Hostname: page-component-686fd747b7-mrck6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T12:34:35.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse structure, topicality and questioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jan Van Kuppevelt
Jan Van Kuppevelt
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen, Department of Philosophy, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail:jvkuppev@vms.uci.kun.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper we present an alternative approach to discourse structure according to which topicality is the general organizing principle in discourse. This approach accounts for the fact that the segmentation structure of discourse is in correspondence with the hierarchy of topics defined for the discourse units. Fundamental to the proposed analysis is the relation it assumes between the notion of topic and that of explicit and implicit questioning in discourse. This relation implies that (1) the topic associated with a discourse unit is provided by the explicit or implicit question it answers and (2) the relation between discourse units is determined by the relation between these topic-providing questions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 109 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bartsch, R. (1976). Topik-Fokus-Struktur und kategoriale Syntax. In Ehrich, V. & Finke, P. (eds.) Grammatik und Pragmatik. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag. 85–99.Google Scholar
Bäuerle, R. (1979). Questions and answers. In Bäuerle, R., Egli, U. & Stechow, A. von (eds.) Semantics from different points of view. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, J. (ed.) Universals of human language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 471–524.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 25–55.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: an introduction to psycholinguistics. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, F. (ed.) Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. The Hague: Mouton. 106–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T. A. van (1977). Text and context: explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1978). Functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1979). Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B. (1978). Discourse knowledge. In Walker, D. E. (ed.) Understanding spoken language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland. 229–344.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1985). Discourse structure and the proper treatment of interruptions. Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 832–839.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1977). Role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J. (1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón (ed.). 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1982). Towards an understanding of coherence in discourse. In Lehnert, W. G. & Ringle, M. H. (eds.) Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 223–243.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givón (ed.). 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. A. (1970). A developmental analysis of the ‘psychological’ subject and predicate of the sentence. Language and Speech 13 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovy, E. H. (1990). Unresolved issues in paragraph planning. In Dale, R., Mellish, C. & Zock, C. (eds.). Current research in natural language generation. New York: Academic Press. 17–45.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. K. & Weinstein, S. (1981). Control of inference: role of some aspects of discourse structure-centering. Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 385–387.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. O. & Schieffelin, B. B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In Li, C. N. (ed.) Subject and topic. New York, Academic Press. 335–384.Google Scholar
Klein, W. & Stutterheim, C. von (1987). Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 109. 163–183.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 269–332.Google Scholar
Kuppevelt, J. van (1991). Topic en comment: expliciete en impliciete vraagstelling in discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Kuppevelt, J. van (1993). Topic and comment. In Asher, R. E. (ed.) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 4629–4633.Google Scholar
Kuppevelt, J. van (1994a). On determining relative prominence in discourse structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, 01 6–9.Google Scholar
Kuppevelt, J. van (1994b). Directionality in discourse. In Bosch, P. & Van der Sandt, R. A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference on Focus and Natural Language Processing. Heidelberg: IBM Working Papers. 485–501.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Labov, W.Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 355–399.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.) Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232–296.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. E. (1979). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Givón (ed.) 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 601–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1986). On the syntactic marking of the presupposed open proposition. Papers from the 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 208–222.Google Scholar
Reichman, R. (1978). Conversational coherency. Cognitive Science 2. 283–327.Google Scholar
Reichman, R. (1981). Plain speaking: a theory and grammar of spontaneous discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics 22. 779–809.Google Scholar
Scha, R. & Polanyi, L. (1988). An augmented context free grammar for discourse. In Vargha, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Budapest: John von Neumann Society for Computing Sciences. 22–27.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1977). Rules and topics in conversation. Cognitive Science 1. 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1976). Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. A. M. (1985). Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E. & Benešová, E. (1973). Topic, focus and generative semantics. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1991). Surface structure, intonation, and ‘focus’. University of Pennsylvania report, number MS-CIS-91-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1990). The informational component. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1975). Topics, sentence accent, ellipsis: a proposal for their formal treatment. In Keenan, E. L. (ed.) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1980). Intonation and givenness in spoken discourse. Studies in Language 4. 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, H. (1991). A computational treatment of pragmatic inferences. Paper presented at IBM Deutschland GmbH, Scientific Center, Institute for Knowledge Based Systems, Stuttgart, 07 3.Google Scholar