Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Sandt, R.A. van der & B. Geurts (1991), ‘Presupposition, anaphora, and lexical content’, in O.
Herzog & C.-R. Rollinger (eds), Text Understanding in LILOG. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
259–296.
Sandt, R.A. van der (1992), ‘Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution’, Journal of
Semantics, 9: 333–377.
Sandt, R.A. van der, R. Blutner & M. Bierwisch (1997), (eds), ‘From Underspecification to
Interpretation: Papers from the ASG Workshop’, ILL Working Paper 29, Institute for
Logic and Linguistics, IBM Scientific Centre, Heidelberg. Pp. 163–182.
Sandt, R.A. van der & B. Geurts (2001), ‘Too’, in Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam
Colloquium, Dec 17-19, Amsterdam.
Sells, P. & T.Wasow, (1997), ‘Anaphora’, in P. Lemarque (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Philoosphy
of Language, Elsevier, 207–213
Sidner, C. L. (1983), ‘Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora’, in R. C. Berwick &
M. Brady, (eds.), Computational Models of Discourse, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, , 267–330.
Spenader, J. (2000), ‘Defining Propositional Similarity: Systemizing Identification of
Presuppositional Binding’, in Proceedings of Götalog 2000, the Fourth Workshop in the
Semantics and Pragmatics of dialogues, Göteborg, Sweden, June 15-17.
Spenader, J. (2001a), ‘Two takes on too?,’ In Proceedings of the First Conference in Formal
Pragmatics, Berlin, 16-18 March, 2001.
Spenader, J. (2001b), ‘Between Binding and Accommodation,’ Paper presented at Bi-Dialogue,
Fifth workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Bielefeld, 14-16 June,
2001.
Spenader, J. (2001c), ‘Presupposition or Anaphora: Constraints on Choice of Factive
Complements in Spoken Discourse’, Paper presented at ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on
Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, Helsinki, Finland,
13-24 August.
Spenader, J. (to appear), ‘Propositional Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse’, in K. van Deemter
& R. Kibble, (eds.), Information Sharing. CSLI publications.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1995), Relevance, Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
Stalnaker, R.C. (1973), ‘Presuppositions’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457.
Stalnaker, R.C. (1974), ‘Pragmatic Presuppositions’, In M. K. Munitz & P. K Unger (eds.),
Semantics and Philosophy, New York, 197–213.
Strawson, P. F. (1950), ‘On referring’, Mind 59: 320–344.
Svartvik, J. (1990), The London Lund Corpus of Spoken English; Description and Research, J. Svartvik,
ed., Lund Studies in English, 82, Lund University Press.
Traum, D. (1994), ‘A Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation.’
Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Rochester.
Veltman, F. (1996), ‘Defaults in update semantics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25: 221–261.
Vendler, Z. (1967) Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Vieira, R. & M. Poesio, (2000), ‘An Empirically-Based System for Processing Definite
Descriptions’, Computational Linguistics, 26, 4: 539-594.
Vieira, R. & S. Teufel, (1997), ‘Towards Resolution of Bridging Descriptions’, in Proceedings of
the ACL Student Session. Association for Computational Linguistics. Madrid, Spain. July 7-
12.
Walker, M. (1996), ‘Limited Attention and Discourse Structure’, in Computational Linguistics, 22,
2: 255 –264.
Webber, B. (1991), ‘Structure and Ostention and the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis’,
Language and Cognitive Processes. 6: 107–135.
Wilson, D. (1975), Presupposition and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. Academic Press, New York.
191