Interpreting Concession Statements In Light Of Information Structure

  • Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová
  • Bonnie L. Webber
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)


Information Structure Discourse Context Pitch Accent Discourse Connective Conventional Implicature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, N. and M. Morreau: 1991, ‘Commonsense Entailment’. In: IJCAI’91, Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Sydney, Australia, 387–392.Google Scholar
  2. Beaver, D.: 1997, ‘Presupposition’. In: J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.): Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier and The MIT Press, pp. 939–1008.Google Scholar
  3. Bos, J., A.-M. Mineur, and P. Buitelaar: 1995, ‘Bridging as coercive accommodation’. Technical report, CLAUS 52, Department of Computational Linguistics, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
  4. Büring, D.: 1999, ‘Topic’. In: P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.): Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Principles, Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 142–165.Google Scholar
  5. Dretske, F.: 1972, ‘Contrastive Statements’. Philosophical Review, 411–437.Google Scholar
  6. Fillmore, C. J. and D. T. Langedoen (eds.): 1971, Studies in Linguistic Semantics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Firbas, J.: 1992, Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication, Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Geis, M. L. and A. M. Zwicky: 1971, ‘On Invited Inferences’. Linguistic Inquiry II(4), 561–566.Google Scholar
  9. Ginzburg, J.: 1996, ‘Interrogatives: Questions, Facts and Dialogue’. In: S. Lappin (ed.): The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Chap. Chapter 15, pp. 385–422.Google Scholar
  10. Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and conversation’. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.): Syntax and Semantics, No. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
  11. Grote, B., N. Lenke, and M. Stede: 1995, ‘Ma(r)king Concessions in English and German’. Discourse Processes24(1), 87–118.Google Scholar
  12. Hajičová, E. and P. Sgall: 1987, ‘The Ordering Principle’. Journal of Pragmatics 11(4), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halliday, M. A.: 1970, A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M. A.: 1985, Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, U.K.: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  15. Hamblin, C.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague English’. Foundations of Language pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
  16. Karttunen, L.: 1973, ‘Presuppositions of Compound Sentences’. Linguistic Inquiry IV(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
  17. Karttunen, L.: 1974, ‘Presupposition and Linguistic Context’. Theoretical Linguistics 1(1/2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karttunen, L. and S. Peters: 1979, ‘Conventional Implicature’. In: C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen (eds.): Syntax and Semantics: Presupposition, Vol. 11. Academic Press, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  19. Knott, A.: 1996, ‘A Data-driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations’. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  20. Knott, A. and C. Mellish: 1996, ‘A Feature-based Account of the Relations Signalled by Sentence and Clause Connectives’. Language and Speech 39(2-3), 143–183.Google Scholar
  21. Komagata, N.: 2003, ‘Information Structure in Subordinate and Subordinatelike Clauses’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information: Special Issue on Discourse and Information Structure 12(3), 301–318.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A.: 1991, ‘Modality’. In: A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.): Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgen¢sssischen Forschung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 639–650.Google Scholar
  23. Krifka, M.: 1993, ‘Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Semantics’. Journal of Semantics 19, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruijff-Korbayová: 2001, ‘Information Structure and the Semantics of “otherwise”’. In: I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman (eds.): Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, ESSLLI 2001 Workshop Proceedings. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
  25. Kruijff-Korbayová, I.: 1998, ‘The Dynamic Potential of Topic and Focus: A Praguian Discourse Representation Theory’. unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  26. Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and M. Steedman: 2003, ‘Discourse and Information Structure’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information: Special Issue on Discourse and Information Structure 12(3), 249–259.Google Scholar
  27. Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and B. Webber: 2000, ‘Discourse Connectives, Inference and Information Structure’. In: J. Bos and M. Kohlhase (eds.): Proceedings of ICoS-2, Schloβ Dagstuhl, Germany, pp. 105–120.Google Scholar
  28. Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and B. Webber: 2001, ‘Concession, Implicature, and Alternative Sets’. In: H. Bunt (ed.): Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Semantics IWCS-4. Tilburg, the Netherlands, pp. 227–248.Google Scholar
  29. Lagerwerf, L.: 1998, Causal Connectives have Presuppositions. The Hague, The Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics. Ph.D. Thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  30. Lakoff, G.: 1971a, ‘If’s, and’s and but’s about Conjunction’. In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langedoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., pp. 114–149.Google Scholar
  31. Lakoff, R.: 1971b, ‘The Role of Deduction in Grammar’. C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langedoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., pp. 62–70.Google Scholar
  32. Larsson, S.: 2003, ‘Interactive communication management in an issue-based dialogue system’. In: I. Kruijff-Korbayová and C. Kosny (eds.): Proceedings of the 7th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (DiaBruck). pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
  33. Mathesius, V.: 1975, ‘On Information Bearing Structure of the Sentence’. In: S. Kuno (ed.): Harvard studies in syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Partee, B.: 1995, ‘Allegation and local accommodation’. In: B. H. Partee and P. Sgall (eds.): Discourse and Meaning. Amssterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
  35. Partee, B. H., E. Hajičová, and P. Sgall: 1998, Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Rooth, M.: 1985, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’. Ph.D. thesis, Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  37. Rooth, M.: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sanders, T., W. Spooren, and L. Noordman: 1992, ‘Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations’. Discourse Processes 15(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  39. Sgall, P., E. Hajičová, and J. Panevová: 1986, The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  40. Spooren, W.: 1989, ‘Some Aspects of the Form and Interpretation on Global Contrastive relations’. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  41. Steedman, M.: 1996, Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Steedman, M.: 2000a, ‘Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface’. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4), 649–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steedman, M.: 2000b, The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vallduví, E.: 1992, The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  45. van der Sandt, R. A.: 1992, ‘Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution’. Journal of semantics 9, 333–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webber, B., A. Knott, and A. Joshi: 1999a, ‘Multiple Discourse Connectives in a Lexicalized Grammar for Discourse’. In: Proceedings IWCS-3, Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics. Tilburg, The Netherlands, pp. 309–325.Google Scholar
  47. Webber, B., A. Knott, M. Stone, and A. Joshi: 1999b, ‘Discourse Relations: A Structural and Presuppositional Account using Lexicalised TAG’. In: Proceedings of the 36 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. College Park MD, pp. 41–48.Google Scholar
  48. Webber, B., A. Knott, M. Stone, and A. Joshi: 1999c, ‘What are Little Trees Made of: A Structural and Presuppositional Account using Lexicalised TAG’. In: A. Knott, J. Oberlander, M. Johanna, and T. Sanders (eds.): Proceedings of International Workshop on Levels of Representation in Discourse (LORID’99). Edinburgh, pp. 151–156.Google Scholar
  49. Webber, B., M. Stone, A. Joshi, and A. Knott: 2003, ‘Anaphora and Discourse Structure’. Computational Linguistics 29(4), 545–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová
  • Bonnie L. Webber

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations