Author | Title | Year | Journal/Proceedings | Reftype | DOI/URL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aloni, M., Beaver, D., Clark, B. and van Rooij, R. | The Dynamics of Topic and Focus | 2007 | Questions in Dynamic Semantics, pp. 123-145 | incollection | DOI |
Abstract: A dynamic view on meanings as context change potentials provides a substantial account of the dependence of focused answers on the context set up by their preceding questions. Questions pose conditions on the focal structure of their answers and can further restrict the domain of subsequent focusing operators like only. Standard analyses of focus define congruence in terms of identity between the question meaning and the focal alternatives of the answer. Most existing dynamic analyses of questions have been developed in the tradition of the partition theory of Groenendijk and Stokhof. This chapter presents update semantics of questions and focuses building on Gawron's dynamic model of domain restriction. It describes how dynamic analysis gives an interesting characterization of the notion of discourse congruence which covers contextual restrictions. Finally, the chapter explains how questions can restrict the domain of quantificational sentences used later in a discourse within dynamic semantics. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Aloni2007, author = {Maria Aloni and David Beaver and Brady Clark and Robert van Rooij}, title = {The Dynamics of Topic and Focus}, booktitle = {Questions in Dynamic Semantics}, publisher = {Brill}, year = {2007}, pages = {123-145}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_007} } |
|||||
Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Simons, M. and Tonhauser, J. | Questions Under Discussion: Where information structure meets projective content | 2017 | Annual Review of Linguistics Vol. 3 |
article | DOI |
Abstract: We discuss problems familiar from the literature on presupposition and information structure, and illustrate how a synthesis using the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework yields fresh insight. In this framework, discourse is analyzed in terms of the strategy of inquiry pursued by the interlocutors, and individual utterances are interpreted relative to the question being addressed. This way of thinking offers a new perspective on diverse phenomena, including the projection of presuppositions, association with focus, contrastive topic marking, and variability of projection behavior. We review the principal issues and prior lines of research in each of these areas, and show how the issues may be recast in QUD terms | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Beaver2017, author = {David Beaver and Craige Roberts and Mandy Simons and Judith Tonhauser}, title = {Questions Under Discussion: Where information structure meets projective content}, journal = {Annual Review of Linguistics}, year = {2017}, volume = {3}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033952} } |
|||||
Clifton, C., Frazier, L. and Kaup, B. | Negative clauses imply affirmative topics and affirmative antecedents | 2021 | Journal of Psycholinguistic Research | article | DOI |
Abstract: We propose that negative clauses are generally interpreted as if the affirmative portion of the clause is under discussion, a likely topic. This predicts a preference for affirmative (topical) antecedents over negative antecedents of a following missing verb phrase (VP). Three experiments tested the predictions of this hypothesis in sentences containing negation in the first clause followed by an ambiguous as-clause as in Don’t cross on red as a stupid person would and its counterpart with smart replacing stupid. In Experiment 1 sentences containing an undesirable attribute adjective such as stupid were rated as more natural, and read faster, than their desirable attribute counterparts (smart), with or without a comma preceding as. The second experiment indicated that the interpretation of the missing VP reflected the attribute adjective’s desirability, with processing difficulty presumably reflecting reanalysis from the initial affirmative antecedent (cross on red) to include negation when the initial interpretation violated plausibility. A third experiment generalized the effect beyond sentences with an initial contracted don’t. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Clifton2021, author = {Charles Clifton and Lyn Frazier and Barbara Kaup}, title = {Negative clauses imply affirmative topics and affirmative antecedents}, journal = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research}, publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, year = {2021}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09792-1} } |
|||||
Constant, N. | Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations | 2014 | School: University of Massachusets, Amherst | phdthesis | DOI |
Abstract: This dissertation develops a theory of contrastive topics (CTs)—what they mean, and how they are realized. I give a compositional semantics for CT constructions, built on the idea that CT marks anaphora to a complex question in the discourse. The account allows us to maintain an inclusive view of what counts as a contrastive topic, making reasonable predictions about sentences with CT phrases of difference types, in various combinations, and across various speech acts. Empirically, the dissertation focuses on contrastive topic marking in English and Mandarin Chinese. In English, CT phrases are typically realized with a “rising” prosody. I offer an explicit model that predicts the intonational features of English sentences containing contrastive topics. In Mandarin, sentences with CTs often exhibit the discourse particle -ne. I provide a detailed description of the particle’s distribution, and offer the first sustained argument that -ne is a CT marker. | |||||
BibTeX:
@phdthesis{Constant2014, author = {Noah Constant}, title = {Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations}, school = {University of Massachusets, Amherst}, year = {2014}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.7275/5694973.0} } |
|||||
Crane, T.M. | Resultatives, progressives, statives, and relevance: The temporal pragmatics of the -ite suffix in Totela | 2013 | Lingua Vol. 133, pp. 164-188 |
article | DOI |
Abstract: This article presents the verbal suffix -ite in Totela (Bantu, Namibia and Zambia), which has variable temporal interpretations based both on lexical aspect (situation type) and on discourse context. The same -ite-marked predicate may be interpreted as referencing a situation that is past (resultative-like readings) or present (progressive-like readings) with respect to utterance time. The suffix is analyzed as having the aspectual function of a stativizer, asserting a relevant property of the utterance's subject. Temporal interpretations with respect to utterance time (or other perspective time) are derived from principles of relevance: the state described by an -ite-marked predicate is interpreted so that it answer the current question under discussion in discourse. The -ite suffix, most likely related to a historical resultative, still specifies a result state, but the temporal specifications of that result state are weakened and must be inferred through context. Cross-linguistic comparison of -ite with other markers that have both perfect/resultative and progressive readings suggests that the pragmatic notion of relevance and not only commonalities in temporal semantics (e.g. focus on post-state; stativizing functions) may be a key factor in the perfect/resultative/progressive connection. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Crane2013, author = {Thera Marie Crane}, title = {Resultatives, progressives, statives, and relevance: The temporal pragmatics of the -ite suffix in Totela}, journal = {Lingua}, publisher = {Elsevier}, year = {2013}, volume = {133}, pages = {164--188}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.04.006} } |
|||||
von Fintel, K. | Restrictions on Quantifier Domains | 1996 | School: UMass/Amherst | phdthesis | URL |
Abstract: This dissertation investigates the ways in which natural language restricts the domains of quantifiers. Adverbs of quantification are analyzed as quantifying over situations (instead of being unselective quantifiers). The domain of quantifiers is pragmatically constrained: apparent processes of “semantic partition” are treated as pragmatic epiphenomena. The introductory Chapter 1 sketches some of the background of work on natural language quantification and begins the analysis of adverbial quantification over situations. Chapter 2 develops the central picture of “semantic partition” as a side-effect of pragmatic processes of anaphora resolution. I argue that the apparent effects of topic/focus articulation and presuppositional information on the interpretation of quantifiers are not the result of a direct and local mechanism of sentence grammar. Instead, I develop an analysis where the link is established via the anaphoric dependence of quantifier domains on the discourse context. Chapter 3 discusses the analysis of conditional clauses as quantifier restrictors, concentrating on the question whether conditional clauses restrict quantifiers directly (like common noun phrases restrict determiner-quantifiers) or indirectly (like topic/focus restrict quantifiers). A treatment is explored which has if-clauses constrain the value of the hidden domain variable of the restricted quantifier. Chapter 4, on unless clauses, and Chapter 5, on only if- and even if-clauses, present some issues in the compositional analysis of complex conditional clauses. These chapters significantly expand the data coverage of the theory of A-quantification. Building on previous work of mine on exceptives, I analyze unless-clauses as exceptive operators on A-quantifiers. The analysis of only if-clauses, treated as conditional clauses that combine if with the focus adverb only, unearthes some interesting new properties. Chapter 6, finally, examines the phenomenon of donkey anaphora in the light of the results of the previous chapters. I show that a solution to the proportion problem may become possible once we combine the situation-semantic approach to adverbial quantification with the pragmatic theory developed in Chapter 2 and further elaborated in the analysis of donkey anaphora in complex conditionals. | |||||
BibTeX:
@phdthesis{Fintel1996, author = {Kai von Fintel}, title = {Restrictions on Quantifier Domains}, school = {UMass/Amherst}, year = {1996}, url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA3N2IwN/fintel-1994-thesis.pdf} } |
|||||
Jasinskaja, E. | The Global Aboutness Topic in German Narrative [BibTeX] |
2010 | unpublished | URL | |
BibTeX:
@unpublished{Jasinskaja2010, author = {Ekaterina Jasinskaja}, title = {The Global Aboutness Topic in German Narrative}, year = {2010}, note = {Ms. Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo}, url = {https://dslc.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/dslc/katja_files/jasinskaja_topic.pdf} } |
|||||
Mayol, L. and Castroviejo, E. | Contrastive topics and implicature cancellation | 2013 | 19th ICL Papers | inproceedings | URL |
Abstract: This paper is concerned with the so-called ‘Problem of the Last Answer’, which arises in the context of the research on the semantics of Contrastive Topic, on the one hand, and on the distribution of the presupposition trigger too, on the other hand. Our goal is to argue that we can find a simple and elegant answer to this problem if we take into consideration more general constraints on implicature cancellation. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Mayol2013a, author = {Laia Mayol and Elena Castroviejo}, title = {Contrastive topics and implicature cancellation}, booktitle = {19th ICL Papers}, year = {2013}, url = {https://www.cil19.org/uploads/documents/Contrastive_topics_and_implicature_cancellation.pdf} } |
|||||
Mayol, L. and Vallduví Botet, E. | Utterances with themes as strategies to address a broad Question Under Discussion | 2020 | Vol. 24(1)Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, pp. 533-546 |
inproceedings | DOI |
Abstract: In a QUD-model of discourse, any utterance elaborates on the maximal QUD in that context. QUDs play an essential role in defining the two parts in which an utterance can be divided: theme and rheme. An utterance must always contain a rheme, which is the part that elaborates on the QUD, and may contain a theme, which replicates content already present in the QUD. Since themes are replicating material already present in the QUD, one may wonder why themes are uttered at all. Vallduv´ı (2016) proposes that themes signal the the QUD update will have an intermediate step and that the QUD being addressed is not the maximal one. In other words, themes mark that the QUD update is non-default. The goal of this paper is to empirically examine one of these non-default updates and, in particular, whether theme-containing utterances can be used to signal that the QUD being addressed is broader than the maximal one and, if so, whether they are necessary in this situation. Two discourse-completion studies in Catalan were carried out. The results show that theme-containing utterances are mostly used to address a broad QUD (as opposed to narrower ones) and that when speakers decide to address a broad QUD, the proportion of theme-containing utterances increases significantly. The use of themes is, however, not required to signal this change of QUD; themeless-utterances can also be used in this context. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Mayol2020, author = {Mayol, Laia and Vallduví Botet, Enric}, title = {Utterances with themes as strategies to address a broad Question Under Discussion}, booktitle = {Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung}, year = {2020}, volume = {24}, number = {1}, pages = {533-546}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2020.v24i1.916} } |
|||||
McNally, L. | Towards a Theory of the Linguistic Coding of Information Packaging Instructions [BibTeX] |
1998 | The Limits of Syntax, pp. 161-183 | inproceedings | URL |
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{McNally1998, author = {Lousie McNally}, title = {Towards a Theory of the Linguistic Coding of Information Packaging Instructions}, booktitle = {The Limits of Syntax}, publisher = {Academic Press}, year = {1998}, pages = {161-183}, url = {https://www.upf.edu/documents/2979964/0/McNally_Info_Pack.pdf/eee85098-def6-4111-89ac-7aec44deca0f} } |
|||||
McNally, L. | On recent formal analyses of ‘topic’ | 1998 | The Tbilisi Symposium on language, logic and computation, pp. 147-160 | inproceedings | URL |
Comment: McNally examines whether or not there's anything special about sentence topic. They argue that discourse topic is what call for a good formal characterization. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{McNally1998a, author = {Louise McNally}, title = {On recent formal analyses of ‘topic’}, booktitle = {The Tbilisi Symposium on language, logic and computation}, publisher = {CSLI Press}, year = {1998}, pages = {147-160}, url = {https://www.upf.edu/documents/2979964/0/tbilisi.pdf/a1cb0f6c-bfa7-45a1-bee5-fc5da4ddecf8} } |
|||||
Portner, P. and Yabushita, K. | The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases [BibTeX] |
1998 | Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 21, pp. 117-157 |
article | DOI |
BibTeX:
@article{Portner1998, author = {Paul Portner and Katsuhiko Yabushita}, title = {The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {1998}, volume = {21}, pages = {117-157}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005311504497} } |
|||||
Portner, P. and Yabushita, K. | Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics | 2001 | Journal of Semantics Vol. 18, pp. 271-297 |
article | DOI |
Abstract: Concentrating on data from Japanese, this paper examines the relationship between topicality and the specificity of indefinites. We argue that in many instances specificity arises when the domain of quantification for an indefinite is both topical and extremely narrow. We also discuss instances where the domain of quantification varies with some other operator, analyzing these in terms of a topical domain function, that is a function given in the context which provides the indefinite with a domain of quantification relative to implicit arguments. Our view builds on two popular ideas about specific indefinites: that they are a kind of presuppositional indefinite and that they are referential elements analyzed via choice functions. We formalize our ideas in terms of the analysis of topicality put forth in Portner & Yabushita (1998). | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Portner2001, author = {Paul Portner and Katsuhiko Yabushita}, title = {Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2001}, volume = {18}, pages = {271-297}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/18.3.271} } |
|||||
Portner, P. | Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin | 2002 | Journal of Semantics Vol. 19(3), pp. 275-287 |
article | DOI |
Abstract: This paper presents arguments based on data from Mandarin Chinese for the idea that specific interpretations of indefinites arise when the domain of quantification for the indefinite is a topic. In particular, when the sentence has a topic (overt or covert) which represents a small fixed set or function from contextual parameters to sets, and an indefinite quantifies over this set, the indefinite will seem to get a fixed reference and have wide scope. The Chinese distributive marker dou is especially helpful in developing this hypothesis because it shows various complex interactions with indefinites, topics, and specificity; these interactions allow us to uncover evidence for crucial components of the analysis of specificity. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Portner2002, author = {Paul Portner}, title = {Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin}, journal = {Journal of Semantics}, year = {2002}, volume = {19}, number = {3}, pages = {275-287}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/19.3.275} } |
|||||
Roberts, C. | Topics | 2012 | Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning | incollection | URL |
Comment: Reprinted in Portner, Maienborn, and von Heusinger (eds.) (2019) Semantics: Sentence and Information Structure, Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 381-412. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Roberts2012c, author = {Craige Roberts}, title = {Topics}, booktitle = {Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning}, publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter}, year = {2012}, url = {https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/Roberts.Topics.pdf} } |
|||||
van Rooij, R. and Schulz, K. | Topic, Focus, and Exhaustive Interpretation | 2017 | Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures, pp. 63-82 | incollection | DOI |
Abstract: In this paper, we propose that a sentence like John ate broccoli should pragmatically be interpreted as follows: (a) Focus should be interpreted exhaustively; John ate only broccoli; (b) Topic must be interpreted exhaustively: Only John ate (only) broccoli; and (c) The speaker takes it to be possible (or even knows, if he is competent) that at least one alternative of the form x ate y not entailed by the sentence is true. It will be shown that in terms of this analysis we can also account for all the scope-inversion data of Büring (Linguist Philos 20: 175–194, 1997), without giving rise to some of the problems of the latter analysis. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Rooij2017, author = {Robert van Rooij and Katrin Schulz}, title = {Topic, Focus, and Exhaustive Interpretation}, booktitle = {Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures}, publisher = {Springer}, year = {2017}, pages = {63-82}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_4} } |
|||||
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} } |