1998
DOI: 10.1006/csla.1998.0044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A blackboard model of accenting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All approaches to contrast prediction discussed in the previous sections have in common that they regard the presence of a pair of 'alternative items' (called parallel, contrastive, or contrastible items) as a prerequisite for contrast. An important difference between the approaches is that both Prevost [1995] and Pulman [1997] claim that two alternatives should be at least 'of the same type', whereas in the theory of van Deemter [1994avan Deemter [ , 1998van Deemter [ , 1999, the only condition on contrastible items is inequality of denotations. A possible explanation for this difference is the following.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…All approaches to contrast prediction discussed in the previous sections have in common that they regard the presence of a pair of 'alternative items' (called parallel, contrastive, or contrastible items) as a prerequisite for contrast. An important difference between the approaches is that both Prevost [1995] and Pulman [1997] claim that two alternatives should be at least 'of the same type', whereas in the theory of van Deemter [1994avan Deemter [ , 1998van Deemter [ , 1999, the only condition on contrastible items is inequality of denotations. A possible explanation for this difference is the following.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such cases occur quite frequently in D2S-based applications, but the approaches discussed in Section 3 are not well suited to deal with them. Table IV shows two of the GoalGetter examples discussed in the previous sections, and the corresponding predictions of Prevost [1995], Pulman [1997] and van Deemter [1994avan Deemter [ , 1998van Deemter [ , 1999. Example (18) is not included in Table IV, because of its similarity to (17).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation