The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics 2016
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139236157.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantics of dialogue

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
59
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
59
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Interested readers are referred to Thomason 1990 andRoberts 2004 for general introductions. Influential foundational work in this area includes the papers collected in Stalnaker 1998; the diverse approaches to modeling common ground in Gauker 1998, Gunlogson 2001, and Farkas & Bruce 2010; the theory of indexicals in Kaplan 1978Kaplan , 1989; the dynamic approaches of Kamp 1981 andHeim 1982; the question-driven models of Roberts 1996 andGinzburg 1996; and the goal-driven models of Perrault & Allen 1980, Allen 1991, Benz et al 2005b, and Stone et al 2007.…”
Section: Presuppositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interested readers are referred to Thomason 1990 andRoberts 2004 for general introductions. Influential foundational work in this area includes the papers collected in Stalnaker 1998; the diverse approaches to modeling common ground in Gauker 1998, Gunlogson 2001, and Farkas & Bruce 2010; the theory of indexicals in Kaplan 1978Kaplan , 1989; the dynamic approaches of Kamp 1981 andHeim 1982; the question-driven models of Roberts 1996 andGinzburg 1996; and the goal-driven models of Perrault & Allen 1980, Allen 1991, Benz et al 2005b, and Stone et al 2007.…”
Section: Presuppositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assuming cooperativity, indirect answers of this form give rise to additional conversational inferences about the set of questions (issues, goals) in play in the discourse (Ginzburg, 1996;Roberts, 1996;Büring, 1999;Büring, 2003;de Marneffe et al, 2010). This too is relevance-based; once the conversational implicature is taken into account, Bill in fact over-answers the direct question.…”
Section: Relevance Implicaturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These collective attention concepts might bring to mind the concept of a Question Under Discussion (QUD; Roberts 1996Roberts , 2012Ginzburg 1996Ginzburg , 2012, a contextually salient discourse topic that interlocutors are collaboratively answering. 9 But while we think that QUDs are intimately related to our group attention concepts, especially to public attention, there are good theoretical reasons to distinguish these concepts from one another.…”
Section: Attention In Discoursementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has also been used for a corpus of in-car MP3 player dialogues (Rieser et al 2005a(Rieser et al , 2005bLemon 2006, 2008) and has been adopted for the DiSCoH project (Andreani et al 2006), but in general there are several other features one might want to include in dialogue context annotations. For the dialogue level, such features include changes to issues/questions under discussion (Ginzburg 1996), changes to common ground (Clark and Brennan 1991;Traum 1994), obligations (Traum and Allen 1994), system and user intentions (Grosz and Sidner 1986), syntactic and semantic parses, and salient NPs. For the task level, such features include the number of database query results (for slotfilling/information-seeking dialogues), user goals, and confidence in each slot (e.g.…”
Section: The Talk Context Annotation Schemementioning
confidence: 99%