[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/)

[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/) / Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics

# Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics

**Authors:** Craige Roberts · **Year:** 2012 (written 1996) · **Venue:** Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6) **Link:** [doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) as printed on the article (the library lists [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)) — summary only

[**1919** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W1560265695) openalex-snapshot · 2026-10-14[**101** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Semantics and Pragmatics](https://openalex.org/S33105140)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6)
- [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.5.6/pdf)
- [DOI 10.3765/sp.5.6](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W1560265695)

**Authors (1)**

1. [Craige Roberts](https://openalex.org/A5034494768) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5107-7962) · h 22 · 5715 citations · 64 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex-snapshot (2026-10-14); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The classic statement of the Question Under Discussion model. Discourse is a game whose goal is to answer «what is the way things are?»; interlocutors pursue it through strategies of sub-inquiry. A question denotes its q-alternatives (the proposition with the wh-word varied; a yes/no question {p}); a partial answer settles some alternative, a complete answer settles all. Accepted questions go on a QUD stack; a question can be added only if answering it contextually entails a partial answer to the one below (a subquestion in a strategy), and it is popped when answered or found practically unanswerable. Relevance: every move must partially answer the current QUD or belong to a strategy for it. Prosodic focus presupposes the QUD (question–answer congruence: the answer's focal alternatives equal the question's q-alternatives). The second half applies this to focus phenomena: the domain of *only* (and other focus-sensitive operators) is the set of alternatives of the current QUD, not merely what prosodic focus marks; contrastive topics signal a strategy of subquestions.

## Ideas

- I1. Give `world/src/qud.rs` the subquestion test from the paper instead of lemma overlap alone: a new question may be pushed on top of q only if its alternative set is a subset of q's (same predicate, one more argument fixed: «Who did the fox trick?» under «Who tricked whom?»), or if a bridging question links them. Questions that fail go to a fresh stack entry and are reported. Test with minimal pairs on hand-built dialogues (the existing tests in `qud.rs` are on hand-built trees).
- I2. Read *only* against the current QUD: «The fox only wanted the cheese» → the alternatives are the other wanted things in the QUD's domain (entities in the same role in remembered frames), and the inference «not the others» goes into `prag/src/infer.rs` next to the scalar implicatures, with the alternatives listed in the explanation. Measure on course questions with *only* (count them first).
- I3. Mark a QUD as «practically unanswerable» when the text ends or the topic shifts with the question still open, and let the school student use it: a question about a stacked but never answered QUD should get «the text does not say» rather than a guess. Count, with `world knowledge diagnose`, how many guesses (step 3) are about questions the text leaves open.

## For Mova

[36. Discourse relations and coherence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/36-discourse-relations/) §9 and §11.5 (QUD stack), `29-ellipsis-word-order-information-structure.md` (focus, contrastive topic), `33-implicature-and-presupposition.md` (*only*). Code: `world/src/qud.rs`, `prag/src/infer.rs`, `world/src/knowledge.rs`. Measures: minimal-pair QUD tests; course questions with *only*; share of guesses on open questions.

Topics: [Discourse analysis](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/topics/discourse-analysis/)

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.3765/sp.5.6](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6)

```
@article{roberts2012information,
  title = {{Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics}},
  author = {Roberts, Craige},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2012},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.5.6},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6}
}
```

- [← previous Combined discourse representations: Coherence relations and questions under Discussion](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/riester-2021-combined-discourse-representations-coherence-relations/)
- [next → Generating English Paraphrases From Formal Relational Calculus Expressions](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/roeck-1986-generating-english-paraphrases-formal-relational/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

68 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Baüerle, Rainer, Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (eds.). 1979. Semantics from different points of view (Springer Series in Language and Communication 6). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ba%C3%BCerle%2C+Rainer%2C+Urs+Egli+%26+Arnim+von+Stechow+%28eds%2E%29%2E+1979%2E+Semantics+from+different+points+of+view+%28Springer+Series+in+Language+and+Communication+6%29%2E+Berlin%2C+Germany%3A+Springer%2DVerlag%2E)
2. Beckman, Mary E. & Gayle M. Ayers. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labeling, version 3.0. [http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/labelling_guide_v3](http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/labelling_guide_v3). pdf. [↗](http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/labelling_guide_v3)
3. Beckman, Mary E. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4615401. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267570000066x)
4. Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37(1). 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/411252. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/411252)
5. Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (Studies in Natural Language Processing), 142–165. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B%C3%BCring%2C+Daniel%2E+1999%2E+Topic%2E+In+Peter+Bosch+%26+Rob+van+der+Sandt+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Focus%3A+linguistic%2C+cognitive%2C+and+computational+perspectives+%28Studies+in+Natural+Language+Processing%29%2C+142%E2%80%93165%2E+Cambridge%2C+UK%3A+C)
6. Calcagno, Mike. 1996. Presupposition, congruence, and adverbs of quantification. In Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), Papers in semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics 49). The Ohio State University. [http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/osu_wpl_49.pdf](http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/osu_wpl_49.pdf). [↗](http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/osu_wpl_49.pdf)
7. Carlson, Lauri. 1982. Dialogue games: an approach to discourse analysis (Synthese Language Library 17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carlson%2C+Lauri%2E+1982%2E+Dialogue+games%3A+an+approach+to+discourse+analysis+%28Synthese+Language+Library+17%29%2E+Dordrecht%2C+The+Netherlands%3A+D%2E+Reidel%2E)
8. Culicover, Peter W. & Michael S. Rochemont. 1983. Stress and focus in English. Language 59(1). 123–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/414063. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst PhD thesis. http://www.semanticsarchive. net/Archive/jA3N2IwN/fintel-1994-thesis.pdf. von Fintel, Kai. 2004. A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In Hans Kamp & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 11), 137–175. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/414063)
9. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1994. An update semantics for dialogue. First International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS 1). 111–120. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan%2E+1994%2E+An+update+semantics+for+dialogue%2E+First+International+Workshop+on+Computational+Semantics+%28IWCS+1%29%2E+111%E2%80%93120%2E)
10. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995a. Resolving questions, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(5). 459–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00985365. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00985365)
11. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995b. Resolving questions, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6). 567–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00983299. Information structure in discourse Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Jerry Seligman & Dag Westerståhl (eds.), Logic, language and computation, vol. 1 (CSLI Lecture Notes 58), 221–237. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language & Information (CSLI), Stanford University. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00983299)
12. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grice%2C+Herbert+Paul%2E+1989%2E+Studies+in+the+way+of+words%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
13. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam PhD thesis. [http://dare.uva.nl/record/123669](http://dare.uva.nl/record/123669). [↗](http://dare.uva.nl/record/123669)
14. Grosz, Barbara J. & Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3). 175–204. http : //www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/J/J86/J86-3001.pdf. [↗](https://aclanthology.org/J86-3001/)
15. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2). 199–244. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/S0022226700016613. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700016613)
16. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language: International Journal of Language and Philosophy 10(1). 41–53. Reprinted in Partee 1976: 247–259. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hamblin%2C+Charles+Leonard%2E+1973%2E+Questions+in+Montague+English%2E+Foundations+of+Language%3A+International+Journal+of+Language+and+Philosophy+10%281%29%2E+41%E2%80%9353%2E+Reprinted+in+Partee+1976%3A+247%E2%80%93259%2E)
17. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst PhD thesis. http : //semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jA2YTJmN/. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8100764)
18. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 2). 114–125. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heim%2C+Irene%2E+1983%2E+On+the+projection+problem+for+presuppositions%2E+Second+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics+%28WCCFL+2%29%2E+114%E2%80%93125%2E)
19. Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ 9.3.183. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/)
20. Higginbotham, James. 1996. The semantics of questions. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 361–383. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Higginbotham%2C+James%2E+1996%2E+The+semantics+of+questions%2E+In+Shalom+Lappin+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+contemporary+semantic+theory%2C+361%E2%80%93383%2E+Oxford%2C+UK%3A+Blackwell%2E)
21. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1972. Logic, language-games and information: kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hintikka%2C+Jaakko%2E+1972%2E+Logic%2C+language%2Dgames+and+information%3A+kantian+themes+in+the+philosophy+of+logic%2E+Oxford%2C+UK%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
22. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1981. On the logic of an interrogative model of scientific inquiry. Synthese 47(1). 69–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01064266. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01064266)
23. Hintikka, Jaakko & Esa Saarinen. 1979. Information-seeking dialogues: some of their logical properties. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 38(4). 355–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00370473. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00370473)
24. Craige Roberts Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. A theory of scalar implicature. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis. [http://repository.upenn](http://repository.upenn) . edu / dissertations/AAI8603648. [↗](http://repository.upenn)
25. Horn, Laurence R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61(1). 121–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/413423. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/413423)
26. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language & Information (CSLI), Stanford University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Horn%2C+Laurence+R%2E+1989%2E+A+natural+history+of+negation%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Center+for+the+Study+of+Language+%26+Information+%28CSLI%29%2C+Stanford+University%2E)
27. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar (Current Studies in Linguistics 2). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jackendoff%2C+Ray%2E+1972%2E+Semantic+interpretation+in+generative+grammar+%28Current+Studies+in+Linguistics+2%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
28. Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, vol. 2 (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 54), 451–486. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_15)
29. Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kadmon%2C+Nirit%2E+2001%2E+Formal+pragmatics%3A+semantics%2C+pragmatics%2C+presupposition%2C+and+focus%2E+Oxford%2C+UK%3A+Blackwell%2E)
30. Kadmon, Nirit & Craige Roberts. 1986. Prosody and scope: the role of discourse structure. In Peter T. Farley Ann M. Farley & Karl-Erik McCullough (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 22(2): papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 16–28. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kadmon%2C+Nirit+%26+Craige+Roberts%2E+1986%2E+Prosody+and+scope%3A+the+role+of+discourse+structure%2E+In+Peter+T%2E+Farley+Ann+M%2E+Farley+%26+Karl%2DErik+McCullough+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Chicago+Linguistics+Society+%28CLS%29+22%282%29%3A+paper)
31. Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2). 169–193. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177763](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177763). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177763)
32. Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and Semantics Volume11: Presupposition, 1–56. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karttunen%2C+Lauri+%26+Stanley+Peters%2E+1979%2E+Conventional+implicature%2E+In+Syntax+and+Semantics+Volume11%3A+Presupposition%2C+1%E2%80%9356%2E)
33. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) I (10). 127–158. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/1.127/1558. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2)
34. Ladd, D. Robert, Jr. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ladd%2C+D%2E+Robert%2C+Jr%2E+1980%2E+The+structure+of+intonational+meaning%3A+evidence+from+English%2E+Bloomington%2C+IN%3A+Indiana+University+Press%2E)
35. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levinson%2C+Stephen+C%2E+1983%2E+Pragmatics+%28Cambridge+Textbooks+in+Linguistics%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+UK%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
36. Lewis, David. 1969. Convention: a philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lewis%2C+David%2E+1969%2E+Convention%3A+a+philosophical+study%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
37. Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1). 339–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436. Reprinted in Baüerle, Egli & von Stechow 1979: 172-–187. Information structure in discourse Liberman, Mark & Janet Pierrehumbert. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Mark Aronoff, Richard Oehrle, Frances Kelley & Bonnie Wilker Stephens (eds.), Language sound structure, 157–233. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00258436)
38. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical structure theory: a theory of text organization (Information Sciences Institute Research Report 87-190). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mann%2C+William+C%2E+%26+Sandra+A%2E+Thompson%2E+1987%2E+Rhetorical+structure+theory%3A+a+theory+of+text+organization+%28Information+Sciences+Institute+Research+Report+87%2D190%29%2E+Marina+del+Rey%2C+CA%3A+Information+Science)
39. McCafferty, Andrew S. 1987. Reasoning about implicature: a plan-based approach. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McCafferty%2C+Andrew+S%2E+1987%2E+Reasoning+about+implicature%3A+a+plan%2Dbased+approach%2E+Pittsburgh%2C+PA%3A+University+of+Pittsburgh+PhD+thesis%2E)
40. McNally, Louise. 1998. On recent formal analyses of topic. The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected Papers (14). 147–160. [http://www.upf.edu/pdi/louise-mcnally/_pdf/publications/tbilisi.pdf](http://www.upf.edu/pdi/louise-mcnally/_pdf/publications/tbilisi.pdf). [↗](http://www.upf.edu/pdi/louise-mcnally/_pdf/publications/tbilisi.pdf)
41. Partee, Barbara H. (ed.). 1976. Montague Grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Partee%2C+Barbara+H%2E+%28ed%2E%29%2E+1976%2E+Montague+Grammar%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
42. Partee, Barbara H. 1991. Topic, focus, and quantification. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) I (10). 159–188. http://elanguage.net/journals/ index.php/salt/article/view/1.159/1557. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.2918)
43. Perrault, C. Raymond. 1990. An application of default logic to speech act theory. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication (System Development Foundation Benchmark Series), 161–185. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0011)
44. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis. [http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16065](http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16065). [↗](http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16065)
45. Pierrehumbert, Janet & Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication (System Development Foundation Benchmark Series), 271–311. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016)
46. Roberts, Craige. 1995. Domain restriction in dynamic semantics. In Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in natural languages, vol. 2 (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 54), 661–700. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2817-1_20)
47. Roberts, Craige. 1996a. Anaphora in intensional contexts. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 215–246. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roberts%2C+Craige%2E+1996a%2E+Anaphora+in+intensional+contexts%2E+In+Shalom+Lappin+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Handbook+of+contemporary+semantic+theory%2C+215%E2%80%93246%2E+Oxford%2C+UK%3A+Blackwell%2E)
48. Roberts, Craige. 1996b. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae-Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol Craige Roberts (eds.), Papers in semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics 49). The Ohio State University. [http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/](http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/) osu_wpl_49.pdf. [↗](http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/)
49. Roberts, Craige. 1996c. Information structure, plans, and implicature. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Spring Symposium on Computational Implicature: Computational Approaches to Interpreting and Generating Conversational Implicature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Roberts, Craige. in preparation. The information structure of discourse. The Ohio State University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roberts%2C+Craige%2E+1996c%2E+Information+structure%2C+plans%2C+and+implicature%2E+Paper+presented+at+the+Association+for+the+Advancement+of+Artificial+Intelligence+%28AAAI%29+Spring+Symposium+on+Computational+Implic)
50. Rochemont, Michael S. & Peter W. Culicover. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rochemont%2C+Michael+S%2E+%26+Peter+W%2E+Culicover%2E+1990%2E+English+focus+constructions+and+the+theory+of+grammar+%28Cambridge+Studies+in+Linguistics+52%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+UK%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
51. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst PhD thesis. [http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/](http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/) AAI8509599. [↗](http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/)
52. Rooth, Mats. 1992a. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617)
53. Rooth, Mats. 1992b. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop (Arbeitspapiere 29). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats%2E+1992b%2E+Ellipsis+redundancy+and+reduction+redundancy%2E+Stuttgart+Ellipsis+Workshop+%28Arbeitspapiere+29%29%2E)
54. Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats%2E+1996%2E+Focus%2E+In+Shalom+Lappin+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+contemporary+semantic+theory%2C+271%E2%80%93297%2E+Oxford%2C+UK%3A+Blackwell%2E)
55. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1994a. Association with focus: semantics or pragmatics. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Manuscript. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schwarzschild%2C+Roger%2E+1994a%2E+Association+with+focus%3A+semantics+or+pragmatics%2E+The+Hebrew+University+of+Jerusalem%2E+Manuscript%2E)
56. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1994b. The contrastiveness of associated foci. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Manuscript. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schwarzschild%2C+Roger%2E+1994b%2E+The+contrastiveness+of+associated+foci%2E+The+Hebrew+University+of+Jerusalem%2E+Manuscript%2E)
57. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173438) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/searle-1969-speech-acts/)
58. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure (Current Studies in Linguistics 10). Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth+O%2E+1984%2E+Phonology+and+syntax%3A+the+relation+between+sound+and+structure+%28Current+Studies+in+Linguistics+10%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+press%2E)
59. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: communication and cognition (The Language and Thought Series). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sperber%2C+Dan+%26+Deirdre+Wilson%2E+1986%2E+Relevance%3A+communication+and+cognition+%28The+Language+and+Thought+Series%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
60. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), 315–332. New York, NY: Academic Press. von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: descriptive and theoretical investiga-Information structure in discourse tions on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (Pragmatics & Beyond: New Series 12), 37–84. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stalnaker%2C+Robert%2E+1978%2E+Assertion%2E+In+Peter+Cole+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Pragmatics+%28Syntax+and+Semantics+9%29%2C+315%E2%80%93332%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Academic+Press%2E+von+Stechow%2C+Arnim%2E+1991%2E+Focusing+and+backgrounding+operators%2E+In+)
61. Thomason, Richmond H. 1990. Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication (System Development Foundation Benchmark Series), 325–363. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0018)
62. Vallduví, Enric. 1990. The informational component. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Vallduv%C3%AD%2C+Enric%2E+1990%2E+The+informational+component%2E+Philadelphia%2C+PA%3A+University+of+Pennsylvania+PhD+thesis%2E)
63. Vallduví, Enric. 1993. Information packaging: A survey. Prepared for the Word Order, Prosody, and Information Structure (WOPIS) initiative. [http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/hcrc_publications/](http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/hcrc_publications/). [↗](http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/hcrc_publications/)
64. Vallduví, Enric & Ron Zacharski. 1994. Accenting phenomena, association with focus, and the recursiveness of focus-ground. Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. 683–702. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Vallduv%C3%AD%2C+Enric+%26+Ron+Zacharski%2E+1994%2E+Accenting+phenomena%2C+association+with+focus%2C+and+the+recursiveness+of+focus%2Dground%2E+Ninth+Amsterdam+Colloquium%2E+683%E2%80%93702%2E)
65. Walker, Marilyn A. 1993. Informational redundancy and resource bounds in dialogue. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Walker%2C+Marilyn+A%2E+1993%2E+Informational+redundancy+and+resource+bounds+in+dialogue%2E+Philadelphia%2C+PA%3A+University+of+Pennsylvania+PhD+thesis%2E)
66. Ward, Gregory. 1985. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis. [http://repository.upenn.edu/](http://repository.upenn.edu/) dissertations/AAI8523465. [↗](http://repository.upenn.edu/)
67. Welker, Katherine. 1994. Plans in the common ground: toward a generative account of conversational implicature. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University PhD thesis. [http://linguistics.osu.edu/research/publications/](http://linguistics.osu.edu/research/publications/) dissertations/welker1994. [↗](http://linguistics.osu.edu/research/publications/)
68. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: Macmillan. Craige Roberts Professor of Linguistics The Ohio State University 210 Oxley Hall Columbus, OH 43210 croberts@ling.ohio-state.edu [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wittgenstein%2C+Ludwig%2E+1953%2E+Philosophical+investigations%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Macmillan%2E+Craige+Roberts+Professor+of+Linguistics+The+Ohio+State+University+210+Oxley+Hall+Columbus%2C+OH+43210+croberts%40ling%2Eohi)