Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in prosody and syntax
Edited by Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude and Martine Vanhove
[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] 2018
► pp. 403–444

Chapter 14
Annotation guidelines for Questions under Discussion and information structure

| Universität Stuttgart
| Université Paris Diderot and CNRS
| Universität Tübingen
We present a detailed manual for a pragmatic, i.e. meaning-based, method for the information-structural analysis of naturally attested data, which is built on the idea that for any assertion contained in a text (or transcript of spoken discourse) there is an implicit Question under Discussion (QUD) that determines which parts of the assertion are focused or backgrounded (and which ones are not at issue, i.e. not part of the assertion at all). We formulate a number of constraints, which allow the analyst/annotator to derive QUDs from the previous or upcoming discourse context, and demonstrate the method using corpus examples (of French, German, and English). Since we avoid making reference to language-specific morphosyntactic or prosodic properties, we claim that our method is also cross-linguistically applicable beyond our example languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Information structure
    • 1.2Discourse structure and Questions under Discussion (QUDs)
    • 1.3Universality of information-structural notions
    • 1.4Corpus resources and a prospect for the study of lesser-described languages
  • 2.Preliminaries for the reconstruction of QUDs (and the creation of discourse trees)
    • 2.1Understanding the text
    • 2.2Preparing the text
  • 3.Formulating Questions under Discussion
  • 4.Adding information-structural markup
  • 5.QUDs and information structure in parallel structures
    • 5.1Parallel structures with a single variable
    • 5.2Parallel structures with two variables: Contrastive topic + focus
    • 5.3Embedded focus
  • 6.Non-at-issue material
  • 7.Conditionals
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.14rie
References (74)
References
AnderBois, Scott, Brasoveanu, Adrian & Henderson, Robert. 2010. Crossing the appositive/at-issue meaning boundary. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, Vancouver, Nan Li & David Lutz (eds), 328–346. <[URL]>
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 1998. Bridging. Journal of Semantics 15(1): 83–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1961. Ifs and cans. In Philosophical Papers, 153–180. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Beaver, David & Clark, Brady. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning [Explorations in Semantics 5]. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2017. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 6.0.36) [Computer Program]. <[URL]> (11 November 2017).
Branca-Rosoff, Sonia, Fleury Serge, Lefeuvre, Florence & Pires, Mat. 2012. Discours sur la ville. Présentation du Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000). [URL]Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On the semantic and contextual factors that determine topic selection in Italian and Spanish. In special issue Topics Cross-linguistically, Geertje van Bergen & Helen de Hoop (eds). The Linguistic Review 26(2–3): 261–289.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa, Avanzi, Mathieu & Gendrot, Cedric. 2012. Entre syntaxe, prosodie et discours: Les topiques sujet en français parlé. Actes du 3 Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 2041–2054. Lyon.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. What’s new (and what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Sarah Berson, Alex Bratkievich, Daniel Bruhn, Amy Campbell, Ramon Escamilla, Allegra Giovine, Lindsey Newbold, Marilola Perez, Marta Piqueras-Brunet & Russell Rhomieux (eds), 403–424. Berkeley CA: BLS. <[URL]>
. 2016. Intonation and Meaning. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1977. Bridging. In Thinking, P. Johnson-Laird & P. Wason (eds), 411–420. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2005. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. In Ellipsis and Non-Sentential Speech, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (eds), 31–55. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ebert, Christian, Ebert, Cornelia & Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2014. A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 37: 353–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckart, Kerstin & Gärtner, Markus. 2016. Creating silver standard annotations for a corpus of non-standard data. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS) [Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 16], Stephanie Dipper, Friedrich Neubarth & Heike Zinsmeister (eds), 90–96.Google Scholar
Eckart, Kerstin, Riester, Arndt & Schweitzer, Katrin. 2012. A Discourse Information Radio News Database for Linguistic Analysis. In Linked Data in Linguistics. Representing and Connecting Language Data and Language Metadata, Christian Chiarcos, Sebastian Nordhoff & Sebastian Hellmann (eds), 65–75. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Endriss, Cornelia. 2006. Quantificational Topics. A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Scope Phenomena. PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & May, Robert. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart & Beaver, David. 2011. Presupposition. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Zalta (ed.). <[URL]>
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The Interactive Stance. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Barbara & Sidner, Candace. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3): 175–204.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1999. On the limits of focus projection in English. In Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds), 43–55. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18(4): 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hajičová, Eva, Partee, Barbara & Sgall, Petr. 1998. Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3:199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1999. VPE as proform: Some consequences for binding. In Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, 2: Selected Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique a Paris, Francis Corblin, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin & Jean-Marie Marandin (eds). The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry. 1985. On the coherence and structure of discourse. Technical Report CSLI-85–37, Stanford University, 1–36.Google Scholar
Hunter, Julie & Abrusán, Márta. 2017. Rhetorical Relations and QUDs. In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: JSAI-isAI 2015 Workshops LENLS, JURISIN, AAA, HAT-MASH, TSDAA, ASD-HR, and SKL, Kanagawa, Japan, Revised Selected Papers, Mihoko Otake, Setsuya Kurahashi, Yuiko Ota et al. (eds), 41–57. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in Conditionals. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasinskaja, Katja & Zeevat, Henk. 2009. Explaining conjunction systems: Russian, English, German. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds.), 231–245. Stuttgart: OPUS.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & von Stutterheim, Christine. 1987. Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen. Linguistische Berichte 109: 163–183.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, 6: The Notions of Information Structure, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Kuppevelt, Jan. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31: 109–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Ewald & Umbach, Carla. 2002. Kontrast in der Grammatik: Spezifische Realisierungen und übergreifender Konnex. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 79: 145–186.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja & Riester, Arndt. To appear. The role of information structure for morphosyntactic choices in Tagalog. In A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, Sonja Riesberg et al. (eds). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Mann, William & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Towards a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpreation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics, 49: 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1998. On recent formal analyses of topic. In The Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation: Selected Papers, Jonathan Ginzberg, Zurab Khasidashvili, Carl Vogel & Jean-Jacques Lévy (eds), 147–160. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Onea, Edgar. 2016. Potential Questions at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul & Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2): 117–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Portes, Cristel. 2004. Prosodie et économie du discours: Spécificité discursive et portée pragmatique de l’intonation d’implication. PhD dissertation, Université Aix-Marseille.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy I. Philosophica 27(1):53–94.Google Scholar
Reyle, Uwe & Riester, Arndt. 2016. Joint information structure and discourse structure analysis in an Underspecified DRT framework. In SEMDIAL 2016. Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (JerSem), Julie Hunter, Mandy Simons & Matthew Stone (eds), 15–24, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. <[URL]>
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, Linguistics Dynamics Science Project 2 (eds), 1–26. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Afica, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
. To appear. Constructing QUD trees. In Questions in Discourse, Vol. 2: Pragmatics, Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds). Leiden: Brill. DOI logo
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus triggers and focus types from a corpus perspective. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2): 215–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The RefLex Scheme – Annotation Guidelines [Vol. 14 of SinSpeC. Working papers of the SFB 732]. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Shiohara, Asako. To appear. Information structure in Sumbawa: A QUD analysis. In A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, Sonja Riesberg et al. (eds) Berlin: Language Science Press.
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).Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 271–297. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9(4): 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Bernd, Eva & Simard, Candide. 2012. Constraints on noun phrase discontinuity in an Australian language: The role of prosody and information structure. Linguistics 50(5): 1015–1058.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John Goldsmith (ed.), 550–569. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David & Roberts, Craige. 2010. What projects and why. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, Vancouver, Nan Li & David Lutz (eds), 309–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrett, Kirsten & Koev, Todor. 2015. Experimental evidence for the truth-conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. Journal of Semantics 32(3): 525–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Mann, William. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8: 423–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 21(2): 155–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The Informational Component. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Velleman, Leah & Beaver, David. 2016. Question-based models of information structure. In The Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 86–107. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28(4): 577–628.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex & Sloetjes, Han. 2006. ELAN: A Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. In: Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. <[URL]>
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

De Kuthy, Kordula, Madeeswaran Kannan, Haemanth Santhi Ponnusamy & Detmar Meurers
2022. Exploring neural question generation for formal pragmatics: Data set and model evaluation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5 DOI logo
Domínguez, Mónica, Mireia Farrús & Leo Wanner
2022. The Information Structure–prosody interface in text-to-speech technologies. An empirical perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Finkbeiner, Rita & Robert Külpmann
2022. On the discourse pragmatics of German wh-headlines. Functions of Language 29:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide
2022. A contrastive perspective on French and Italian wh-in situ questions. Functions of Language 29:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. Introduction. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Matić, Dejan
2022. Alternatives to information structure. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Ozerov, Pavel
2022. Alternatives to QUD. Functions of Language 29:1 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
Rohrer, Patrick Louis, Júlia Florit-Pons, Ingrid Vilà-Giménez & Pilar Prieto
2022. Children Use Non-referential Gestures in Narrative Speech to Mark Discourse Elements Which Update Common Ground. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Rosemeyer, Malte, Daniel Jacob & Lars Konieczny
2022. How alternatives are created. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Schultze-Berndt, Eva
2022. When subjects frame the clause: discontinuous noun phrases as an iconic strategy for marking thetic constructions. Linguistics 60:3 ► pp. 865 ff. DOI logo
Brunetti, Lisa, Kordula De Kuthy & Arndt Riester
2021. The Information-Structural Status of Adjuncts: A Question-under-Discussion-Based Approach. Discours :28 DOI logo
Latrouite, Anja
2021. Specification predication: Unexpectedness and cleft constructions in Tagalog. Faits de Langues 52:1 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Rosemeyer, Malte
2021. Two Types of Constructionalization Processes in Spanish and Portuguese Cleftedwh-interrogatives. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Rosemeyer, Malte
2022. Modeling the discourse pragmatics of interrogatives. Functions of Language 29:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Mengzhu & Sasha Calhoun
2019. Priming Effects of Focus in Mandarin Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.