Structured Contexts for Natural Language Interpretation Part 1: Contextually Encoded Quantificational Dependencies

• the main theme of the presentation: we need a richer, structured notion of context for natural language interpretation – more structure both within and across contexts; • we need more structure within contexts to capture the way in which information about quantificational dependencies is passed across sentential boundaries, for example in discourses involving quantificational subordination (this is Part 1 – Adrian); • we need more structure across contexts to capture reference in discourses involving multiple agents, hence multiple contexts that share, in some sense, the same referential intention (this is Part 2 – Sam).

[1]  Alessandro Zucchi,et al.  On Telescoping , 1992 .

[2]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity , 1990 .

[3]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  Exceptional Wide Scope as Anaphora to Quantificational Dependencies , 2007 .

[4]  B. Geurts.  Presuppositions and Pronouns , 1999 .

[5]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Anaphora and Attitudes De Se , 1989 .

[6]  D. Abusch.  The scope of indefinites , 1993 .

[7]  B. Partee.  Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English , 1973 .

[8]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Propositional attitudes and indexicality : a cross categorial approach , 1999 .

[9]  Pranav Anand,et al.  De de se , 2006 .

[10]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  STRUCTURED NOMINAL AND MODAL REFERENCE , 2008 .

[11]  H. Kamp,et al.  On Context Dependence In Modal Constructions , 1997 .

[12]  Maria Bittner,et al.  Topical Referents for Individuals and Possibilities , 2001 .

[13]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands , 1981 .

[14]  E. McCready,et al.  Modal Subordination in Japanese: Dynamics and Evidentiality , 2006 .

[15]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Referential and quantificational indefinites , 1982 .

[16]  I. Heim.  E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora , 1990 .

[17]  H. D. Swart,et al.  Adverbs of quantification , 1991 .

[18]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  De re belief generalized , 1982 .

[19]  H. Kamp.  A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[20]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  Evaluation Indices and Scope , 1997 .

[21]  A. Kratzer.  Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? , 1998 .

[22]  B. Partee.  Nominal and temporal anaphora , 1984 .

[23]  Philippe Schlenker,et al.  Ontological Symmetry in Language: A Brief Manifesto , 2006 .

[24]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  Singleton Indefinites , 2002, J. Semant..

[25]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[26]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Discourse Referents , 1969, COLING.

[27]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[28]  T. Reinhart.  Quantifier Scope: How labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions , 1997 .

[29]  M. H. van den Berg,et al.  Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. The dynamics of nominal anaphora , 1996 .

[30]  D. Abusch.  Sequence of Tense and Temporal de re , 1997 .

[31]  Craige Roberts.  Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse , 1989 .

[32]  Lauri Karttunen.  In syntax and semantics , 1976 .

[33]  D. Lewis.  Attitudes De Dicto and De Se , 1979 .

[34]  Y. Winter,et al.  Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites , 1997 .