About What About: Topicality at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface

Justin Bledin & Kyle Rawlins JHU Philosophy & JHU CogSci

SALT, May 9, 2021

1 / 34 Main target: English what about, which is highly productive, semantically and pragmatically complex, and has received minimal analytic attention.

(1)A: Which trees can you create bonsai from? ( antecedent) B: {What/How} about sequoia? head prejacent • Intrinsic interest: non-sentential construction with an interesting and complex set of uses. Massively underspeciﬁed. • Extrinsic interest: prominent in literature on topicality, but largely in secondary role as diagnostic. (Gundel 1974, 1988; Jackendoﬀ 1972; Buring¨ 2003; Ebert et al. 2014; Beaver et al. 2017) • Bonus target: “whataboutism”: (2) (Trump tweet on July 22, 2017) What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia, including Podesta Company, Uranium deal, Russian Reset, big dollar speeches, etc.

2 / 34 About what about, pr´ecis

What about XP (i) presupposes an antecedent Question Under Discus- sion/QUD, and (ii) asks a subquestion of the antecedent that is aligned with the denotation of the prejacent XP.

• (Question Under Discussion / QUD: Roberts 1996, 2012; Ginzburg 1996; van Kuppevelt 1996; Buring¨ 2003; Beaver & Clark 2008 a.m.o) • Getting the alignment right is complicated. • Our final proposal is implemented using a structured meaning (aka. “functional”) approach to questions (von Stechow 1991; Krifka 2001): what about interacts with the antecedent QUD by (iii) narrowing the QUD’s restriction via the prejacent XP. • What about can trigger QUD accommodation, and (iv) leaves the background of the antecedent question entirely unspecified; in consequence is extremely pragmatically flexible. • In particular, productively allows shifting an accommodating hearer’s QUD.

3 / 34 Plan

(i) Background: ‘what about’ and topicality (ii) Data: compositional ﬂexibility (iii) Data: functional heterogeneity (iv) Analysis try 1: local topic analysis (v) Analysis try 2: unstructured aboutness (vi) Analysis try 3: a structured approach (vii)‘ what about’ and whataboutism

4 / 34 Precedents from topicality literature

• Gundel’s (1974/1988) diagnostic for the “pragmatic topic” of a subsequent utterance: (3) What about Archie? (Gundel, ex. 46) a. Archie rejected the proposal. b. #It was [ARCHIE]F who rejected the proposal. • What abouts as cues to contrastive topics (Jackendoff 1972; Buring¨ 2003; Beaver et al. 2017): (4)A: Well, what about FRED? What did HE eat? B: [FRED]CT ate the [BEANS]F. (Jackendoff, ex. 6.145) (5)A: Well, what about the BEANS? Who ate THEM? B: [FRED]F ate the [BEANS]CT. (Jackendoff, ex. 6.146)

5 / 34 Existing proposal:

Ebert et al. (2014): reduce aspects of left-dislocation constructions to “what about” questions, discussed (brieﬂy) in terms of questioning/QUD.

In a nutshell, “what about XP?” (i) establishes the prejacent XP as a referential topic (ii) raises a QUD: what propertiesJ K are true of XP ? J K

6 / 34 Compositional ﬂexibility

Compositional ﬂexibility puzzle: What about can combine with a very broad range of constituents including DPs, APs, certain TPs, certain CPs, and more. How to account compositionally for this generality?

• Entity-topic-based accounts focus on only a small piece of the puzzle (referential DPs). • The head can be either what about or how about, but other wh-items aren’t supported (construction-like or idiom-like): (6) a. {What/How} about Joanna? b.* {Who/When/Why/Where} about Joanna? • Just about anything can show up in the prejacent, both nominal and clausal.

7 / 34 Compositional ﬂexibility: non-clausal prejacents

Easy way to generate examples: let the antecedent be a question that targets the prejacent constituent as a short answer. (This is a clue...) (7)A: Who should we invite to the party? B: How about {Joanna/everybody/nobody}? (DP prejacents) (8)A: When should we meet? B: What about {on Tuesday/before the party}? (PP prejacents) (9)A: What color should we paint the room? B: What about green? (AP prejacent) (10)A: What speed should I drive? B: How about slowly? (AdvP prejacent) (11)A: What should we do this summer? B: How about hike the Pacific Coast Trail? (VP prejacent) B0: How about hiking the Pacific Coast Trail? (gerundive/non-finite prejacent)

8 / 34 Compositional ﬂexibility: clausal prejacents

• It’s possible to use the ‘short answer’ strategy to force some full CP prejacents (and to some degree non-ﬁnite forms): (12)A: What surprised you the most? B: How about that we won? (that-clause prejacent) • If -clauses are also ok for some speakers, leading to readings similar to what if questions: (Bledin & Rawlins, 2019) (13)A: Who could possibly be the murderer? B: What (about) if the butler lied about his alibi? • A noticeable gap: sentential tensed clauses (i.e. ‘full answers’) are not good as prejacents: (Culicover & Jackendoﬀ, 2005) (14)A: What surprised you the most? B: *How about we won?

9 / 34 Clausal prejacents (cont.)

(15)A: Who could possibly be the murderer? We’ve ruled everyone out! B: *What about the butler lied about his alibi? (16)A: Would you like a drink? (after Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005 ch. 7 ex. 11d) B: Yeah, how/what about a scotch? B0: *Yeah, how/what about I would like a scotch?

Exception to the gap: can use futurate present TPs as prejacent (Copley, 2009, 2008, 2014; Bochnak, 2019), but only with how about: (17)A: What color should we paint the room? B: How about we paint it green?) B0: *What about we paint it green?

10 / 34 Compositional ﬂexibility, recap

The XP prejacent in a what about can take a wide range of syntactic forms, with the major exception of regular tensed clauses.

11 / 34 Functional heterogeneity

Functional heterogeneity puzzle What about moves can serve a wide variety of discourse purposes including suggesting a plan in response to a practical question, challenging an interlocutor’s proposal, elaborating on prior lines of discussion, and more. How to interpret what about to account for this pragmatic ﬂexibility?

• Suggestive uses. What about questions can be used to make a suggestion. Arguably: tentatively oﬀer a complete or partial answer to the current QUD. (18) Where should we go for dinner? {What/How} about The Brewer’s Art? (19) Which trees can you create bonsai from? What about sequoia? (20)A: Why do my roommates keep moving out? B: What about because you never clean up after yourself?

12 / 34 Functional heterogeneity (cont.)

• Contrastive uses. What abouts can be “contrastive questions” asked to redirect a stream of inquiry by laterally shifting the QUD: (21)A: What did Mary eat? (ex. 4 from Beaver et al. 2017) B: [She]CT ate [pie]F. A: Well, what about Fred? What did he eat? B: [Fred]CT ate the [beans]F. (What did Mary eat? is a subquestion of Who ate what?, which is a superquestion of What did Fred eat?) (Many cases of whataboutism fall in this category.) • Challenging uses. (Bledin & Rawlins’s 2020 “resistance moves”): (22)A: Kenny G is the GOAT of saxophone. (‘GOAT’ = Greatest Of All Time) B: Umm, what about Coltrane? (23)A: Open the window! B: What about the mosquitos?

13 / 34 Functional heterogeneity (cont.) • Many more uses besides. • When can’t what about be used? Generally not great discourse-initial, though some planning uses are ok: (24) Context: opening sentence of a history lecture. #What about if Napolean had won at Waterloo? (25) How about we go have breakfast at Little Purity Diner? • Often bad in response to direct factual questions. (26)A: What is that fruit you’re eating? B:??What/how about a persimmon? B0: A persimmon. / ??Is it a persimmon? (27)A: What could this fruit possibly be? B: Is it a persimmon? B0: What about a persimmon?

Rough generalization: they are about as bad as regular question responses to questions—a highly context-sensitive matter. 14 / 34 Functional heterogeneity, recap

What abouts can be used in a wide variety of functions depending on the context of use. Key cases: suggestions, contrastive questioning, challenges.

15 / 34 Analyzing what about: two topical approaches

“In the literature on topicality, its discursive eﬀect is often said to be captured by raising the question What about X?, where X is the topical entity. We implement this idea by assuming that the REF act of topic establishment introduces the question ‘What properties are true of X?’ as the current question under discussion.” (Ebert et al. 2014 p. 375) We can extract two (paired) proposals from this: (i) Asking What about XP? establishes the prejacent denotation XP as a new topic( ≈ dref) in the discourse (via REF), drawing hearers’J K attention towards it. (“local topic analysis”; cf. “centering” approaches to pronoun resolution Grosz, Joshi & Weinstein 1983, 1995; Dekker 1994; Bittner 2014)

(ii) Asking What about XP? introduces the new QUD/discourse topic: what properties are true of XP ? (“global topic analysis”) J K

16 / 34 Local topic analysis

Do we really need a question-based analysis? Pure local topic story:

(28) c + pwhat about XPq = c + Topic(XP) This is plausible for many suggestive uses, which might be assimilated (at least to a certain extent) to consider-imperatives:

(29)A: Who knew the combination to the safe? B: What about the butler? B0: Well, consider the butler. However, many what abouts, including some suggestive uses, seem to be bona ﬁde questions.

17 / 34 Local topic analysis (cont.)

• Applying Sadock’s (1974) tell me and by any chance diagnostics: (30)A: Does this medicine have any side-eﬀects? B: Not in the prescribed dosage. A: OK. But tell me, {what about/#consider} when one takes twice the prescribed amount? (31) Does anyone have a car we can borrow? {What about/#Consider} Maria, by any chance? • What abouts pattern like regular questions in terms of turn-taking and response-hood: (32)A: How about going for breakfast at Little Purity Diner? (A looks expectantly at B) B: Sure. I love their pancakes. (33)A: Consider going for breakfast at Little Purity Diner. (A looks expectantly at B) B: Well? I’m getting hungry considering this!

18 / 34 Towards a QUD-based/global topic analysis

Back to the global topic analysis:

(34) c + pwhat about XPq = c + Question(What properties are true of XP?) Reconstructing this in Hamblin-style (Hamblin, 1973) alternative semantics: (generalizing Rawlins 2013, 2014 on “about+DP”)

(35) what about XPα AS1 = J K {phs,ti : ∃P ∈ Dhα,hs,tii(p = λws .P( XP )(w))} J K (36) what about Archie AS1 = J K   λws .Archie rejected the proposal in w,  λws .Archie ate the beans in w,  λws .Archie likes cats in w, ... 

However, the property quantiﬁer in (35) clearly needs to be restricted...

19 / 34 Towards a QUD-based analysis (cont.) • Possible (weird) property:

λxeλws .(x =Archie)∧(Veronica likes cats in w).

• Worse: set of constant properties λxeλws .w = @ for each world @. The analysis incorrectly predicts that what abouts reduce to the “Big Question” (Roberts 1996). • This pathological properties problem has surfaced in a number of diﬀerent places without solution (Perry 1989/2000 raises a related triviality worry for Partee’s 1989 “pw-aboutness”; Heim 1994 on answerhood operators; von Fintel 1994 on sentence topics; Thomason 2014 (/∼2007) on causation). • Few attempts to demarcate the natural or (what Perry termed) “good old-fashioned properties”; von Fintel (1994): no constant functions, but then we cannot count be self-identical as a natural property. Very easy to construct non-constant properties from constant properties (as in example on this slide). • (Foreshadowing: Heim, Von Fintel both suggest considering a structured meaning approach.)

20 / 34 Towards a QUD-based analysis (cont.)

• In any case, even if we can ﬁnd a way to systematically exclude pathological properties, what abouts exhibit a dependency on a prior QUD which isn’t yet captured on the current proposal:

(37)A: Who rejected the proposal? What about Archie? B: {He rejected it./??He likes cats/??He’s a redhead.}

21 / 34 QUD dependency with unstructured questions

QUD Dependency: what abouts depend on a prior question in discourse (the “antecedent”), which delimits their inquisitive scope.

c (38) what about XP AS2 = J K {phs,ti : p ∈ QUDc ∧ ABOUT(p, XP )} J K Defined only if QUD stack Qc 6= hi. • One might try to compositionally implement this using “discourse/anaphoric what” (Biezma & Rawlins 2017) and having the about-phrase contributes a kind of sieve or filter through which this antecedent QUD is passed, allowing only those answers about XP to make it through. J K • (Lewis-Partee theory of aboutness (Lewis 1988a,b; Partee 1989): if we can associate a subject matter M( XP ) ⊆ W × W (i.e., an equivalence relation between worlds) withJ K any prejacent, then: ABOUT(p, XP ) iff p(w) ≡ p(v) whenever M( XP )(w)(v).) J K J K

22 / 34 Challenges for unstructured approach

The second analysis in (38) makes some nice predictions, at least given ordinary pre-theoretic intuitions about aboutness:

c (39) What about Archie? AS2 = JWho rejected the proposal?K c ∩ {p : ABOUT(p, Archie )} = J K J K  λws .Archie rejected the proposal in w,  λws .Veronica rejected the proposal in w,  λws .Jughead rejected the proposal in w, ...  • However, the ABOUT relation remains obscure; a version of the pathological properties problem arises again in making sense of entity-proposition aboutness (via M( XP ) or otherwise). J K λxeλws .x = Archie ∧ Veronica rejected the proposal in w • Problem compounded by compositional ﬂexibility; even if a nice story can be told for DP prejacents, what about APs, AdvPs, CPs?

23 / 34 Challenges for unstructured approach (cont.)

• One more empirical argument. Bad predictions in cases like (40) where prejacent is a constituent of the antecedent QUD:

(40)A: Who could have nominated Archie for the prize? B: What about Archie? Paraphrase: “Could Archie have nominated Archie?” • All possible answers to the original question correspond straightforwardly to properties of Archie! • (Related empirical problem when antecedent is a multiple-wh question.)

24 / 34 Unstructured approaches: takeaway

Takeaway so far Many elements of the unstructured account on the right track: (i) a question-based account, (ii) what abouts anteceded by the QUD, (iii) constructing an issue (in some sense) from the prejacent that is aligned to the QUD.

• The stumbling block: how to construct the issue. In particular, how to go from arbitrary XP to a stable propositional denotation at a type like hhs, ti, ti (orJ similar).K • Resemblance: fragment/short answers (Morgan 1973; Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984; Stainton 1993; Ginzburg & Sag 2000; Merchant 2004; Stainton 2004; Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005; Jacobson 2016 among many others)

25 / 34 Brief excursion: what about ellipsis?

Filling out to propositional meaning via semantic means is challenging. Could an ellipsis account in the style of Merchant (2004) work instead, where what about XP is in a syntactic/surface anaphoric relationship with some sentential antecedent that ﬁlls out XP to a TP-sized unit?

• Major challenge is that there is no corresponding sentential form; closest is futurate present for how about only. (See Culicover & Jackendoﬀ 2005 ch. 7 for this argument in brief.)

(41) *What about the butler could be the murderer? • What abouts are brieﬂy discussed in the fragments literature (Culicover & Jackendoﬀ, 2005; Merchant, 2010), where conclusion (even from Merchant) seems to be that they are idioms that may involve direct interpretation, based on this objection. • Won’t develop further here: could an ellipsis (or syntax+information structural) account be saved from the sentential-form objection?

26 / 34 Structured meaning implementation

Proposal: structured antecedents The prejacent ﬁlls in a potential short answer to a QUD, forming a subquestion with a narrowed restriction.

Many potential paths towards implementation. We will do this here in the style of a structured meaning account. (Following most directly von Stechow (1991); Krifka (2001); see also related accounts of short answers in Groenendijk & Stokhof (1984); Ginzburg & Sag (2000); Jacobson (2016) a.o.)

(42) who1 did Nandi introduce t1 to Elanor? = Jhλxeλws .(Nandi introduced x to Elanor inK w), PERSONi background (BQ) restriction (RQ) • Structured question denotations can be regarded as more ﬁne-grained versions of Hamblin sets from alternative semantics.

c c (43) what about XP SM1 = hBQUDc , { XP }i J K Jc K Deﬁned only if Qc 6= hi and XP ∈ RQUDc . J K

27 / 34 Structured meaning implementation (cont.)

• With the assumption that QUDs are structured and make a background available, no worries about pathological properties...

c (44) What about Archie? SM1 = Jhλxeλws .(x rejected theK proposal in w),{Archie}i • On this proposal, syntactic ﬂexibility is explained by the variety of quantiﬁcational domains available in structured QUD antecedents:

(45) What speed1 should A drive t1? = J 0 K 0 hλVhv,hs,tiiλws .Should(w)(λws .(A drives V in w )), SPEEDi where SPEED = {fast, slow, 50 miles/hr, ...} c (46) How about 50 miles/hr? SM1 = J K 0 0 hλVhv,hs,tiiλws .Should(w)(λws .(A drives V in w )), {50 mi/hr}i

28 / 34 Whataboutism, a linguistic perspective

• The dependence of what about on a pragmatically underspecified antecedent QUD facilitates its diverse range of uses: making suggestions, challenging proposals, redirecting inquiry, and so forth. • What abouts can be a particularly effective means to forcefully shift the QUD. • Useful in Gricean cooperative discourse (contrastive questioning) but also in more strategic contexts, sometime for nefarious purposes... Whataboutism: The practice of deflecting criticism or avoiding an unfa- vorable issue by raising a related issue that is more favorable to the speaker, and/or making a counteraccusation that addresses such an issue.

• For a related, but distinct notion of whataboutism from the literature on rhetoric/argumentation theory, see Aspeitia (2020).

29 / 34 Whataboutism: Black lives matter

(47)A: Black lives matter. B: What about white lives?1 / All lives matter. Degen et al. (2020)2 (similar ideas developed a bit earlier in a series of tweets by Nick Fleisher3; see also Keiser forthcoming): The response “All lives matter” [alternatively: “What about white lives?”] forcefully shifts the intended QUD Do Black lives matter? to Which lives matter?...By denying the relevance of the “Do Black lives matter?” QUD, “All lives matter” also denies the history of hurt, dismissal, and oppression that makes the “Do Black lives matter?” QUD salient in the ﬁrst place.

Predicted by account: B’s what about presupposes a QUD with white J lives ∈ RQUDc . K

1https://www.newsweek.com/what-about-white-lives-north-carolina-politician-suggests-black-lives-matter-mural-racist-1519351 2http://alpslab.stanford.edu/posts/blm/2020-06-23.html 3https://twitter.com/nickﬂeisher/status/1268219592025014274?s=20 30 / 34 Whataboutism: Trump tweets

(48) (Trump tweet on July 22, 2017) What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia, including Podesta Company, Uranium deal, Russian Reset, big dollar speeches, etc. (49) (Trump tweet on Jan 26, 2019) If Roger Stone was indicted for lying to Congress, what about the lying done by Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Lisa Page & lover, Baker and so many others? What about Hillary to FBI and her 33,000 deleted Emails? What about Lisa & Peter’s deleted texts & Weiner’s laptop? Much more!

31 / 34 Whataboutism: Trump tweets (cont.) What about all the Clinton ties to Russia?

(50) a. Salient initial QUD: Did Trump’s Russia ties influence the election? = hJλss λws .(s influenced the election in w), {TRUMP-RUSSIAK }i b. Accommodated QUD: Which links to foreign powers influenced the election? = hJλss λws .(s influenced the election in w), FOREIGN LINKSK i c. Trump’s what about: What about all the Clinton ties to Russia? = hJλss λws .(s influenced the election in w), {CLINTON-RUSSIAK }i • Trump’s maneuver ‘works’ precisely because what about allows for substantial pragmatic flexibility in the targeted QUD, which allows speakers to redirect to a QUD that favors their position. • Whataboutism is most effective when QUD shift is one that in principle the hearer might or should be willing to address, or when directly rejecting it leaves the hearer open to accusations of hypocrisy or inconsistency.

32 / 34 Conclusions Final analysis Structured meaning approach: the prejacent supplies the restriction of a structured question, but the question’s background is supplied directly by the QUD. • Simple and straightforward account of compositional flexibility: any denotation that can form the restriction for a structured question meaning will work. • Functional heterogeneity due to general flexibility of questions, in combination with underspecification of the question’s background. What about and whataboutism The underspecification of a what about question’s background allows for QUD shifting; whataboutism is a potentially harmful rhetorical technique that is parasitic on innocuous, generally available discourse strategies. • Local advice for defusing: be willing to not cooperate in accommodating new big(ger) questions. Larger challenge: persuasive techniques that exploit willingness to behave cooperatively.

33 / 34 Thanks and Happy Mother’s Day!

For discussion of this topic, we’re grateful to audiences at PhLiPonLine and VirLaWP in 2020 and in the JHU semantics lab.

34 / 34 Bibliography Axel Arturo Barceló Aspeitia. Whataboutisms and inconsistency. Argumentation, 34: 433–447, 2020. David Beaver and Brady Clark. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2008. David Beaver, Craige Roberts, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3(1):265–284, 2017. Mar´ıa Biezma and Kyle Rawlins. Or what? Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(16):1–44, 2017. Maria Bittner. Temporality: Universals and Variation. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2014. Justin Bledin and Kyle Rawlins. What Ifs. Semantics & Pragmatics, 12(14):1–55, 2019. Justin Bledin and Kyle Rawlins. Resistance & resolution: Attentional dynamics in discourse. Journal of Semantics, 37(1):43–82, 2020. M. Ryan Bochnak. Future reference with and without future marking. Language and Linguistic Compass, 13(1), 2019. Daniel Buring.¨ On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(5): 511–545, 2003. Bridget Copley. The plan’s the thing: deconstructing futurate meanings. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(2):261–274, 2008. Bridget Copley. The semantics of the future. Routledge, 2009. Bridget Copley. Causal chains for futurates. In Philippe de Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine, and Saghie Sharifzadeh, editors, Future times, future tenses. Oxford University Press, 2014. Peter W. Culicover and Ray Jackendoff. Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press, 2005. 34 / 34 Paul Dekker. Predicate logic with anaphora. In Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, editors, Proceedings of SALT 4, pages 79–95, 1994. Christian Ebert, Cornelia Ebert, and Stefan Hinterwimmer. A unified analysis of conditionals as topics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(5):353–408, 2014. Jonathan Ginzburg. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Jerry Seligman and Dag Westerstähl, editors, Logic, Language, and Computation, Vol. 1 (CSLI Lecture Notes 58), pages 221–237. CSLI Publications, 1996. Jonathan Ginzburg and Ivan Sag. Interrogative investigations: the form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. CSLI Publications, 2000. Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1984. Barbara J. Grosz, Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proceedings of 21st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 44–50, 1983. Barbara J. Grosz, Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. Centering: A framework for modeling local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2):202–225, 1995. Jeanette Gundel. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1974. Jeanette Gundel. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Garland, New York, 1988. C. L. Hamblin. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1): 41–53, 1973. Irene Heim. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for ‘know’. In Rhonna Buchalla and Anita Mittwoch, editors, Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, pages 128–144, 1994. 34 / 34 Ray Jackendoff. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1972. Pauline Jacobson. The short answer: implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language, 92(2):331–375, 2016. Jessica Keiser. The “All Lives Matter” response: QUD-shifting as epistemic injustice. Synthese, forthcoming. Manfred Krifka. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline Fery and Wolfgang Sternefeld, editors, Audiatur Vox Sapientia: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, pages 287–319. Akademie Verlag, 2001. David Lewis. Relevant implication. Theoria, 54(3):161–174, 1988a. David Lewis. Statements partly about observation. Philosophical Papers, 17(1):1–31, 1988b. Jason Merchant. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6):661–738, 2004. Jason Merchant. Three kinds of ellipsis. In Francois Recanati, Isidora Stojanovic, and Neftal´ı Villanueva, editors, Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity, pages 141–192. Walter de Gruyter, 2010. J. L. Morgan. Sentence fragments and the notion of “sentence”. In Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. University of Illinois Press, 1973. Barbara Partee. Speaker’s reply. In Allén Sture, editor, Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences, pages 152–161. de Gruyter, 1989. John Perry. Possible worlds and subject matter. Discussion of Barbara H. Partee’s paper “Possible worlds in model-theoretic semantics: A linguistic perspective”. In Allén Sture, editor, Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences, pages 124–137. de Gruyter, 1989. 34 / 34 John Perry. The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2000. Kyle Rawlins. About ‘about’. In Todd Snider, editor, Proceedings of SALT 23, pages 336–357, 2013. Kyle Rawlins. Aboutness and attitudes. Invited paper at the 2014 Michigan Linguistics/Philosophy workshop, Nov 2014. Craige Roberts. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol, editors, Papers in Semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics), volume 49. Ohio State University, 1996. Craige Roberts. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics, 5(6):1–69, 2012. Jerrold Sadock. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, 1974. Robert Stainton. Non-Sentential Assertions. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993. Robert Stainton. In defense of non-sentential assertion. In Zoltán Gendler Szabó, editor, Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 2004. Richmond Thomason. Logical semantics for causal constructions. In Bridget Copley and Fabienne Martin, editors, Forces in Grammatical Structures. Oxford University Press, 2014. Jan van Kuppevelt. Inferring from topics: Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(4):393–443, 1996. Kai von Fintel. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1994. Armin von Stechow. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Werner Abraham, editor, Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the 34 / 34 Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, pages 37–84. John Benjamins, 1991.

34 / 34