True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English

By Christine Gunlogson. 2003

390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/633a16edb3e0cb05b7b4709a01660d1c76b4183d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review (2010, background): “There remain questions about the role the utterance level contour or tune plays in signalling pragmatic and semantic information (eg, Gunlogson, 2003 ; Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990 ) as well as questions about the representations that underlie rhythmic adjustments of prominence (eg, Dilley, 2”
Beyond common and privileged: Gradient representations of common ground in real-time language use (2012, background): “Why might this be the case? In the case of a question prompt, the person asking the question has publicly expressed interest and commitment to the proposition under question, eg, What is … (see related discussion in Gunlogson, 2001 ).”
Performative Verbs and Performative Acts (2011, background): “With Gunlogson (2003) and Davis (2009) we assume that an assertion becomes part of the common ground only as a secondary effect, after the hearer has accepted the assertion.”
On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries (2010, background): “19 Or possibly, a subset of the speaker's beliefs, namely those he is committed to defending (Gunlogson 2001).”
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS AS QUESTIONS (2007, methodology): “We model Speaker’s and Addressee’s mutual and individual knowledge by adopting Stalnaker’s (1978) notion of ‘Common Ground’ and enriching it, along the lines of Gunlogson (2001).”
A Discourse Commitment-Based Framework for Recognizing Textual Entailment (2007, background): “Following (Gunlogson, 2001; Stalnaker, 1979), we assume that a discourse commitment (c) represents the any of the set of propositions that can necessarily be inferred to be”