Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:20:24.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Narrating and Structuring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2022

Edited by
Daniel Altshuler
Daniel Altshuler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 137 - 214
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Afantenos, S., Kow, E., Asher, N., & Perret, J. (2015). Discourse parsing for multi-party chat dialogues. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 928–937). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Altshuler, D. (2016). Events, States and Times: An Essay on Narrative Discourse in English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Toosarvandani, M. (2019). Now and then: Perspectives on positional variance in temporal demonstratives. Sinn und Bedeutung, 19–36.Google Scholar
AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., & Henderson, R. (2015). At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics, 32(1), 93–138.Google Scholar
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in English. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Asher, N. (2000). Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics, 17(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
Asher, N., Hunter, J., Morey, M., Benamara, F., & Afantenos, S. (2016). Discourse structure and dialogue acts in multiparty dialogue: The STAC corpus. In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 2721–2727). http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2016/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, N., & Paul, S. (2018). Strategic conversation under imperfect information: Epistemic message exchange games. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 27(4), 343–385.Google Scholar
Asher, N., Paul, S., & Venant, A. (2017). Message exchange games in strategic contexts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46(4), 355–404.Google Scholar
Asher, N., & Reese, B. (2007). Intonation and discourse: Biased questions. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Badene, S., Thompson, K., Lorré, J.-P., & Asher, N. (2019a). Data programming for learning discourse structure. In the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 640–645). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).Google Scholar
Badene, S., Thompson, K., Lorré, J.-P., & Asher, N. (2019b). Weak supervision for learning discourse structure. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, Xiaojun Wan (Eds.), Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2296–2305. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Buch-Kromann, M., & Korzen, I. (2010). The unified annotation of syntax and discourse in the Copenhagen dependency treebanks. In the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 127–131). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Carlson, L., & Marcu, D. (2001). Discourse tagging reference manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545, 54, 56.Google Scholar
Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2005). Attribution and the (non-) alignment of syntactic and discourse arguments of connectives. In the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II: Pie in the Sky (pp. 29–36). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 183–198). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. In 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, (pp. 136–144). Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1985). On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37. Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. (2012). Now: A discourse-based theory. In Aloni, M., Kimmelman, V., Roelofsen, F., Sassoon, G. W., Schulz, K., & Westera, M. (Eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning (pp. 371–380). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. (2016). Reports in discourse. Dialogue & Discourse, 7(4), 1–35.Google Scholar
Hunter, J., & Abrusán, M. (2015). Rhetorical structure and QUDs. In JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 41–57). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Hunter, J., & Asher, N. (2016). Shapes of conversation and at-issue content. In Moroney, M., Little, C.-R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 1022–1042).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J., Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2018). A formal semantics for situated conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 11. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.10Google Scholar
Hunter, J., Asher, N., Reese, B., & Denis, P. (2006). Evidentiality and intensionality: Two uses of reportative constructions in discourse. In Sidner, C., Harpur, J., Benz, A., & Kühnlein, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraints in Discourse (pp. 99–106).Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, K. (2016). Not at issue any more. University of Cologne. https://dslc.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/dslc/katja_files/jasinskaja_any_more.pdf.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (1988). Discourse representation theory: What it is and where it ought to go. Natural Language at the Computer, 320(1), 84–111.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (2013). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Koev, T. (2018). Notions of at-issueness. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(12), https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koev, T. K. (2013). Apposition and the Structure of Discourse. PhD thesis, Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(5), 437–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A., & Stone, M. (2009a). Discourse coherence and gesture interpretation. Gesture, 9(2), 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, A., & Stone, M. (2009b). A formal semantic analysis of gesture. Journal of Semantics, 26(4), 393–449.Google Scholar
Maier, E., & Bary, C. (2015). Three puzzles about negation in non-canonical speech reports. In Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium.Google Scholar
Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A framework for the analysis of texts. International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 79–105.Google Scholar
Muller, P., Afantenos, S., Denis, P., & Asher, N. (2012). Constrained decoding for text-level discourse parsing. In COLING 2012, Mumbai, India (pp. 1883–1900). The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Perret, J., Afantenos, S., Asher, N., & Morey, M. (2016). Integer linear programming for discourse parsing. In the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego, California (pp. 99–109). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Polanyi, L. (1985). A theory of discourse structure and discourse coherence. In CLS. Papers from the General Session at the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Volume 21 (pp. 306–322). Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quintilian (1963). Institutio Oratoria, trans. Butler, H. E.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reese, B., & Asher, N. (2007). Prosody and the interpretation of tag questions. Sinn und Bedeutung, 448–462.Google Scholar
Reese, B. J. (2007). Bias in Questions. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056.Google Scholar
Simons, M. (2019). The status of main point complement clauses. In Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, September 4–6, London.Google Scholar
Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2010). What projects and why. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 309–327.Google Scholar
Snider, T. N. (2017). Anaphoric Reference to Propositions. PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Stojnić, U., & Altshuler, D. (2021). Formal properties of now revisited. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.3Google Scholar
Stojnić, U., Stone, M., & Lepore, E. (2013). Deixis (even without pointing). Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 502–525.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., & Koev, T. (2015). Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. Journal of Semantics, 32(3), 525–577.Google Scholar
Von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In Bezuidenhout, A. & Reimer, M. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays on Definite and Indefinite Descriptions and Other Related Phenomena (pp. 315–341). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, B. L. (1988). Tense as discourse anaphor. Technical Reports (CIS), 441.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding Natural Language. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Abusch, D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Anand, P. (2009). Kinds of Taste. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Korotkova, N. (2018). Acquaintance content and obviation. Sinn und Bedeutung, 22, 55–72.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Toosarvandani, M. (2017). Unifying the canonical, historical, and play-by-play present. Sinn und Bedeutung, 21, 19–34.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Toosarvandani, M. (2018). No explanation for the historical present: Temporal sequencing and discourse. Sinn und Bedeutung, 22, 73–90.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Toosarvandani, M. (2020). Embedded presents and the structure of narratives. In Rhyne, J., Lamp, K., Dreier, N., & Kwon, C. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 30 (pp. 801–820).Google Scholar
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bylinina, L. (2017). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 34, 291–331.Google Scholar
Caenepeel, M. (1989). Aspect, Temporal Ordering, and Perspective in Narrative Fiction. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Carroll, N. (2007). Narrative closure. Philosophical Studies, 135, 1–15.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. (1991). Epistemic possibilities. Philosophical Review, 100, 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, M. W. (2001). The Processing of Tense: Psycholinguistic Studies on the Interpretation of Tense and Temporal Relations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1986). The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2012). Hereby explained: An event-based account of performative utterances. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35, 21–55.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2015). Speakers and narrators. In Birke, D. & Köope, T. (Eds.), Author and Narrator: Transdisciplinary Contributions to a Narratological Debate (pp. 153–186). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2021). In search of the narrator. In Maier, E. & Stokke, A. (Eds.), The Language of Fiction (pp. 157–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D., & Middleton, D. (1986). Joint remembering: Constructing an account of shared experience through conversational discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 423–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekeocha, J. O., & Brennan, S. E. (2008). Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups. Memory, 16, 245–261.Google Scholar
Forster, E. M. (1927). Aspects of the Novel. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. (1986). Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 63–82.Google Scholar
Hirst, W., Manier, D., & Apetroaia, I. (1997). The social construction of the remembered self: Family recounting. In Snodgras, J. G. & Thompson, R. L. (Eds.), The Self across Psychology: Self-recognition, Self-awareness, and the Self Concept (pp. 163–188). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and Cognition. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004). Thrice Told Tales: Married Couples Tell Their Stories. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hunter, J., & Abrusán, M. (2017). Rhetorical structure and QUDs. In Otake, M., Kurahashi, S., Ota, Y., Satoh, K., & Bekki, D. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2015 Workshops, LENLS, JURISIN, AAA, HAT-MASH, TSDAA, ASD-HR, and SKL Kanagawa, Japan, November 16–18, 2015 (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. (2017). Openers. Ms., University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kellas, J. K. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories. Communication Monographs, 72, 365–389.Google Scholar
Klauk, T., Köppe, T., & Onea, E. (2016). More on narrative closure. Journal of Literary Semantics, 45, 21–48.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kölbel, M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104, 53–73.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In Strolovich, D. & Lawson, A. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 8, (pp. 92–110).Google Scholar
van Kuppevelt, J. (1995). Main structure and side structure in discourse. Linguistics, 33, 809–833.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1966). Narrative analysis: Oral version of personal experience. In Heim, J. (Ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations, and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 437–493.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2017). Subjectivity and Perspective in Truth-Theoretic Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 321–336.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.Google Scholar
Molendijk, A., & de Swart, H. (1999). L’inversion causale en français. Travaux de Linguistique, 39, 77–96.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2012). Two kinds of first-person-oriented content. Synthese, 184, 157–177.Google Scholar
Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In Snider, T., D’Antonio, S., & Weigand, M. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 24 (pp. 290–309).Google Scholar
Onea, E. (2016). Potential Questions at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 601–609.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30, 103–154.Google Scholar
Pinto, G., Tarchi, C., & Bigozzi, L. (2018). Is two better than one? Comparing children’s narrative competence in an individual versus joint storytelling task. Social Psychology of Education, 21, 91–109.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2007). Imagining De Se. Ms., Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Riester, A. (2019). Constructing QUD trees. In Zimmermann, M., von Heusinger, K., & Gaspar, V. E. O. (Eds.), Questions in Discourse, Volume 2: Pragmatics (pp. 164–193). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2016). Coherence and Anaphora. Ms., The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57, 45–62.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2004). Context of thought and context of utterance (a note on free indirect discourse and the historical present). Mind & Language, 19, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Y. (2004). Free indirect discourse and ‘de re’ pronouns. In Young, R. B. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 14 (pp. 305–322).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 353–395.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 487–525.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In Dietrich, R. & Graumann, C. F. (Eds.), Language Processing in Social Context (pp. 39–76). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Velleman, L., & Beaver, D. (2016). Question-based models of information structure. In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 86–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1982). Speaking of imagination. In Simon, T. W. & Scholes, R. J. (Eds.), Language, Mind, and Brain (pp. 35–43). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webber, B. L. (1988). Tense as discourse anaphora. Computational Linguistics, 14, 61–73.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1979). The conversational historical present alternation. Language, 55, 168–182.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×