Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discourse and Information Structure

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bolinger, D., 1965, Forms of English, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., 1983, “Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction,” pp. 67–77 in Prosody: Models and Measurements, A. Cutler, D. R. Ladd, and G. Brown, eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D., 1995, “The 59th Street Bridge accent: On the meaning of topic and focus,” Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Tübingen.

  • Büring, D., 1997, The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W., 1976, “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view,” pp. 25–55 in Subject and Topic, C. Li, ed., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., 1971, “Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation,” pp. 183–216 in Semantics, D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. and Haviland, S., 1977, “Comprehension and the given-new contract,” pp. 1–40 in Discourse Production and Comprehension, R. Freedle, ed., Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M., 1973, Logics and Languages, London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, O., 1969, Topic and Focus: A Study in Russian and General Transformational Grammar, Göteborg: Elandres Botryckeri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbas, J., 1964, “On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis,” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbas, J., 1966, “Non-thematic subjects in contemporary english,” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2, 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J., 1996, “Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue,” pp. 385–422 in The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin, ed., Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, J., 1975, The Thread of Discourse, The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. and Sidner, C., 1986, “Attention, intention and the structure of discourse,” Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B., Joshi, A., and Weinstein, S., 1995, “Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse,” Computational Linguistics 2, 203–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel, J., 1974, “The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajičová, E., Partee, B.H., and Sgall, P., 1998, Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M., 1967, “Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part II,” Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. and Hasan, R., 1976, Cohesion in English, Harlow, U.K.: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definites and indefinite noun phrases in English,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, H., 1998, “Links without locations,” in Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9/1998: SEMANTIK, F. Hamm and E. Zimmermann, eds., Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J., 1993, “Pitch accent in context: Predicting intonational prominence from text,” Artificial Intelligence 63, 305–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B., 1995, “Computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of 'free' word-order in Turkish,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. IRCS Report 95-17.

  • Hoffman, B., 1996, “Translating into free word order languages,” pp. 556–561 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-96), Copenhagen, J. Tsujii, ed., Copenhagen, Denmark: Center for Sprogteknologi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R., 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., 1984, “A theory of truth and semantic representation,” pp. 1–41 in Truth, Interpretation, and Information, J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof, eds., Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L., 1968, “What makes definite noun phrases definite?,” Technical Report, Rand Corporation.

  • Karttunen, L. and Peters, S., 1979, “Conventional implicature,” pp. 1–56 in Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, C.-K. Oh and D. Dinneen, eds., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, M., 1975, “Syntactic processing and functional sentence perspective,” pp. 12–15 in Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, (Supplement), in R. Schank and B. Nash-Webber, eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koktová, E., 1995, “Wh-extraction and the topic-focus articulation of the sentence,” pp. 255–271 in Discourse and Meaning, B.H. Partee and P. Sgall, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komagata, N., 1999, “Information structure in texts: A computational analysis of contextual appropriateness in English and Japanese,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Kratzer, A., 1991, “The representation of focus,” pp. 825–834 in Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, eds., Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., 1991, “A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions,” Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 127–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruijff, G.-J., 2001, “Categorial-modal architecture of informativity: Dependency grammar logic and information structure,” Ph.D. Thesis, Charles University, Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruijff-Korbayová, I., 1998, “The dynamic potential of topic and focus: A Praguian discourse representation theory,” Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and Webber, B., 2001, “Information structure and the semantics of 'otherwise',” pp. 61–78 in Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI2001 Workshop Proceedings, Helsinki, Finland, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., The University of Helsinki.

  • Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Bateman, J., and Kruijff, G.-J.M., 2002, “Generation of contextually appropriate word order,” pp. 193–222 in Information Sharing, K. van Deemter and R. Kibble, eds., Lecture Notes, Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Ericsson, S., Rodríguez, K.J., and Karagjosova, E., 2003, “Producing contextually appropriate intonation is an information-state based dialogue system,” pp. 227–234 in Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Budapest, Hungary.

  • Lambrecht, K., 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W. and Thompson, S., 1987, “Rhetorical structure theory: A framework for the analysis of texts,” Technical Report RS-87-185, Information Science Institute, Marina del Rey, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathesius, V., 1929, “Functional linguistics,” pp. 121–142. in Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Well-Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistics School, J. Vachek, ed., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, A., 1994, “Intonation accent placement in a concept-to-dialogue system,” pp. 171–174 in Proceedings of the Second ESCA/IEEE Workshop on Speech Synthesis, New Paltz, NY.

  • Montague, R., 1973, “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English,” pp. 221–242 in Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, J. Hintikka, J.M.E. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani, C.H., Hirschberg, J., and Grosz, B., 1995, “Discourse structure in spoken language: Studies on speech corpora,” pp. 106–112 in Working Notes of AAAI-95 Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation, Palo Alto, CA, J. Moore and M. Walker, eds., Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B., 1995, “Allegation and local accommodation,” pp. 65–86 in Discourse and Meaning, B.H. Partee and P. Sgall, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B.H. and Sgall, P., eds., 1995, Discourse and Meaning, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J., 1980, “The phonology and phonetics of English intonation,” Ph.D. Thesis, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.

  • Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J., 1990, “The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse,” pp. 271–312 in P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, eds., Intentions in Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, L. and Scha, R., 1983, “The syntax of discourse,” Text 3, 261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevost, S., 1995, “A semantics of contrast and information structure for specifying intonation in spoken language generation,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Prince, E., 1981, “Towards a taxonomy of given-new information,” pp. 223–256 in Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole, ed., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M., 1985, “Association with focus,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M., 1992, “A theory of focus interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B., 1905, “On denoting,” Mind 14, 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G., 1974, “A simplest semantics for the organization of turntaking for conversation,” Language 50, 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E., 1984, Phonology and Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sgall, P., 1967, “Functional sentence perspective in a generative description,” Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 2, 203–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., and Panevová, J., 1986, The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M., 1991, “Structure and intonation,” Language 67, 262–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, M., 2000, “Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 649–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P., 1950, “On referring,” Mind 59, 320–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P., 1954, “A reply to Mr. Sellars,” Philosophical Review 63, 216–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E., 1990, “The information component,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Vallduví, E. and Vilkuna, M., 1998, “On rheme and kontrast,” pp. 79–108 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 29: The Limits of Syntax, P. Culicover and L. McNally, eds., San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, E. and Zacharski, R., 1994, “Accenting phenomena, association with focus, and the recursiveness of focus-ground,” pp. 683–702 in Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A., 1991, “Focusing and backgrounding operators,” pp. 37–84 in Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, W. Abraham, ed., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M., Joshi, A.K., and Prince, E.F., eds., 1998, Centering Theory in Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, B., 1988, “Tense as discourse anaphor,” Computational Linguistics 14, 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T., 1972, Understanding Natural Language, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Linguistics, Saarland University, Postfach 151150, 66041, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová

  2. Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, U.K.

    Mark Steedman

Authors
  1. Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Steedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Steedman, M. Discourse and Information Structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 249–259 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024160025821

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024160025821

Keywords

Search

Navigation