available for but, though it can be recovered if but is replaced by and or left out altogether. In contrast, additive markers are symmetric in this function. If a language standardly employs an additive marker to express correction (e.g. the Russian a), the order of the negative and the positive conjunct does not affect its corrective interpretation. The present paper develops a unified account of the semantics of but which accommodates its corrective uses and explains the above mentioned asymmetry. The proposed solution has non-trivial consequences for a general theory of additivity and adversativity, in particular, for the ongoing debate which function of but is the most basic, ‘denial of expectation’ or ‘formal contrast’. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Jasinskaja2012,
author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja},
title = {Correction by adversative and additive markers},
journal = {Lingua},
year = {2012},
volume = {122},
number = {15},
pages = {1899-1918},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.015}
}
|
|||||
| Jasinskaja, K. | Corrective elaboration | 2013 | Lingua Vol. 132, pp. 51-66 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: This paper studies the similarities between corrections expressed by plain juxtaposition of utterances (John didn’t praise Bill. He praised Mary.) and elaborations (John praised a student. He praised Mary.) and develops a unified pragmatic account of how these discourse relations are inferred. The inference results from a combination of the exhaustivity implicatures of the individual utterances on the assumption that the discourse topic, which determines the quantification domain of exhaustivity, remains constant. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Jasinskaja2013,
author = {Katja Jasinskaja},
title = {Corrective elaboration},
journal = {Lingua},
publisher = {Elsevier},
year = {2013},
volume = {132},
pages = {51--66},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.010}
}
|
|||||
| Jivanyan, H. | At-Issue or Not-At-Issue Discourse Contribution by Puisque (F ‘Since’)? Information Structure and Discourse Structure | 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}
}
|
|||||
| Kehler, A. | Ellipsis and anaphora in a QUD model of discourse [BibTeX] |
2009 | Talk | misc | URL |
BibTeX:
@misc{Kehler2009,
author = {Andrew Kehler},
title = {Ellipsis and anaphora in a QUD model of discourse},
year = {2009},
note = {Presented at U Michigan Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics},
url = {http://web.eecs.umich.edu/ rthomaso/lpw09/kehler.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Kehler, A. | Cohesion and Coherence | 2012 | Semantics | inproceedings | DOI |
| Comment: Reprinted in 2019 Semantics - Sentence and Information Structure. doi: 10.1515/9783110589863-013 | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Kehler2012,
author = {Andrew Kehler},
title = {Cohesion and Coherence},
booktitle = {Semantics},
year = {2012},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1963}
}
|
|||||
| Kehler, A. and Rohde, H. | Evaluating an Expectation-Driven Question-Under-Discussion Model of Discourse Interpretation | 2016 | Discourse Processes Vol. 54(3), pp. 219-238 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: According to Question-Under-Discussion (QUD) models of discourse interpretation, clauses cohere with the preceding context by virtue of providing answers to (usually implicit) questions that are situated within a speaker's goal-driven strategy of inquiry. In this article we present four experiments that examine the predictions of a QUD model of interpretation when cast in terms of an integrated, expectation-driven model of discourse processing. The results of these studies together support the predictions of the model, demonstrating that contextual cues affect comprehenders' expectations about ensuing QUDs (Experiment 1), QUD expectations in turn influence the interpretation of discourse-dependent linguistic expressions (Experiment 2), and the biases associated with those expressions in turn influence the anticipation of QUDs (Experiments 3a and b). | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Kehler2016a,
author = {Andrew Kehler and Hannah Rohde},
title = {Evaluating an Expectation-Driven Question-Under-Discussion Model of Discourse Interpretation},
journal = {Discourse Processes},
publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
year = {2016},
volume = {54},
number = {3},
pages = {219--238},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2016.1169069}
}
|
|||||
| Kehler, A. and Rohde, H. | Evaluating an Expectation-Driven Question-Under-Discussion Model of Discourse Interpretation | 2017 | Discourse Processes Vol. 54(3), pp. 219-238 |
article | DOI URL |
| Abstract: According to Question-Under-Discussion (QUD) models of discourse interpretation, clauses cohere with the preceding context by virtue of providing answers to (usually implicit) questions that are situated within a speaker's goal-driven strategy of inquiry. In this article we present four experiments that examine the predictions of a QUD model of interpretation when cast in terms of an integrated, expectation-driven model of discourse processing. The results of these studies together support the predictions of the model, demonstrating that contextual cues affect comprehenders' expectations about ensuing QUDs (Experiment 1), QUD expectations in turn influence the interpretation of discourse-dependent linguistic expressions (Experiment 2), and the biases associated with those expressions in turn influence the anticipation of QUDs (Experiments 3a and b). | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Kehler2017,
author = {Andrew Kehler and Hannah Rohde},
title = {Evaluating an Expectation-Driven Question-Under-Discussion Model of Discourse Interpretation},
journal = {Discourse Processes},
publisher = {Routledge},
year = {2017},
volume = {54},
number = {3},
pages = {219-238},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169069},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169069}
}
|
|||||
| Keshet, E. | Sloppy identity unbound | 2013 | Proceedings of SALT 23 | inproceedings | DOI |
| Abstract: Reinhart (1983) claims that only pronouns whose antecedents c-command them may give rise to sloppy identity readings. This paper presents counterexamples to this claim; for instance, referring to the famous 1960 televised presidential debate, it is acceptable to say: "Kennedy looked good. People voted for him. Nixon looked bad. People didn't." Despite the fact that the antecedent "Kennedy" for the pronoun "him" is in a previous sentence, this pronoun allows a sloppy identity reading wherein the fourth sentence ("People didn't.") means that people didn't vote for Nixon. To analyze such cases, I first propose an extension to the focus operator due to Rooth (1992), allowing this operator to alter the assignment function used
to interpret pronouns. One construction where Rooth places is in the answers to questions. My new meaning for explains why pronouns are so constrained in answers, e.g., "Who does John like? He[=John] likes Mary." Next, I argue for the Question-Under-Discussion (QUD) model of discourse described in Roberts (1996), which theorizes that every sentence is the answer to an explicit or implicit question. Finally, I show that unbound sloppy identity can be analyzed as cases where pronouns are constrained by antecedents in implicit questions. Along the way, I argue that the QUD model is compatible with the coherence relation model of discourse due to Hobbs (1979), explaining how coherence can constrain pronoun reference as well. |
|||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Keshet2013,
author = {Ezra Keshet},
title = {Sloppy identity unbound},
booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 23},
year = {2013},
doi = {doi.org/10.3765/salt.v23i0.2678}
}
|
|||||
| Latrouite, A. and Riester, A. | The Role Of Information Structure For Morphosyntactic Choices In Tagalog | 2018 | Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages | incollection | DOI |
| Abstract: In this paper we investigate the influence of two information structure (IS) related aspects on the choice of voice form and sentence structure by Tagalog speakers. The first is the information status of argument referents. Tagalog is a multiple voice language, so almost every semantic argument in a sentence can be turned into the privileged syntactic argument (or subject) and be rendered salient. Information status of the undergoer has been argued to play an important role in voice and subject selection. The second IS-related aspect is the inherent structure of a discourse as determined by the implicit questions under discussion (QUDs) that are answered with each subsequent sentence in a text. The default sentence in Tagalog starts with a verb. Inversion constructions, i.e. sentences that start with an argument phrase instead of a verb, are described as motivated by information structure considerations such as focus-background or contrastive-topic-focus packaging. Based on a novel QUD approach, we will work out the discourse structure and at-issue contents of five short texts and show the important role of implicit QUDs and parallelisms on the choice of voice and constituent
order. |
|||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Latrouite2018,
author = {Latrouite, Anja and Riester, Arndt},
title = {The Role Of Information Structure For Morphosyntactic Choices In Tagalog},
booktitle = {Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages},
year = {2018},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.1402549}
}
|
|||||
| Nisidis, N. | A decompositional analysis of discourse relations | 2016 | School: Universiteit van Amsterdam | mastersthesis | URL |
| Abstract: Current approaches to discourse coherence hypothesize a number of discourse relations which are used to link sentential units to one another. These relations, also called “coherence” or “rhetorical” relations, are defined either semantically in terms of their truth-conditional content or pragmatically in terms of speaker intention. Our enterprise consists in analyzing the constituting features of discourse relations and, more specifically, in investigating the inferences involved when a speaker or a hearer links two parts of a text. The framework we use to carry out our analysis is based on two main assumptions: agents reason in a Bayesian fashion and discourse is characterized by some sense of topicality. For that reason, we use a version of Update Semantics and combine it with Causal Probabilities along with Argumentation and Questions Under Discussion. Causal Probabilities allow us to model causal and identity inferences the interlocutors make as well as probabilistic inferences having to do with modalities, whereas Questions Under Discussion provide an elegant way to model topicality. We analyze the 32 discourse relations of Rhetorical Structure Theory due to the latter’s longevity as a discourse structure theory and its application in a variety of linguistic fields. The main result of our analysis is that disycourse relations can be reduced to specific inferences and there is no need to hypothesize any primitive relations constituting these relations. Given the nature of the inferences, it is also possible that a Bayesian interpreter be able to automatically assign a discourse relation just by answering certain questions pertinent to discourse structure. | |||||
BibTeX:
@mastersthesis{Nisidis2016,
author = {Nisidis, Nikolas},
title = {A decompositional analysis of discourse relations},
school = {Universiteit van Amsterdam},
year = {2016},
url = {https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/974}
}
|
|||||
| Onea, E. | Underneath Rhetorical Relations: the Case of Result | 2019 | Questions in Discourse, pp. 194 - 250 | incollection | DOI URL |
| Comment: In the attempt of formal pragmatics to capture discourse structure and discourse coherence two main types of theories have emerged: rhetorical relation based theories and question under discussion based theories. In linguistic research question under discussion (QUD) based theories of discourse in the sense of van Kuppevelt (1995a,b) and (Roberts, 1996, 2012) have proven to be highly useful to capture meaning contributions of natural language expressions and constructions in terms of small-scale discourse structure representations. As a larger scale discourse model, however, such theories have been widely considered inferior to theories of discourse structure based on rhetorical relations such as Mann & Thompson (1988a), Asher (1993a), Asher & Lascarides 2003. In this paper I extend QUD-theories to full-scale discourse models comparable with rhetorical relations based theories both in empirical coverage and formal explicitness. While QUD-based theories will still have problems capturing a useful notion of discourse coherence, I argue that question based models have conceptual and empirical advantages as compared to theories of rhetorical structure when it comes to fine-grained analysis of linguistic phenomena, thus they should be used to complement rhetorical structure based theories. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Onea2019a,
author = {Edgar Onea},
title = {Underneath Rhetorical Relations: the Case of Result},
booktitle = {Questions in Discourse},
publisher = {Brill},
year = {2019},
pages = {194 - 250},
url = {https://brill.com/view/book/9789004378322/BP000007.xml},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_008}
}
|
|||||
| Roberts, C. | Context in Dynamic Interpretation | 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}
}
|
|||||
| van Rooij, R. | Cooperative versus argumentative communication | 2004 | Philosophia Scientiae Vol. 2, pp. 195-205 |
article | URL |
| Abstract: Game theoretical analyses of communication (e.g. Lewis, Crawford & Sobel) demand cooperation between conversational partners for reliable information exchange to take place. Similarly, in pragmatics, the theory of language use, it is standard to assume that communication is a cooperative affair. Recently, this standard view has come under attack by Durcot and Merin, and it has been proposed that an argumentative view on natural language use is more appropriate. In this paper I discuss to what extent this attack is justified and whether the alternative view can provide a more adequate analysis of ‘pragmatic meaning’, i.e., implicatures. I will investigate the game-theoretical underpinning of the argumentative view, and contrast Merin’s analysis of scalar implicatures with one using the principle of exhaustive interpretation. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Rooij2004b,
author = {Robert van Rooij},
title = {Cooperative versus argumentative communication},
journal = {Philosophia Scientiae},
year = {2004},
volume = {2},
pages = {195-205},
url = {https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.294.9174&rep=rep1&type=pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Rosemeyer, M. | Brazilian Portuguese in-situ wh-interrogatives between rhetoric and change | 2019 | Glossa: a journal of general linguistics Vol. 4(1), pp. 80 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: Previous studies of the historical development of partial interrogatives have postulated a change from contexts in which the proposition of the interrogative has been explicitly mentioned in the previous discourse, to contexts in which the proposition is discourse-new. The present paper explores whether the historical increase in the usage frequency of Brazilian Portuguese in-situ wh-interrogatives represents the same process. Using data from a large corpus of BP theater texts dated between the 19th and 21st century, several discourse functions of InSituWh are identified, the most frequent of which are cataphorical questions, which serve to either open up a question unrelated to the current question under discussion, or raise further questions about the current question under discussion, and rhetorical questions, which question the validity or relevance of a previously mentioned proposition. Rhetorical questions typically do not trigger a response by the interlocutor and are used with psychological verbs and morphologically simple interrogative pronouns. A statistical analysis of the diachronic distribution of InSituWh in the data reveals an increase in the usage frequency of InSituWh especially in contexts in which the proposition is discourse-new. However, the results also indicate that this increase is not due to a grammatical change of InSituWh but rather reflects a consolidation of the rhetorical question function of InSituWh within the genre of theater plays. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Rosemeyer2019,
author = {Malte Rosemeyer},
title = {Brazilian Portuguese in-situ wh-interrogatives between rhetoric and change},
journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
publisher = {Open Library of the Humanities},
year = {2019},
volume = {4},
number = {1},
pages = {80},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.900}
}
|
|||||
| Tonhauser, J. | Contrastive topics in Paraguayan and Guaraní discourse | 2012 | Proceedings of SALT 22 | inproceedings | DOI |
| Abstract: The empirical basis of current formal semantic/pragmatic analyses of utterances containing contrastive topics are languages in which the expression that denotes the contrastive topic is marked prosodically, morphologically or syntactically, such as English, German, Korean, Japanese or Hungarian (e.g. Jackendoff 1972; Szabolcsi 1981; Roberts 1998; Büring 1997, 2003; Lee 1999). Such analyses do not extend to Paraguayan Guaraní, a language in which neither prosody, nor word order, nor the contrastive topic clitic =katu identify the contrastive topic. This article develops a formal pragmatic analysis of contrastive topic utterances in Paraguayan Guaraní and explores cross-linguistic similarities and differences in contrastive topic utterances. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Tonhauser2012a,
author = {Judith Tonhauser},
title = {Contrastive topics in Paraguayan and Guaraní discourse},
booktitle = {Proceedings of SALT 22},
year = {2012},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v22i0.2631}
}
|
|||||