User Tools

Site Tools


1st

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

1st [2012/06/25 23:53]
malte [The notions of at issue vs. not at issue content and their relation to focus and the questions under discussion.]
1st [2012/06/25 23:56] (current)
malte [The discourse structuring role of questions and speech acts and discourse particles]
Line 69: Line 69:
   * Manfred Krifka presented evidence for a speech act based discourse model, in which information seeking questions for only a sub-component of the overall system. The system also includes all kinds of other speech acts, which can directly interact with linguistic material e.g. in form of denegation of speech acts. It is of particular interest that in this system, the notion of alternatives is still present but largely independent of the specific notion of question-alternatives (Hamblin-Alternatives),​ which usually forms the basis for most theories of focus.   * Manfred Krifka presented evidence for a speech act based discourse model, in which information seeking questions for only a sub-component of the overall system. The system also includes all kinds of other speech acts, which can directly interact with linguistic material e.g. in form of denegation of speech acts. It is of particular interest that in this system, the notion of alternatives is still present but largely independent of the specific notion of question-alternatives (Hamblin-Alternatives),​ which usually forms the basis for most theories of focus.
   * In a similar vein Craige Roberts pointed out the need to supplement the standard question-answer based discourse model with higher or additional levels pertaining to discourse aims and intentions of the discourse participants. In her view linguistics and discourse modeling is not only concernded with modelling linguistic phenomena but also with a general explanative theory of communication. The first two point will be discussed in the [[ 3rd | third meeting ]]  in 2013 in Potsdam. ​   * In a similar vein Craige Roberts pointed out the need to supplement the standard question-answer based discourse model with higher or additional levels pertaining to discourse aims and intentions of the discourse participants. In her view linguistics and discourse modeling is not only concernded with modelling linguistic phenomena but also with a general explanative theory of communication. The first two point will be discussed in the [[ 3rd | third meeting ]]  in 2013 in Potsdam. ​
-  * On the other side, David Beaver pointed out that all kinds of alternatives can be roughly thought of as questions (not necessarily information-seeking devices) and that in order to capture the meaning of focus we need not only global questions ​that structure the discoruse ​but also local questions, which emerge in quantificational ​structure, conditionals and the like. The formal implementation of such questions has been identified as as an important research desideratum. See Beaver and Coppock 2012 for a first approximation. In the [[2nd | second meeting ]], this will be one of the important topics of discussion. +  * On the other side, David Beaver pointed out that all kinds of alternatives can be roughly thought of as questions (not necessarily information-seeking devices) and that in order to capture the meaning of focus we not only require ​global questions, which structure the general discourse, ​but also local questions, which emerge in quantificational ​structures, conditionals and the like. The formal implementation of such questions has been identified as as an important research desideratum. See Beaver and Coppock 2012 for a first approximation. In the [[2nd | second meeting ]], this will be one of the important topics of discussion. 
-  * Henk Zeevat has argued that it seems possible to model the semantic contribution of contrastitve/​corrective-particles such as //but// in question-based discourse models, ​however that would lead to the postulation of questions which cannot be expressed in a very natural way. The question came up whether this price is worth paying or whether one should give up on the project of capturing the meaning of such particles in such frameworks. The role of discourse particles in discourse structuring and whether or not discourse structure can be properly captured in terms of questions under discussion (d-trees), might be a topic for the [[ 3rd | third meeting ]]. +  * Henk Zeevat has argued that it seems possible to model the semantic contribution of contrastitve/​corrective-particles such as //but// in question-based discourse models. Howeverthis move would lead to the postulation of questions which cannot be expressed in a very natural way. The question came up whether this price is worth payingor whether one should give up on the project of capturing the meaning of such particles in such frameworks. The role of discourse particles in discourse structuring and the question of whether or not discourse structure can be properly captured in terms of questions under discussion (d-trees), might be a topic for the [[ 3rd | third meeting ]]. 
   * Radek Simik discussed a particular type of inquiry strategy in which multiple wh-words do not appear in a hierarchy as generally assumed in the literature, but are interpreted in a flat in symmetric way. While the discussion focused on Czech data, it turned out that such interpretations are also possible in other languages. Topics such as this one seem highly relevant for the meetings [[5th | 5]] and [[ 6th | 6]].    * Radek Simik discussed a particular type of inquiry strategy in which multiple wh-words do not appear in a hierarchy as generally assumed in the literature, but are interpreted in a flat in symmetric way. While the discussion focused on Czech data, it turned out that such interpretations are also possible in other languages. Topics such as this one seem highly relevant for the meetings [[5th | 5]] and [[ 6th | 6]]. 
  
1st.1340661237.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/06/25 23:53 by malte