Two issues relevant to discourse description and analysis are discussed, namely which property of the sentence structure reflects its discourse anchoring, and how to combine the ‘dynamic’ (communication based) view of language and discourse with the description of (underlying) sentence syntax. To this aim, our approach to the information structure of the sentence (of its topic-focus articulation, TFA) is briefly summarized, introducing then the notion of the hierarchy of activation of the elements of the stock of knowledge assumed by the speaker to be shared by him and the hearer and proposing some heuristics guiding the development of the activation degrees. These heuristics are applied to a piece of text discussing certain implications of the proposed analysis and some related problems, and briefly sketching a possibility of how to test the proposed approach to text analysis on a large annotated corpus of texts.
BarzilayELapataM (2008) Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics34: 1–34.
4.
ChafeW (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: LiCN (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25–55.
5.
ChafeW (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
DanešF (1974) Functional Sentence Perspective and the organization of the text. In DanešF (ed.) Papers on FSP. Prague: Academia, pp. 106–128.
7.
GivonT (1983) Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In: GivonT (ed.) Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–41.
8.
GundelJK (2011) Child language, theory of mind, and the role of procedural markers in identifying referents of nominal expressions. In: Escandell-VidalVLeonettiMAhernA (eds) Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bradford: Emerald Group, pp. 205–231.
9.
GundelJKHedbergNZacharskiR (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69: 274–307.
10.
HajičJPanevováJHajičováE (2006) Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0. CD-ROM. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, PA, USA. LDC Catalog No. LDC2006T01. Available at: http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/pdt2.0/.
11.
HajičováE (1993) Issues of Sentence Structure and Discourse Patterns. Prague: Charles University.
12.
HajičováE (1997) Topic, focus and anaphora. Paper presented at the 16th International Congress of Linguists (CIL 16), Paris, Abstracts of the Congress, p. 109.
13.
HajičováE (2003a) Contextual boundness and discourse patterns. In: 17th International Congress of Linguists (CIL 17), Prague, Abstracts, p. 388.
14.
HajičováE (2003b) Aspects of discourse structure. In: MenzelWVertanC (eds) Natural Language Processing between Linguistic Inquiry and System Engineering. Prague: Iasi, pp. 47–56.
15.
HajičováE (2012) On scalarity in information structure. Linguistica PragensiaXXII(2): 60–78.
16.
HajičováEVrbováJ (1982) On the role of the hierarchy of activation in the process of natural language understanding. In: HoreckýJ (ed.) Coling 82 – Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Computational Linguistics. Prague and Amsterdam, pp. 107–113.
KrahmerETheuneM (1999) Efficient generation of descriptions in context. In: KibbleRvan DeemterK (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Generation of Nominal Expressions, associated with the 11th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information.
20.
Kruijff-KorbayováI (1998) The dynamic potential of topic and focus: A Praguian approach to discourse representation theory. PhD dissertation, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague.
21.
LambrechtK (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
MikulováMBémováAHajičJ. (2006) Annotation on the tectogrammatical level in the Prague Dependency Treebank. Annotation manual. Tech. Report 30 ÚFAL MFF UK, Prague.
23.
MiltsakakiERobaldoLLeeAJoshiA (2008) Sense annotation in the Penn Discourse Treebank. In: GelbukhA (ed.) Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 275–286.
24.
MladováLZikánováŠHajičováE (2008) From sentence to discourse: Building an annotation scheme for discourse based on the Prague dependency treebank. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008). Marrakech, Morocco: European Language Resources Association (ISBN 2–9517408–4–0), pp. 1–7.
25.
PeregrinJ (1994) Topic-focus articulation as generalized quantifiers. In: BoschPvan der SandtR (eds) Focus and Natural Language Processing. IBM Working Paper 7. Heidelberg: IBM Deutschland, pp. 235–254.
26.
PeregrinJ (1996) Topic and focus in a formal framework. In: ParteeBSgallP (eds) Discourse and Meaning: Papers in Honour of Eva Hajičová. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
27.
PrasadRDineshNLeeA. (2008a) Penn Discourse Treebank Version 2.0. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
28.
PrasadRDineshNLeeA. (2008b) The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).
29.
PrinceE (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In: ColeP (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–254.
30.
SgallP (1979–1980) Towards a definition of Focus and Topic. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics31: 3–25; 32: 24–32; reprinted 1981 in Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 78: 173–198.
31.
SgallPHajičováEPanevováJ (1986) The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Prague: Academia/Dordrecht: Reidel.
32.
WeilH (1844) De l’order des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux languages moderns. Paris. Translated as The Order of Words in the Ancient Languages Compared with That of the Modern Languages. Boston, 1887, re-edited Amsterdam 1978.
