Questions Under Discussion: From Sentence to Discourse

References

• Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, D. (1997). Presupposition. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic & language (pp. 939–1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, D. I., & Clark, B. Z. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Benz, A. (2006). Utility and relevance of answers. In A. Benz, G. Jäger, & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Game theory and pragmatics (pp. 195–214). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Benz, A. (2007). On relevance scale approaches. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of the sinn und bedeutung 11 (pp. 91–105).
   Google Scholar
• Benz, A., & Salfner, F. (2013). Discourse structuring questions and scalar implicatures. In G. Bezhanishvili, S. Löbner, V. Marra, & F. Richter (Eds.), Logic, language, and computation: 9th international tbilisi symposium on logic, language, and computation, tbillc 2011 (Vol. 7758, pp. 35–50). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Benz, A., & van Rooij, R. (2007). Optimal assertions and what they implicate: a uniform game theoretic approach. Topoi – an International Review of Philosophy, 27(1), 63–78.
   Google Scholar
• Bott, O., & Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In B. Hemforth, B. Mertins, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (pp. 213–251). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 511–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton, C. J., & Frazier, L. (2012). Discourse integration guided by the ‘question under discussion’. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 352–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummins, C., & Rohde, H. (2015). Evoking context with contrastive stress: effects on pragmatic enrichment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1779). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459–464.
   Google Scholar
• Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ginzburg, J. (1996). Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(2), 193–202.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In Proceedings of the ilcli international workshop on semantics, pragmatics, and rhetoric. University of the Basque Country Press.
   Google Scholar
• Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschberg, J. (1991). A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbs, J. R. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse (Tech. Rep. No. CSLI-85-37). Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, J., & Abrusán, M. (2016). Rhetorical relations and QUDs. In Proceedings of lenls 12.
   Google Scholar
• Jasinskaja, E. (2007). Pragmatics and prosody of implicit discourse relations: The case of restatement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tübingen.
   Google Scholar
• Jasinskaja, K. (2012). Correction by adversative and additive markers. Lingua, 122, 1899–1918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasinskaja, K., & Zeevat, H. (2008). Explaining additive, adversative and contrast marking in Russian and English. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 24, 65–91.
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krifka, M. (2001). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Fery & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur vox sapientia. a festschrift for arnim von stechow (Vol. 52, pp. 287–319). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, S. (2002). Issue-based dialogue management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Göteborg University.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh–metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onea, E. (2016). Potential questions at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Onea, E., & Volodina, A. (2011). Between specification and explanation. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 3–32.
   Google Scholar
• Potts, C. (2003). Expressive content as conventional implicature. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the north east linguistic society 33 (pp. 303–322). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar
• Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 91–136.
   Google Scholar
• Rojas-Esponda, T. (2014). A discourse model for überhaupt. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(1), 1–45.
   Google Scholar
• Sandt, R. v. d. (2012). Presupposition and accommodation in discourse. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszcolt (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 329–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schoubye, A. J. (2010). Descriptions, truth value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 583–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz, K., & van Rooij, R. (2006). Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 205–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In D. Lutz & N. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 20, pp. 309–327)
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., & Simons, M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umbach, C. (2005). Contrast and information structure: A focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics, 43(1), 207–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umbach, C. (2012). Strategies of additivity: German additive noch compared to auch. Lingua, 122(15), 1843–1863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kuppevelt, J. (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 109–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kuppevelt, J. (1996). Inferring from topics: Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 393–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij, R. (2003). Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 727–763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij, R. (2004). Utility of mention-some questions. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 401–416.
   Google Scholar
• von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 39–76). Amsterdam: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Zondervan, A. (2009). Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextual constraint on scalar implicature calculation. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 94–112). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Zondervan, A. (2010). The role of QUD and focus on the scalar implicature of most. In J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Experimental semantics/pragmatics (Vol. 175, pp. 221–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Zondervan, A., Meroni, L., & Gualmini, A. (2008). Experiments on the role of the question under discussion for ambiguity resolution and implicature computation in adults. In Semantics and linguistic theory 18 (pp. 765–777).
   Google Scholar