Context Effects in Discourse: The Question Under Discussion

References

• Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton C., Jr., & and Frazier, L. (2012). Discourse integration guided by the question under discussion. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 352–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, R., Engdahl, E., Larsson, S., & Ericsson, S. (2000). Accommodating questions and the nature of QUD. In M. Poesio & D. Traum (Eds.), Proceedings of Götalog (pp. 57–62). Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., & Fodor, J.A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 87–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). The syntax-discourse divide: Processing ellipsis. Syntax, 8, 154–207.
   Google Scholar
• Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, M., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2012). The role of non-actuality implicatures in processing elided constituents. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 326–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasinskaja, K., Salfner, F., & Freitag, C. (2017). Discourse-level implicature: A case for QUD. Discourse Processes, 54, 239–258.
   Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. (2015). On QUD-based licensing of strict and sloppy ambiguities. Proceedings of SALT 25, 512–532.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (2011). Solving for interpretation. Talk at the Workshop on Meaning and Understanding at the Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo. Retrieved from http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~croberts/Solving_for_interpretation/Oslo.paper.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (2012/ 1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–69. [First published in Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 49].
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.
   Google Scholar
• Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A.J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17, 188–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A.J.S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 514–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Moxey, L. (1995). Aspects of coherence in written language: A psychological perspective. In M.A. Gernsbacher & T. Givon (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous texts (pp. 161–187). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J.S., Price, J., & Sanford, A.J. (2009). Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structuring in sentences. Memory and Cognition, 37, 880–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, Y., Breheny, R., & Ferguson, H. (2010). Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2305–2312.
   Web of Science ®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 T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory XVIII (pp. 765–777). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
   Google Scholar