[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/pragmatics-2018-riester-annotation-guidelines-questions-under/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / Annotation Guidelines for Questions under Discussion and Information Structure

# Annotation Guidelines for Questions under Discussion and Information Structure

**Authors:** [Arndt Riester](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/arndt-riester/), Lisa Brunetti, [Kordula De Kuthy](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/kordula-de-kuthy/) · **Year:** 2018 · **Venue:** in Adamou, Haude & Vanhove (eds.), Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages (SLCS 199), John Benjamins, pp. 403–443 **Link:** [hal.science/hal-01794160v2](https://hal.science/hal-01794160v2) · **Licence:** HAL author deposit, no open licence — summary only

[**33** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2883781980) openalex · 2026-10-18[**17** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/pragmatics-2018-riester-annotation-guidelines-questions-under/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[In Adamou, Haude & Vanhove (eds.), Information structure in lesser-described languages (SLCS 199), John Benjamins, pp. 403–443](https://openalex.org/S4210217077)[licence](https://about.hal.science/hal-authorisation-v1/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.14rie)
- [PDF](https://hal.science/hal-01794160/file/QUDguidelines-revision-April8.pdf)
- [DOI 10.1075/slcs.199.14rie](https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.14rie)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2883781980)

**Authors (3)**

1. [Arndt Riester](https://openalex.org/A5076648294) h 15 · 936 citations · 56 works
2. [Lisa Brunetti](https://openalex.org/A5008079933) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8515-1550) · h 13 · 599 citations · 55 works
3. [Kordula De Kuthy](https://openalex.org/A5074147368) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2318-3754) · h 12 · 536 citations · 68 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-18); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The guidelines give a step-by-step procedure for reading the information structure of a text from its context. Each assertion is taken to answer an implicit Question under Discussion (QUD). The analyst splits the text into assertions, then writes a QUD for each one under three constraints: the QUD must be answered by the assertion (Q-A congruence), it should repeat as much given material as possible, and it may add only given or highly salient material. The QUDs form a tree, the QUD tree, whose leaves are the assertions in their linear order. Focus is the part of an assertion that answers its QUD, and the rest is background. Contrastive topics mark a superquestion split into subquestions, and optional material is labelled non-at-issue. The method is tested by hand on corpus extracts in French, German and English, and it makes no use of morphology or prosody, so it is meant to work across languages. The paper has no numbers from a model; its result is the guideline and the examples, with a claim of cross-linguistic use that is still a working hypothesis (p. 6).

## Ideas

- I1. A QUD tree for tales. The story reader in `world/src/qud.rs` already attaches each sentence to the deepest open question with a shared content lemma and a matching answer type. Add the guideline's explicit steps as separate rules: Q-A congruence, then maximal given material, then the new-material check. Write hand QUD trees for about 30 short paragraphs of open tales (Gutenberg), with the teacher (Opus) as a draft annotator and the gates in Rust. Measure, by two-fold `cv`, how often the Rust tree attaches each sentence to the same parent as the gold tree.
- I2. Focus domain as a filter for answers. For a wh-question, the answer sentence is the one whose focus domain (the part that answers the QUD) holds the wh-slot. Use the focus and background split from the QUD tree as a feature in `world/src/ftqa.rs`, and test on FairytaleQA items that are already in the repo: does picking the sentence whose focus matches the wh-type raise the accuracy of the "what did / where / when" types?
- I3. Non-at-issue marking in `en` and `prag`. A part of a sentence is non-at-issue when deleting it leaves the sentence still an answer to the QUD (the deletion test, p. 29). Mark candidates from the UD tree: non-restrictive relative clauses, sentence-initial adverbial clauses, parentheticals, and evidential frames like "they say". Store them in the world as claims, not as main-line events. Measure agreement with a teacher-labelled set of about 200 sentences, and run the world's answer tests twice to check the gain is not noise.
- I4. Parallel structures as a rule for lists. Two or more clauses with the same frame and one changed slot share one QUD with a wh-phrase in it. This gives a rule for "they ate, they played, they slept" in tales, and for splitting the narrative line in `world/src/narr.rs`. Measure with a count of parallel groups per story and a check that the parallel answers feed the same question in the world reader.

## For Mova

Chapters: [29. Ellipsis, word order and information structure](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/29-ellipsis-word-order-information-structure/) (the focus and background part), [30. Pragmatics and discourse: overview](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/30-pragmatics-overview/) (section 5, the design), and [33. Implicature and presupposition](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/33-implicature-and-presupposition/) (non-at-issue content). Code: `world/src/qud.rs` (the QUD stack and congruence), `world/src/narr.rs`, `world/src/ftqa.rs`, `en/src/parse.rs` (coordination split). Licence note: the HAL deposit has no open licence. Use it as a reference for method and never ship its example texts or annotations. Our own guideline text and our own annotations of open tales are ours.

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.1075/slcs.199.14rie](https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.14rie)

```
@inproceedings{riester2018annotation,
  title = {{Annotation Guidelines for Questions under Discussion and Information Structure}},
  author = {Riester, Arndt and Brunetti, Lisa and Kuthy, Kordula De},
  booktitle = {In Adamou, Haude \& Vanhove (eds.), Information structure in lesser-described languages (SLCS 199), John Benjamins, pp. 403–443},
  year = {2018},
  doi = {10.1075/slcs.199.14rie},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.14rie}
}
```

- [← previous Sarcasm as Contrast between a Positive Sentiment and Negative Situation](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/prag-2013-riloff-sarcasm-as-contrast-between-positive/)
- [next → Reflections on the Penn Discourse TreeBank, Comparable Corpora, and Complementary Annotation](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/prasad-2014-reflections-penn-discourse-treebank-comparable/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

67 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. AnderBois, Scott; Brasoveanu, Adrian and Henderson, Robert (2010). Crossing the appositive/at-issue meaning boundary. In N. Li and D. Lutz (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, Vancouver, pp. 328-346. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=AnderBois%2C+Scott%3B+Brasoveanu%2C+Adrian+and+Henderson%2C+Robert+%282010%29%2E+Crossing+the+appositive%2Fat%2Dissue+meaning+boundary%2E+In+N%2E+Li+and+D%2E+Lutz+%28eds%2E%29+Proceedings+of+Semantics+and+Linguistic+Theory+20%2C+Van)
2. Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex (1998). Bridging. Journal of Semantics 15(1): 83-113. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Asher%2C+Nicholas+and+Lascarides%2C+Alex+%281998%29%2E+Bridging%2E+Journal+of+Semantics+15%281%29%3A+83%2D113%2E)
3. Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Asher%2C+Nicholas+and+Lascarides%2C+Alex+%282003%29%2E+Logics+of+Conversation%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
4. Austin, John (1961). Ifs and cans. In Philosophical Papers, pp. 153-180. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Austin%2C+John+%281961%29%2E+Ifs+and+cans%2E+In+Philosophical+Papers%2C+pp%2E+153%2D180%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
5. Beaver, David and Clark, Brady (2008). Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. (Explorations in Semantics 5). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beaver%2C+David+and+Clark%2C+Brady+%282008%29%2E+Sense+and+Sensitivity%3A+How+Focus+Determines+Meaning%2E+%28Explorations+in+Semantics+5%29%2E+Oxford%3A+Wiley%2DBlackwell%2E)
6. Branca-Rosoff, Sonia; Fleury, Serge; Lefeuvre, Florence and Pires, Mat (2009). Discours sur la ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000). [http://ed268.univ-paris3.fr/CFPP2000/](http://ed268.univ-paris3.fr/CFPP2000/) [↗](http://ed268.univ-paris3.fr/CFPP2000/)
7. Brunetti, Lisa (2009). On the semantic and contextual factors that determine topic selection in Italian and Spanish. In G. van Bergen and H. de Hoop (eds.), The Linguistic Review, Special issue on Topics Cross-linguistically, 26(2/3): 261–289. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brunetti%2C+Lisa+%282009%29%2E+On+the+semantic+and+contextual+factors+that+determine+topic+selection+in+Italian+and+Spanish%2E+In+G%2E+van+Bergen+and+H%2E+de+Hoop+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+Linguistic+Review%2C+Special+issue+on+Top)
8. Brunetti, Lisa, Avanzi, Mathieu and Gendrot, Cedric (2012). Entre syntaxe, prosodie et discours: les topiques sujet en français parlé. Actes du Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, pp. 2041-2054. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brunetti%2C+Lisa%2C+Avanzi%2C+Mathieu+and+Gendrot%2C+Cedric+%282012%29%2E+Entre+syntaxe%2C+prosodie+et+discours%3A+les+topiques+sujet+en+fran%C3%A7ais+parl%C3%A9%2E+Actes+du+Congr%C3%A8s+Mondial+de+Linguistique+Fran%C3%A7aise%2C+pp%2E+2041%2D2054)
9. Büring, Daniel (2003). On D-Trees, beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26(5): 511-545. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B%C3%BCring%2C+Daniel+%282003%29%2E+On+D%2DTrees%2C+beans%2C+and+B%2DAccents%2E+Linguistics+%26+Philosophy+26%285%29%3A+511%2D545%2E)
10. Büring, Daniel (2008). What’s new (and what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the 34 th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 403-424. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B%C3%BCring%2C+Daniel+%282008%29%2E+What%E2%80%99s+new+%28and+what%E2%80%99s+given%29+in+the+theory+of+focus%3F+In+Proceedings+of+the+34+th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Berkeley+Linguistics+Society%2C+pp%2E+403%2D424%2E)
11. Büring, Daniel (2016). Intonation and Meaning. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B%C3%BCring%2C+Daniel+%282016%29%2E+Intonation+and+Meaning%2E)
12. Oxford University Press Clark, Herbert (1977). Bridging. In Thinking, P. Johnson-Laird and P. Wason (eds.), pp. 411-420. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Oxford+University+Press+Clark%2C+Herbert+%281977%29%2E+Bridging%2E+In+Thinking%2C+P%2E+Johnson%2DLaird+and+P%2E+Wason+%28eds%2E%29%2C+pp%2E+411%2D420%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
13. Dalrymple, Mary (2005). Against Reconstruction in Ellipsis. In: R. Elugardo and R. Stainton (eds.). Ellipsis and Non-Sentential Speech, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 31-55. Dordrecht: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dalrymple%2C+Mary+%282005%29%2E+Against+Reconstruction+in+Ellipsis%2E+In%3A+R%2E+Elugardo+and+R%2E+Stainton+%28eds%2E%29%2E+Ellipsis+and+Non%2DSentential+Speech%2C+Studies+in+Linguistics+and+Philosophy%2C+pp%2E+31%2D55%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Spr)
14. Ebert, Christian; Ebert, Cornelia and Hinterwimmer, Stefan (2014). A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 37: 353-408. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ebert%2C+Christian%3B+Ebert%2C+Cornelia+and+Hinterwimmer%2C+Stefan+%282014%29%2E+A+unified+analysis+of+conditionals+as+topics%2E+Linguistics+and+Philosophy+37%3A+353%2D408%2E)
15. Eckart, Kerstin and Gärtner, Markus (2016). Creating silver standard annotations for a corpus of non-standard data. In S. Dipper, F. Neubarth and H. Zinsmeister (eds.) Proceedings of the 13 th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS). Volume 16 of Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, pp. 90-96. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Eckart%2C+Kerstin+and+G%C3%A4rtner%2C+Markus+%282016%29%2E+Creating+silver+standard+annotations+for+a+corpus+of+non%2Dstandard+data%2E+In+S%2E+Dipper%2C+F%2E+Neubarth+and+H%2E+Zinsmeister+%28eds%2E%29+Proceedings+of+the+13+th+Confere)
16. Eckart, Kerstin, Riester, Arndt and Schweitzer, Katrin (2012). A Discourse Information Radio News Database for Linguistic Analysis. In C. Chiarcos; S. Nordhoff and S. Hellmann (eds.), Linked Data in Linguistics. Representing and Connecting Language Data and Language Metadata, pp. 65-75. Heidelberg: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Eckart%2C+Kerstin%2C+Riester%2C+Arndt+and+Schweitzer%2C+Katrin+%282012%29%2E+A+Discourse+Information+Radio+News+Database+for+Linguistic+Analysis%2E+In+C%2E+Chiarcos%3B+S%2E+Nordhoff+and+S%2E+Hellmann+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Linked+Data+in+L)
17. Endriss, Cornelia (2006). Quantificational topics. A scopal treatment of exceptional scope phenomena. PhD dissertation, Universität Potsdam. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Endriss%2C+Cornelia+%282006%29%2E+Quantificational+topics%2E+A+scopal+treatment+of+exceptional+scope+phenomena%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Universit%C3%A4t+Potsdam%2E)
18. Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge Massachusettss: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fiengo%2C+Robert+and+May%2C+Robert+%281994%29%2E+Indices+and+Identity%2E+Cambridge+Massachusettss%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
19. Firbas, Jan (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Firbas%2C+Jan+%281992%29%2E+Functional+Sentence+Perspective+in+Written+and+Spoken+Communication%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
20. Geurts, Bart and Beaver, David (2011). Presupposition. In Edward Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [http://plato.stanford.edu](http://plato.stanford.edu) [↗](http://plato.stanford.edu)
21. Ginzburg, Jonathan (2012). The Interactive Stance. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan+%282012%29%2E+The+Interactive+Stance%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
22. Grosz, Barbara and Sidner, Candace (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3): 175-204. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grosz%2C+Barbara+and+Sidner%2C+Candace+%281986%29%2E+Attention%2C+intentions%2C+and+the+structure+of+discourse%2E+Computational+Linguistics+12%283%29%3A+175%2D204%2E)
23. Gussenhoven, Carlos (1999). On the limits of focus projection in English. In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus – Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pp. 43-55. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gussenhoven%2C+Carlos+%281999%29%2E+On+the+limits+of+focus+projection+in+English%2E+In+P%2E+Bosch+and+R%2E+van+der+Sandt+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Focus+%E2%80%93+Linguistic%2C+Cognitive+and+Computational+Perspectives%2C+pp%2E+43%2D55%2E)
24. Haegeman, Liliane (2003). Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18(4): 317-339. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Haegeman%2C+Liliane+%282003%29%2E+Conditional+clauses%3A+External+and+internal+syntax%2E+Mind+and+Language+18%284%29%3A+317%2D339%2E)
25. Hajičová, Eva; Partee, Barbara and Sgall, Petr (1998). Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Haji%C4%8Dov%C3%A1%2C+Eva%3B+Partee%2C+Barbara+and+Sgall%2C+Petr+%281998%29%2E+Topic%2DFocus+Articulation%2C+Tripartite+Structures%2C+and+Semantic+Content%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Springer%2E)
26. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics, 3:199–244. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Halliday%2C+Michael+A%2E+K%2E+%281967%29%2E+Notes+on+transitivity+and+theme+in+English%2C+part+II%2E+Journal+of+Linguistics%2C+3%3A199%E2%80%93244%2E)
27. Hardt, Daniel (1999). VPE as proform: Some consequences for binding, In F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin & J.-M. Marandin (eds), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2: Selected Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique a Paris. The Hague: Thesus. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hardt%2C+Daniel+%281999%29%2E+VPE+as+proform%3A+Some+consequences+for+binding%2C+In+F%2E+Corblin%2C+C%2E+Dobrovie%2DSorin+%26+J%2E%2DM%2E+Marandin+%28eds%29%2C+Empirical+Issues+in+Formal+Syntax+and+Semantics+2%3A+Selected+Papers+from+th)
28. Heim, Irene (1991). Artikel und Definitheit, In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 487-535. Berlin: de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heim%2C+Irene+%281991%29%2E+Artikel+und+Definitheit%2C+In+A%2E+von+Stechow+and+D%2E+Wunderlich+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Semantik%3A+ein+internationales+Handbuch+der+zeitgen%C3%B6ssischen+Forschung%2C+487%2D535%2E+Berlin%3A+de+Gruyter%2E)
29. Hobbs, Jerry (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85-37, Stanford University, 1-36. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hobbs%2C+Jerry+%281985%29%2E+On+the+coherence+and+structure+of+discourse%2E+Technical+Report+CSLI%2D85%2D37%2C+Stanford+University%2C+1%2D36%2E)
30. Iatridou, Sabine (1991). Topics in Conditionals. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Iatridou%2C+Sabine+%281991%29%2E+Topics+in+Conditionals%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology%2C+Cambridge%2E)
31. Jacobs, Joachim (2001). The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39: 641-681. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jacobs%2C+Joachim+%282001%29%2E+The+dimensions+of+topic%2Dcomment%2E+Linguistics+39%3A+641%2D681%2E)
32. Jasinskaja, Katja and Zeevat, Henk (2009). Explaining conjunction systems: Russian, English, German. In A. Riester and T. Solstad (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, Stuttgart, 231-245. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jasinskaja%2C+Katja+and+Zeevat%2C+Henk+%282009%29%2E+Explaining+conjunction+systems%3A+Russian%2C+English%2C+German%2E+In+A%2E+Riester+and+T%2E+Solstad+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+Sinn+und+Bedeutung+13%2C+Stuttgart%2C+231%2D245%2E)
33. Klein, Wolfgang and von Stutterheim, Christine (1987). Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 109: 163-183. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Klein%2C+Wolfgang+and+von+Stutterheim%2C+Christine+%281987%29%2E+Quaestio+und+referentielle+Bewegung+in+Erz%C3%A4hlungen%2E+Linguistische+Berichte+109%3A+163%2D183%2E)
34. Krifka, Manfred (2007). Basic notions of information structure, in C. Féry and M. Krifka (eds.) Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6. Potsdam, pp. 13-56. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Krifka%2C+Manfred+%282007%29%2E+Basic+notions+of+information+structure%2C+in+C%2E+F%C3%A9ry+and+M%2E+Krifka+%28eds%2E%29+Interdisciplinary+Studies+on+Information+Structure+6%2E+Potsdam%2C+pp%2E+13%2D56%2E)
35. Kuno, Susumo (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kuno%2C+Susumo+%281973%29%2E+The+structure+of+the+Japanese+language%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
36. van Kuppevelt, Jan (1995). Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31: 109-147. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=van+Kuppevelt%2C+Jan+%281995%29%2E+Discourse+structure%2C+topicality+and+questioning%2E+Journal+of+Linguistics+31%3A+109%2D147%2E)
37. Lambrecht, Knut (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lambrecht%2C+Knut+%281994%29%2E+Information+structure+and+sentence+form%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
38. Lang, Ewald and Umbach, Carla (2002). Kontrast in der Grammatik: spezifische Realisierungen und übergreifender Konnex. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 79: 145-186. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lang%2C+Ewald+and+Umbach%2C+Carla+%282002%29%2E+Kontrast+in+der+Grammatik%3A+spezifische+Realisierungen+und+%C3%BCbergreifender+Konnex%2E+Linguistische+Arbeitsberichte+79%3A+145%2D186%2E)
39. Mann, William and Thompson, Sandra (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243-281. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mann%2C+William+and+Thompson%2C+Sandra+%281988%29%2E+Rhetorical+Structure+Theory%3A+Towards+a+functional+theory+of+text+organization%2E+Text+8%3A+243%2D281%2E)
40. Matić, Dejan and Wedgwood, Daniel (2013). The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpreation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics, 49:127-163. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mati%C4%87%2C+Dejan+and+Wedgwood%2C+Daniel+%282013%29%2E+The+meanings+of+focus%3A+The+significance+of+an+interpreation%2Dbased+category+in+cross%2Dlinguistic+analysis%2E+Journal+of+Linguistics%2C+49%3A127%2D163%2E)
41. McNally, Louise (1998). On recent formal analyses of topic. In Ginzburg, J., Khasidashvili, Z., Vogel, C., Lévy, J.J., and E. Vallduví (eds.), The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected Papers, pp. 147-160. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McNally%2C+Louise+%281998%29%2E+On+recent+formal+analyses+of+topic%2E+In+Ginzburg%2C+J%2E%2C+Khasidashvili%2C+Z%2E%2C+Vogel%2C+C%2E%2C+L%C3%A9vy%2C+J%2EJ%2E%2C+and+E%2E+Vallduv%C3%AD+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+Tbilisi+Symposium+on+Language%2C+Logic%2C+and+Computation)
42. Merchant, Jason (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merchant%2C+Jason+%282001%29%2E+The+Syntax+of+Silence%3A+Sluicing%2C+Islands+and+the+Theory+of+Ellipsis%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
43. Onea, Edgar (2016). Potential Questions at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Leiden: Brill. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Onea%2C+Edgar+%282016%29%2E+Potential+Questions+at+the+Semantics%2DPragmatics+Interface%2E+Leiden%3A+Brill%2E)
44. Polanyi, Livia (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601-638. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Polanyi%2C+Livia+%281988%29%2E+A+formal+model+of+the+structure+of+discourse%2E+Journal+of+Pragmatics+12%3A+601%2D638%2E)
45. Portner, Paul, and Katsuhiko Yabushita. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21-2. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Portner%2C+Paul%2C+and+Katsuhiko+Yabushita%2E+1998%2E+The+semantics+and+pragmatics+of+topic+phrases%2E+Linguistics+and+Philosophy%2C+21%2D2%2E)
46. Potts, Christopher (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Potts%2C+Christopher+%282005%29%2E+The+Logic+of+Conventional+Implicatures%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
47. Portes, Cristel (2004). Prosodie et économie du discours: spécificité discursive et portée pragmatique de l’intonation d’implication. PhD dissertation, Université Aix-Marseille. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Portes%2C+Cristel+%282004%29%2E+Prosodie+et+%C3%A9conomie+du+discours%3A+sp%C3%A9cificit%C3%A9+discursive+et+port%C3%A9e+pragmatique+de+l%E2%80%99intonation+d%E2%80%99implication%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Universit%C3%A9+Aix%2DMarseille%2E)
48. Reinhart, Tanya (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy I. Philosophica 27(1):53-94. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Reinhart%2C+Tanya+%281981%29%2E+Pragmatics+and+linguistics%3A+An+analysis+of+sentence+topics+in+pragmatics+and+philosophy+I%2E+Philosophica+27%281%29%3A53%2D94%2E)
49. Reyle, Uwe and Riester, Arndt (2016) Joint information structure and discourse structure analysis in an Underspecified DRT framework. In J. Hunter, M. Simons and M. Stone (eds.) Proceedings of the 20 th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (JerSem), pp. 15-24, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Reyle%2C+Uwe+and+Riester%2C+Arndt+%282016%29+Joint+information+structure+and+discourse+structure+analysis+in+an+Underspecified+DRT+framework%2E+In+J%2E+Hunter%2C+M%2E+Simons+and+M%2E+Stone+%28eds%2E%29+Proceedings+of+the+20+)
50. Riester, Arndt (2015). Analyzing Questions under Discussion and information structure in a Balinese narrative. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, pp. 1-26. Tokyo. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Riester%2C+Arndt+%282015%29%2E+Analyzing+Questions+under+Discussion+and+information+structure+in+a+Balinese+narrative%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Second+International+Workshop+on+Information+Structure+of+Austrones)
51. Riester, Arndt and Baumann, Stefan (2013). Focus triggers and focus types from a corpus perspective. Dialogue and discourse 4(2): 215-248. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Riester%2C+Arndt+and+Baumann%2C+Stefan+%282013%29%2E+Focus+triggers+and+focus+types+from+a+corpus+perspective%2E+Dialogue+and+discourse+4%282%29%3A+215%2D248%2E)
52. Roberts, Craige (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1-69. (1996 version: OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49. The Ohio State University.) [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roberts%2C+Craige+%282012%29%2E+Information+structure+in+discourse%3A+Towards+an+integrated+formal+theory+of+pragmatics%2E+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+5%286%29%3A+1%2D69%2E+%281996+version%3A+OSU+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics+49%2E) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/)
53. Rooth, Mats (1985). Association with Focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats+%281985%29%2E+Association+with+Focus%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+University+of+Massachusetts%2C+Amherst%2E)
54. Rooth, Mats (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75-116. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats+%281992%29%2E+A+theory+of+focus+interpretation%2E+Natural+Language+Semantics+1%281%29%3A+75%2D116%2E)
55. Rooth, Mats (1996). Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 271-297. London: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats+%281996%29%2E+Focus%2E+In+The+Handbook+of+Contemporary+Semantic+Theory%2C+Shalom+Lappin+%28ed%2E%29%2C+271%2D297%2E+London%3A+Blackwell%2E)
56. Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ross%2C+John+R%2E+%281967%29%2E+Constraints+on+variables+in+syntax%2E+Doctoral+dissertation%2C+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology%2E)
57. van der Sandt, Rob (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4): 333-377. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=van+der+Sandt%2C+Rob+%281992%29%2E+Presupposition+projection+as+anaphora+resolution%2E+Journal+of+Semantics+9%284%29%3A+333%2D377%2E)
58. Schwarzschild, Roger (1999). GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141-177. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schwarzschild%2C+Roger+%281999%29%2E+GIVENness%2C+AvoidF%2C+and+other+constraints+on+the+placement+of+accent%2E+Natural+Language+Semantics+7%282%29%3A+141%2D177%2E)
59. Schultze-Bernd, Eva and Simard, Candide (2012). Constraints on noun phrase discontinuity in an Australian language: The role of prosody and information structure. Linguistics 50(5), 1015-1058. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schultze%2DBernd%2C+Eva+and+Simard%2C+Candide+%282012%29%2E+Constraints+on+noun+phrase+discontinuity+in+an+Australian+language%3A+The+role+of+prosody+and+information+structure%2E+Linguistics+50%285%29%2C+1015%2D1058%2E)
60. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, pp. 550-569. London: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth+%281995%29%2E+Sentence+prosody%3A+Intonation%2C+stress+and+phrasing%2E+In+John+Goldsmith+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+Handbook+of+Phonological+Theory%2C+pp%2E+550%2D569%2E+London%3A+Blackwell%2E)
61. Simons, Mandy; Tonhauser, Judith; Beaver, David and Roberts, Craige (2010). What projects and why. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, Vancouver, 309-327. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Simons%2C+Mandy%3B+Tonhauser%2C+Judith%3B+Beaver%2C+David+and+Roberts%2C+Craige+%282010%29%2E+What+projects+and+why%2E+In%3A+Proceedings+of+Semantics+and+Linguistic+Theory+20%2C+Vancouver%2C+309%2D327%2E)
62. Syrett Kirsten and Koev, Todor (2015). Experimental evidence for the truth-conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. Journal of Semantics 32(3): 525-577. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Syrett+Kirsten+and+Koev%2C+Todor+%282015%29%2E+Experimental+evidence+for+the+truth%2Dconditional+contribution+and+shifting+information+status+of+appositives%2E+Journal+of+Semantics+32%283%29%3A+525%2D577%2E)
63. Taboada, Maite and Mann, William (2006). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8: 423-459. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Taboada%2C+Maite+and+Mann%2C+William+%282006%29%2E+Rhetorical+Structure+Theory%3A+Looking+back+and+moving+ahead%2E+Discourse+Studies+8%3A+423%2D459%2E)
64. Umbach, Carla (2004). On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 21(2): 155-175. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Umbach%2C+Carla+%282004%29%2E+On+the+notion+of+contrast+in+information+structure+and+discourse+structure%2E+Journal+of+Semantics+21%282%29%3A+155%2D175%2E)
65. Vallduví, Enric (1992). The Informational Component. New York: Garland. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Vallduv%C3%AD%2C+Enric+%281992%29%2E+The+Informational+Component%2E+New+York%3A+Garland%2E)
66. Velleman, Leah and Beaver, David (2016), Question-based models of information structure, in C. Féry and S. Ishihara (eds.), The Handbook of Information Structure, pp. 86-107. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Velleman%2C+Leah+and+Beaver%2C+David+%282016%29%2C+Question%2Dbased+models+of+information+structure%2C+in+C%2E+F%C3%A9ry+and+S%2E+Ishihara+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+Handbook+of+Information+Structure%2C+pp%2E+86%2D107%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
67. Williams, Edwin (1997). Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28(4): 577-628. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Williams%2C+Edwin+%281997%29%2E+Blocking+and+anaphora%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+28%284%29%3A+577%2D628%2E)