References Archangeli, D. & D. T. Langendoen (1997), Optimality Theory, An Overview. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford UK. Ariel, M. (1991), ‘The function of accessibility <strong>in</strong> a theory of grammar’, Journal of Pragmatics. 16: 141–161. Asher, N. (1993), Reference to Abstract Objects <strong>in</strong> <strong>Discourse</strong>. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. Asher, N. & A. Lascarides (1998a), ‘Bridg<strong>in</strong>g’, Journal of Semantics, 15, 1: 83–113. Asher, N. & A. Lascarides (1998b), ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition’, Journal of Semantics, 15, 3: 239–300. Atlas, J. & S. C. Lev<strong>in</strong>son (1981), ‘It-clefts, <strong>in</strong>formativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version)’, <strong>in</strong> P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, 1–61. Beaver, D. (to appear) ‘Presupposition <strong>in</strong> DRT’, <strong>in</strong> D. Beaver, L. Casillas, B. Clark and S. Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Mean<strong>in</strong>g, CSLI Publications. Beaver, D. (1997), Presupposition, In Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen, eds., 939–1008. Beaver, D. (1992), ‘The K<strong>in</strong>ematics of Presupposition’, University of Amsterdam, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the 8 th Amsterdam Colloquium. Blackburn P. & J. Bos (1999a), ‘Representation and Inference for Natural Language: A First Course <strong>in</strong> Computational Semantics’ Blackburn P. & J. Bos (1999b), ‘Work<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>Discourse</strong> Representation Theory: An Advanced Course <strong>in</strong> Computational Semantics’ Blutner, R. (2000), ‘Some Aspects of Optimality <strong>in</strong> Natural Language Interpretation’, Journal of Semantics. 17, 3: 189–217. Bos, J., P. Buitelaar & A-M. M<strong>in</strong>eur (1995), ‘Bridg<strong>in</strong>g as Coercive Accommodation’, <strong>in</strong> the Workshop Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of Computational Logic for Natural Language Process<strong>in</strong>g. (CLNLP) Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh, 1995. Carlettta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtoko, J., C., Doherty -Sneddon, G. Anderson, A. H (1997), ‘The Reliability of a Dialogue Structure Cod<strong>in</strong>g Scheme’, Computational L<strong>in</strong>guistics, 23, 1: 13– 32. Chierchia, G. & S. McConnell-G<strong>in</strong>et (1990), Mean<strong>in</strong>g and Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Clark, H. (1975), ‘Bridg<strong>in</strong>g’, <strong>in</strong> R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (eds), Theoretical Issues <strong>in</strong> Natural Language Process<strong>in</strong>g, Cambridge:MIT. Repr<strong>in</strong>t from: P.N.Johnson-Laird & P.C. Wason (eds), Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g. Cambridge University Press, 411–420. Coll<strong>in</strong>s, P. (1991), Cleft and Pseudo-cleft constructions <strong>in</strong> English. Routledge, London. Cooper, R., D. Crouch, J. van Eijck, C. Fox, J. van Genabith, J. Jaspars, H. Kamp, M. P<strong>in</strong>kel, M. Poesio & S. Pullman (1995), ‘Evaluat<strong>in</strong>g the State of the Art’, FraCaS (A Framework for Computational Semantics) deliverable, D10, January 3, 1995. Dahl, Ö. & C. Hellman (1995), ‘What happens when we use an anaphor?’, Presentation at the XVth Scand<strong>in</strong>avian Conference <strong>in</strong> L<strong>in</strong>guistics, Oslo, Norway. Dalrymple, M., S. Shieber & F. Pereira (1991)., ‘Ellipsis and higher-order unification’, L<strong>in</strong>guistics and Philosophy, 14: 399-452.Deemter, K. van (1992), ‘Towards a Generalization of Anaphora’, Journal of Semantics 9, 1: 27–51. Deemter, K van & S. Peters (1996), Eds, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification’. CSLI Publications, Stanford. 188
Del<strong>in</strong>, J. (1995), ‘Presupposition and shared knowledge <strong>in</strong> it-clefts’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 10: 97–120 Eckert, M. and M. Strube (2000), ‘Dialogue Acts, Synchronis<strong>in</strong>g Units and Anaphora’, Journal of Semantics 17, 1: 51–89. Erku F. & Gundel J. K. (1987) ‘The pragmatics of <strong>in</strong>direct anaphors’, <strong>in</strong> J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi, (eds.), The pragmatic perspective: selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. Fjelkestam-Nilsson, B. (1983), Also and Too, A Corpus-Based Study of Their Frequency and Use <strong>in</strong> Modern English, Stockholm Studies <strong>in</strong> English, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm, Sweden. Fraassen B. van.(1969), ‘<strong>Presuppositions</strong>, super-valuations, and free logic’, <strong>in</strong> K. Lambert(ed,), The Logical Way of Do<strong>in</strong>g Th<strong>in</strong>gs, Yale University Press, New Haven, 67–91. Fraurud, K. (1990), ‘Def<strong>in</strong>iteness and the process<strong>in</strong>g of NP‘s <strong>in</strong> natural discourse’, Journal of Semantics, 7, 395–433. Fraurud, K. (1992), Situation Reference (What does ‘it‘ refer to?), GAP Work<strong>in</strong>g Paper No. 24, Hamburg: Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg. Frege, G., (1892), ‘Über S<strong>in</strong>n und Bedeutung’, <strong>in</strong> Zeitscrhift für Philosophie unbd philosophisched Kritik, 100, 25–50. English translation from Translations from the Philosophical Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Gottlob Frege, ed. P. Geach & M. Black, Oxford, Blackwell, 1952, pp. 56–78. Fox, B. (1987), <strong>Discourse</strong> Structure and Anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge University Press. Gazdar, G. (1979), Pragmatics, Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. Academic Press. New York. Geurts, B. (1999), <strong>Presuppositions</strong> and Pronouns, Current Research <strong>in</strong> the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Vol 3., Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, London. Geurts, B. (2001), ‘Buoyancy and Strength’, Journal of Semantics, 17, 4: 315–334. Groenendijk J. & M. Stokhof (1991), ‘Dynamic predicate logic’, L<strong>in</strong>guistics and Philosophy 14: 39– 100. Grosz, B. & Sidner, C. (1986), ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of <strong>Discourse</strong>.’ Computational L<strong>in</strong>guistics,12, 3: 175–204. Gundel, J. Hedberg, N & Zacharski R. (1993), ‘Cognitive Status and the Form of Referr<strong>in</strong>g Expressions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Discourse</strong>’, Language 69: 274–307. Haviland, S. & H. Clark (1974), ‘What’s new? Acquir<strong>in</strong>g new <strong>in</strong>formation as a process <strong>in</strong> comprehension’, Journal of Verbal Learn<strong>in</strong>g and Verbal Behavior, 13: 512–521. Hawk<strong>in</strong>s, J. A. (1978), Def<strong>in</strong>iteness and <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>iteness, Croom Helm Ltd, London. Heim, I. (1982), The Semantics of Def<strong>in</strong>ite and Indef<strong>in</strong>ite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Heim, I. (1983), ‘On the Projection Problem for <strong>Presuppositions</strong>’, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal L<strong>in</strong>guistics, 2: 144–26. Repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> S. Davis (ed.) (1991), Pragmatics, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 397–405. Hobbs, J. (1979), ‘Coherence and coreference’, Cognitive Science, 3: 67–90 Horn, L. (1984), ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic <strong>in</strong>ference: Q–based and R–based implicature’, <strong>in</strong> D. Schiffr<strong>in</strong> (ed.), Mean<strong>in</strong>g, form, and use <strong>in</strong> context: l<strong>in</strong>guistic applications (GURT ’84), Georgetown University Press, Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, 11–42. Jacobson, S. (1964), ’Adverbial Positions <strong>in</strong> English’, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala Kamp, H. (2001) ‘Computation and Justification of <strong>Presuppositions</strong>,’ <strong>in</strong> Bras, M. & L. Vieu (eds.) Semantics and Pragmatics of <strong>Discourse</strong> and Dialogue: Experiment<strong>in</strong>g with Current Theories, Elsevier, 2001. Kamp, H. & U. Reyle (1993), From <strong>Discourse</strong> to Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Kamp H. & A. Rossdeutscher (1994), DRS Construction and Lexically Driven Inference. Theoretical L<strong>in</strong>guistics 20, pp. 97–164. 189
- Page 1 and 2:
Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse
- Page 3 and 4:
Abstract Naturally produced example
- Page 5 and 6:
5.3.2 Lack of expression alternativ
- Page 7:
irrational. Very warm thanks to Jul
- Page 10 and 11:
Chapter 1 work about presupposition
- Page 12 and 13:
Chapter 1 There are three core char
- Page 14 and 15:
Chapter 2 2.5 briefly outlines seve
- Page 16 and 17:
Chapter 2 (1999, p. 6). In the foll
- Page 18 and 19:
Chapter 2 Because true presuppositi
- Page 20 and 21:
Chapter 2 presupposed information i
- Page 22 and 23:
Chapter 2 KofF(x)) will be expanded
- Page 24 and 25:
Chapter 2 (28) There is a king of F
- Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2 because constraints on th
- Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 2 (32) In the representatio
- Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 2 information that there is
- Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 2 reached. The meaning of t
- Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 2 representation in some ca
- Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 2 part of the presuppositio
- Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 2 (49) a. Julia doesn’t h
- Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 2 (53) If John has grandchi
- Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2 2.4 THE SATISFACTION THEO
- Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 2 updated context is subtra
- Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 2 Julia doesn’t have a br
- Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 2 saliency on antecedent av
- Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 2 describing defeasible inf
- Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 2 effects of alternative ca
- Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 2 account for one of the pr
- Page 57 and 58:
Data and Method 3 Data and Method E
- Page 59 and 60:
Data and Method the communicative r
- Page 61 and 62:
Data and Method Speaker B. Speaker
- Page 63 and 64:
3.3 THE EXCERPTED EXAMPLES AND ANAL
- Page 65 and 66:
Data and Method Additional excerpti
- Page 67:
Accommdation Binding Total number o
- Page 70 and 71:
Chapter 4 perceiving the coherence
- Page 72 and 73:
Chapter 4 (1) The doctor and the pa
- Page 74 and 75:
Chapter 4 (3) Gudrun spent the enti
- Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 4 None of the triggered pre
- Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 4 Speaker A: Oh no, it‘s
- Page 80 and 81:
Chapter 4 Speaker A How‘s things
- Page 82 and 83:
Chapter 4 collaborative evidenced w
- Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 4 This makes determining re
- Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 4 Speaker C: *Presumably* (
- Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 4 directions, it is necessa
- Page 90 and 91:
Chapter 4 Other corpus work has als
- Page 92 and 93:
Chapter 4 Consider the following ex
- Page 94 and 95:
Chapter 4 Speaker B Really awful, I
- Page 96 and 97:
Chapter 4 and its elements. The use
- Page 98 and 99:
Chapter 4 Here I will first give so
- Page 100 and 101:
Chapter 4 same as the last referenc
- Page 102 and 103:
Chapter 4 anaphors, suggesting that
- Page 104 and 105:
Chapter 4 For many of the examples,
- Page 107 and 108:
Accommodation and Presupposition 5
- Page 109 and 110:
Accommodation and Presupposition pr
- Page 111 and 112:
Accommodation and Presupposition (1
- Page 113 and 114:
Accommodation and Presupposition 5.
- Page 115 and 116:
Accommodation and Presupposition fo
- Page 117 and 118:
Accommodation and Presupposition Gl
- Page 119 and 120:
Accommodation and Presupposition se
- Page 121 and 122:
Accommodation and Presupposition po
- Page 123 and 124:
Accommodation and Presupposition Th
- Page 125 and 126:
Accommodation and Presupposition di
- Page 127 and 128:
Accommodation and Presupposition mo
- Page 129 and 130:
Accommodation and Presupposition De
- Page 131 and 132:
Accommodation and Presupposition pr
- Page 133 and 134:
Accommodation and Presupposition Th
- Page 135 and 136:
Accommodation and Presupposition It
- Page 137 and 138:
Accommodation and Presupposition ob
- Page 139 and 140:
Accommodation and Presupposition th
- Page 141 and 142:
Accommodation and Presupposition 5.
- Page 143 and 144:
Accommodation and Presupposition In
- Page 145 and 146: Accommodation and Presupposition in
- Page 147 and 148: Accommodation and Presupposition He
- Page 149 and 150: Accommodation and Presupposition mi
- Page 151 and 152: Accommodation and Presupposition ad
- Page 153 and 154: Accommodation and Presupposition Th
- Page 155 and 156: Accommodation and Presupposition di
- Page 157 and 158: Accommodation and Presupposition In
- Page 159 and 160: Between Binding and Accommodation 6
- Page 161 and 162: Between Binding and Accommodation T
- Page 163 and 164: Between Binding and Accommodation i
- Page 165 and 166: Between Binding and Accommodation b
- Page 167 and 168: Between Binding and Accommodation W
- Page 169 and 170: Between Binding and Accommodation a
- Page 171 and 172: Between Binding and Accommodation t
- Page 173 and 174: Between Binding and Accommodation C
- Page 175 and 176: Between Binding and Accommodation C
- Page 177 and 178: Between Binding and Accommodation b
- Page 179 and 180: Between Binding and Accommodation a
- Page 181 and 182: Between Binding and Accommodation a
- Page 183 and 184: Between Binding and Accommodation a
- Page 185 and 186: Between Binding and Accommodation B
- Page 187 and 188: Between Binding and Accommodation t
- Page 189: Between Binding and Accommodation b
- Page 192 and 193: Chapter 7 behave quite similarly to
- Page 194 and 195: Chapter 7 7.1 FUTURE WORK I strongl
- Page 198 and 199: Karttunen, L. (1971), ‘Some obser
- Page 200: Wilson, D. & T. Matsui (1998), ‘R