---
title: "Varieties of update — paper by Murray (2014)"
description: "She proposes that every sentence performs three kinds of update at once: Introducing discourse referents… 59 references, cited by 15 papers here."
authors: ["Sarah E Murray"]
year: 2014
venue: "Semantics and Pragmatics"
source: "https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/view/sp.7.2"
doi: "10.3765/sp.7.2"
licence: "CC BY (Semantics and Pragmatics, journal policy)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/murray-2014-varieties-update/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/murray-2014-varieties-update/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2014](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2014/page/2/) / Varieties of update

# Varieties of update

**Authors:** Sarah E Murray · **Year:** 2014 · **Venue:** [Semantics and Pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/semantics-and-pragmatics/) ([Semantics and Pragmatics 2014](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/semantics-and-pragmatics/2014/)) · **Publisher:** [Linguistic Society of America](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/linguistic-society-of-america/) · **Licence:** [CC BY (Semantics and Pragmatics, journal policy)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2) · [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.7.2/pdf) · [DOI 10.3765/sp.7.2](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W1997606029)

**Citations:** 133 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [15](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/murray-2014-varieties-update/cited-by/) in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Murray tackles content that is neither presupposed nor implicated but also not quite asserted, such as evidentials, evidential parentheticals ("…, I hear"), appositives, and illocutionary mood. She proposes that every sentence performs three kinds of update at once:
- **Introducing discourse referents**, including a propositional referent for the at-issue claim.
- **Writing not-at-issue content straight into the common ground.**
- **Structuring the context** according to the sentence's mood.

The data come from the author's fieldwork on Cheyenne (Plains Algonquian), especially its direct and reportative evidentials, alongside English slifting, appositives and questions. The proposal is formalized in UCω, a typed update logic with centering. In UCω, a context is a set of ⊤⊥-lists of prioritized referents, and truth is defined only when an update leaves a single proposition as the primary topic.

The main result is one integrated meaning representation that covers all of these phenomena. It explains:
- why not-at-issue material resists direct denial;
- how hedges weaken force without changing the sentence's mood;
- why anaphora crosses freely between at-issue and side content.

## Key points
- Challengeability is the central diagnostic. "No, she didn't" can target the at-issue claim, but it cannot target the evidential or appositive content. That content can only be challenged indirectly, as in "Hey wait…".
- The Cheyenne reportative (-sėstse) commits the speaker to nothing about the reported proposition. The speaker can even add "but she didn't." The English parenthetical "I hear" only weakens the commitment to "at least possible."
- Each mood structures the context differently:
  - Declaratives propose adding a proposition to the common ground.
  - Polar interrogatives partition the context into an answer and its complement, following Groenendijk & Stokhof and Hamblin.
  - Imperatives impose a preference ordering, following Starr 2010.
- In UCω, only terms that update the primary topic to exactly one proposition receive truth values. Declaratives therefore get truth values, while questions and imperatives do not.
- The Cheyenne data come from fieldwork conducted since 2006 on the Northern Cheyenne reservation, drawing on Leman's grammar and texts.

## Interesting ideas
- Each sentence is split into three parallel outputs: new referents, facts imposed directly, and a proposal that waits for acceptance. This avoids collapsing all content into one asserted proposition.
- Hedges are modeled as changes to the propositional argument of the mood update, for example "p is possible" instead of "p," while the mood itself stays declarative. This separates sentence type from strength of commitment.
- Direct versus indirect challengeability serves as an operational test for whether content is at-issue.
- A question is represented as introducing a set made of a proposition and its complement. This set becomes an object that later answers can resolve.
- Individual referents introduced inside side content (appositives) stay available to main-clause anaphora, and the reverse also holds.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (world): Store appositive and evidential content as already-settled facts, and store the main clause as a pending proposal with its own proposition entity.
- **I2** (frames): A speech-act frame can carry a separate commitment-strength slot set by parentheticals like "I hear" or "they say."
- **I3** (learn): Use "No, …" continuation probes as negative controls, checking that the system never treats a reply as denying appositive content.
- **I4** (answer): Represent a polar test question as such a two-cell partition, then answer by checking which cell the text's world supports, which keeps the answer explainable.
- **I5** (frames): Coreference should not block antecedents just because they sit in relative clauses or parentheticals in the UD tree.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Cornell University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/cornell-university/) — University, Ithaca, United States · 89 works · 58,422 citations

📚 Shelves (5): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,086 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 8,889 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [🤔 Philosophy](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/) · 211 works

🧭 Topics (1): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 1,373 works

## Cite

Cite as: Sarah E Murray. 2014. Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{murray2014varieties,
  title = {{Varieties of update}},
  author = {Sarah E Murray},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2014},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.7.2},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2}
}
```

- [← previous The First QALB Shared Task on Automatic Text Correction for Arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mohit-2014-first-qalb-shared-task-automatic/)
- [next → NaturalLI: Natural Logic Inference for Common Sense Reasoning](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/angeli-2014-naturalli-natural-logic-inference-common/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2014](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2014/page/2/)

## References

59 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Amaral, Patricia, Craige Roberts & E. Allyn Smith. 2007. Review of The logic of conventional implicatures by Chris Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6). 707–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9025-2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9025-2)
2. AnderBois, Scott, Adrian Brasoveanu & Robert Henderson. 2010. Crossing the appositive / at-issue meaning boundary. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 328–346. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/20. 328. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2551)
3. Asher, Nicholas. 2000. Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics 17. 31–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.1.31. van den Berg, Martin. 1996. Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam PhD thesis. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.1.31)
4. Bittner, Maria. 2009. Tense, mood, and centering. Ms., Rutgers University. [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mbittner/bittner09_tmc.pdf](http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mbittner/bittner09_tmc.pdf). [↗](http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mbittner/bittner09_tmc.pdf)
5. Bittner, Maria. 2011. Time and modality without tenses or modals. In Renate Musan & Monika Rathert (eds.), Tense across languages. Tübingen: de Gruyter. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110267020.147)
6. Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2007. Structured nominal and modal reference. Rutgers University PhD thesis. [http://people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/diss_brasoveanu_](http://people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/diss_brasoveanu_) 2007.pdf. [↗](http://people.ucsc.edu/~abrsvn/diss_brasoveanu_)
7. Brasoveanu, Adrian, Donka Farkas & Floris Roelofsen. 2012. Polarity particles and the anatomy of n-words. Sinn und Bedeutung 16. 99–113. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brasoveanu%2C+Adrian%2C+Donka+Farkas+%26+Floris+Roelofsen%2E+2012%2E+Polarity+particles+and+the+anatomy+of+n%2Dwords%2E+Sinn+und+Bedeutung+16%2E+99%E2%80%93113%2E)
8. Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Attention! ‘might’ in Inquisitive Semantics. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 91–108. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/19.6. Varieties of update Dekker, Paul. 1994. Predicate logic with anaphora. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 4. 79–95. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/ 4.79. van Eijck, Jan. 2001. Incremental dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10(3). 319–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011251627260. van Eijck, Jan & Rick Nouwen. 2002. Quantification and reference in incremental processing. Manuscript, Utrecht University. http://homepages.cwi. nl/~jve/papers/02/qar/Qar.ps. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011251627260)
9. Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Faller%2C+Martina%2E+2002%2E+Semantics+and+pragmatics+of+evidentials+in+Cuzco+Quechua%2E+Stanford+PhD+thesis%2E)
10. Faller, Martina. 2006. Evidentiality above and below speech acts. [http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/](http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/). [↗](http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/)
11. Farkas, Donka & Kim Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1). 81–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ ffp010. von Fintel, Kai & Anthony S. Gillies. 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology, vol. 2. Oxford University Press. von Fintel, Kai & Anthony S. Gillies. 2010. Must . . . stay . . . strong! Natural Language Semantics 18(4). 351–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/)
12. Fisher, Louise, Wayne Leman, Leroy Pine Sr. & Marie Sanchez. 2006. Cheyenne dictionary. [http://www.cdkc.edu/cheyennedictionary/index.html](http://www.cdkc.edu/cheyennedictionary/index.html). Chief Dull Knife College. [↗](http://www.cdkc.edu/cheyennedictionary/index.html)
13. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 385–422. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. del Gobbo, Francesca. 2003. Appositives at the interface. University of California, Irvine PhD thesis. del Gobbo, Francesca. 2007. On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative clauses. In Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals. John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan%2E+1996%2E+Interrogatives%3A+Questions%2C+facts%2C+and+dialogue%2E+In+Shalom+Lappin+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+contemporary+semantic+theory%2C+385%E2%80%93422%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell+Publishers%2E+del+Gobbo%2C+France)
14. Groenendijk, Jeroen. 1999. The logic of interrogation: Classical version. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 9. 109–126. http://elanguage.net/ journals/salt/article/view/9.109. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v9i0.2835)
15. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In Jesus M. Larrazabal & Larraitz Zubeldia (eds.), Meaning, content, and argument: proceedings of the ILCLI international workshop Sarah E. Murray on semantics, pragmatics, and rhetoric, 41–72. University of the Basque Country Publication Service. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Groenendijk%2C+Jeroen+%26+Floris+Roelofsen%2E+2009%2E+Inquisitive+semantics+and+pragmatics%2E+In+Jesus+M%2E+Larrazabal+%26+Larraitz+Zubeldia+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Meaning%2C+content%2C+and+argument%3A+proceedings+of+the+ILCLI+internat)
16. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam PhD thesis. [http://dare.uva.nl/en/record/123669](http://dare.uva.nl/en/record/123669). [↗](http://dare.uva.nl/en/record/123669)
17. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00628304)
18. Grosz, Barbara J., Arivind Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–225. [our card](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/grosz-1995-centering-framework-modeling-local-coherence/)
19. Gunlogson, Christine. 2001. True to form: rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. University of California, Santa Cruz PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gunlogson%2C+Christine%2E+2001%2E+True+to+form%3A+rising+and+falling+declaratives+as+questions+in+English%2E+University+of+California%2C+Santa+Cruz+PhD+thesis%2E)
20. Gunlogson, Christine. 2002. Declarative questions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 12. 124–143. [http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/](http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/) view/12.124. [↗](http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/)
21. Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703](http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000703)
22. Hardt, Daniel. 1996. Centering in dynamic semantics. In, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 16), 519–524. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. Copenhagen: International Committee on Computational Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hardt%2C+Daniel%2E+1996%2E+Centering+in+dynamic+semantics%2E+In%2C+Proceedings+of+the+16th+International+Conference+on+Computational+Linguistics+%28COLING+16%29%2C+519%E2%80%93524%2E+International+Committee+on+Computational+Li)
23. Horn, Lawrence R. 2002. Assertoric inertia and NPI licensing. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 38(2: The Panels). 55–82. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Horn%2C+Lawrence+R%2E+2002%2E+Assertoric+inertia+and+NPI+licensing%2E+Chicago+Linguistic+Society+%28CLS%29+38%282%3A+The+Panels%29%2E+55%E2%80%9382%2E)
24. Jayez, Jacques & Corinne Rossari. 2004. Parentheticals as conventional implicatures. In Francis Corblin & Henriëtte de Swart (eds.), The handbook of French semantics. CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jayez%2C+Jacques+%26+Corinne+Rossari%2E+2004%2E+Parentheticals+as+conventional+implicatures%2E+In+Francis+Corblin+%26+Henri%C3%ABtte+de+Swart+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+French+semantics%2E+CSLI+Publications%2E)
25. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen A. Groenendijk, Theo Janssen & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 277–322. Dordrecht: Foris. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kamp%2C+Hans%2E+1981%2E+A+theory+of+truth+and+semantic+representation%2E+In+Jeroen+A%2E+Groenendijk%2C+Theo+Janssen+%26+Martin+Stokhof+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Formal+methods+in+the+study+of+language%2C+277%E2%80%93322%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Foris%2E)
26. Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: introduction to modeltheoretic semantics in natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kamp%2C+Hans+%26+Uwe+Reyle%2E+1993%2E+From+discourse+to+logic%3A+introduction+to+modeltheoretic+semantics+in+natural+language%2C+formal+logic+and+discourse+representation+theory%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Kluwer+Academic+Publis)
27. Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In John McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics 7, 363–385. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karttunen%2C+Lauri%2E+1976%2E+Discourse+referents%2E+In+John+McCawley+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Syntax+and+semantics+7%2C+363%E2%80%93385%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
28. Koev, Todor. 2012. On the information status of appositive relative clauses. In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit Weidman Sassoon, Katrin Schulz & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Logic, language and meaning: proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium (2011), 401–410. Springer. Varieties of update Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Koev%2C+Todor%2E+2012%2E+On+the+information+status+of+appositive+relative+clauses%2E+In+Maria+Aloni%2C+Vadim+Kimmelman%2C+Floris+Roelofsen%2C+Galit+Weidman+Sassoon%2C+Katrin+Schulz+%26+Matthijs+Westera+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Logic%2C+l)
29. Lee, Jungmee. 2011. Evidentiality and its interaction with tense: evidence from Korean. The Ohio State University PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lee%2C+Jungmee%2E+2011%2E+Evidentiality+and+its+interaction+with+tense%3A+evidence+from+Korean%2E+The+Ohio+State+University+PhD+thesis%2E)
30. Leman, Wayne. 1980a. A reference grammar of the Cheyenne language (Occasional Publications in Anthropology, Series No. 5). Greely, Colorado: Museum of Anthropology, University of Northern Colorado. Leman, Wayne (ed.). Cheyenne texts: an introduction to Cheyenne literature (Occasional Publications in Anthropology, Series No. 6). Greeley, Colorado: Museum of Anthropology, University of Northern Colorado. Leman, Wayne (ed.). Náévȧhóó 0 ȯhtséme / We are going back home: Cheyenne history and stories told by James Shoulderblade and others (Memoir 4). Winnipeg: Algonquian & Iroquoian Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leman%2C+Wayne%2E+1980a%2E+A+reference+grammar+of+the+Cheyenne+language+%28Occasional+Publications+in+Anthropology%2C+Series+No%2E+5%29%2E+Greely%2C+Colorado%3A+Museum+of+Anthropology%2C+University+of+Northern+Colorado%2E+Le)
31. Leman, Wayne. 2012. A reference grammar of the Cheyenne language. Updated version of Leman 1980a. Raleigh, North Carolina: Lulu Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leman%2C+Wayne%2E+2012%2E+A+reference+grammar+of+the+Cheyenne+language%2E+Updated+version+of+Leman+1980a%2E+Raleigh%2C+North+Carolina%3A+Lulu+Press%2E)
32. Lewis, David K. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(3). 339–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00258436)
33. Matthewson, Lisa, Hotze Rullmann & Henry Davis. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: evidence from St’át’imcets. In Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2007, vol. 7. John Benjamins. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.07mat)
34. McCready, Eric. 2008. What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(6). 671– 724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7)
35. McCready, Eric. 2010. Varieties of conventional implicature. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(8). 1–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8) [our card](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mccready-2010-varieties-conventional-implicature/)
36. Murray, Sarah E. 2009. A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 324–341. http://www.semanticsarchive.net/ Archive/2I5ZjdmY/. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v19i0.2543)
37. Murray, Sarah E. 2010. Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Rutgers University PhD thesis. http://www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/ WViOGQxY/. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7282/t3rx9btj)
38. Muskens, Reinhard. 1995. Tense and the logic of change. In Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow & Götz Wienold (eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, 147–184. New York: John Benjamins. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.114.08mus)
39. Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(2). 143–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00635836. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00635836)
40. Sarah E. Murray Nouwen, Rick. 2007. On appositives and dynamic binding. Journal of Language and Computation 5(1). 87–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9019-6. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9019-6)
41. Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14. http://elanguage.net/ journals/salt/article/view/14.235. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0.2907)
42. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001)
43. Roberts, Craige. 1989. Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(6). 683–721. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/BF00632602. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00632602)
44. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Tech. rep. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 49, Jae-Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol, editors. Columbus, Ohio: Linguistics Department, The Ohio State University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roberts%2C+Craige%2E+1996%2E+Information+Structure+in+Discourse%3A+Towards+an+Integrated+Formal+Theory+of+Pragmatics%2E+Tech%2E+rep%2E+OSU+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics%2C+volume+49%2C+Jae%2DHak+Yoon+and+Andreas+Kathol%2C+)
45. Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In Maurice Gross, Morris Halle & Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (eds.), The formal analysis of natural languages, 133–169. The Hague: Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ross%2C+John+Robert%2E+1973%2E+Slifting%2E+In+Maurice+Gross%2C+Morris+Halle+%26+Marcel%2DPaul+Sch%C3%BCtzenberger+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+formal+analysis+of+natural+languages%2C+133%E2%80%93169%2E+The+Hague%3A+Mouton%2E)
46. Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. Supplements within a unidimensional semantics I: scope. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Logic, language and meaning: proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam colloquium (2009), 74–83. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schlenker%2C+Philippe%2E+2010%2E+Supplements+within+a+unidimensional+semantics+I%3A+scope%2E+In+Maria+Aloni%2C+Harald+Bastiaanse%2C+Tikitu+de+Jager+%26+Katrin+Schulz+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Logic%2C+language+and+meaning%3A+proceedings+o)
47. Shanon, Benny. 1976. On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language. Foundations of Language 14. 247–249. [http://www.jstor](http://www.jstor) . org / stable/25170057. [↗](http://www.jstor)
48. Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117(6). 1034–1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2006.05.006. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j)
49. Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver & Craige Roberts. 2010. What projects and why. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20. 309–327. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/article/view/20.309. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584)
50. Slote, Michael A. 1979. Assertion and belief. In Jonathan Dancy (ed.), Papers on language and logic, 177–90. Keele, England: Keele University Library. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Slote%2C+Michael+A%2E+1979%2E+Assertion+and+belief%2E+In+Jonathan+Dancy+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Papers+on+language+and+logic%2C+177%E2%80%9390%2E+Keele%2C+England%3A+Keele+University+Library%2E)
51. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5. 269–286. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stalnaker%2C+Robert+C%2E+1975%2E+Indicative+conditionals%2E+Philosophia+5%2E+269%E2%80%93286%2E)
52. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics, 315–332. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stalnaker%2C+Robert+C%2E+1978%2E+Assertion%2E+In+Peter+Cole+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Syntax+and+semantics+9%3A+pragmatics%2C+315%E2%80%93332%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
53. Starr, William B. 2010. Conditionals, meaning and mood. Rutgers University PhD thesis. http://williamstarr.net/. Varieties of update Stone, Matthew. 1994. The Reference argument of epistemic must. In Harry Bunt, Reinhard Muskens & Gerrit Rentier (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-1), 181–190. ITK, Tilburg University. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7282/t3ff3s3m)
54. Stone, Matthew. 1997. The Anaphoric Parallel between Modality and Tense. Tech. rep. 97-06. University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stone%2C+Matthew%2E+1997%2E+The+Anaphoric+Parallel+between+Modality+and+Tense%2E+Tech%2E+rep%2E+97%2D06%2E+University+of+Pennsylvania+Institute+for+Research+in+Cognitive+Science%2E)
55. Stone, Matthew. 1999. Reference to Possible Worlds. Tech. rep. 49. Update of Stone (1997). Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stone%2C+Matthew%2E+1999%2E+Reference+to+Possible+Worlds%2E+Tech%2E+rep%2E+49%2E+Update+of+Stone+%281997%29%2E+Rutgers+University+Center+for+Cognitive+Science%2E)
56. Stone, Matthew & Daniel Hardt. 1999. Dynamic discourse referents for tense and modals. In Harry Bunt & Reinhard Muskens (eds.), Computing meaning, vol. 2, 302–321. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_15. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_15)
57. Tonhauser, Judith. 2012. Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. In Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on the Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas and SULA-bar. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tonhauser%2C+Judith%2E+2012%2E+Diagnosing+%28not%2D%29at%2Dissue+content%2E+In+Elizabeth+Bogal%2DAllbritten+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+Sixth+Conference+on+the+Semantics+of+Under%2Drepresented+Languages+in+the+Americas+and)
58. Veltman, Frank. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3). 221–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00248150. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00248150)
59. Vermeulen, Cees F.M. 1993. Sequence semantics for dynamic predicate logic. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 2(3). 217–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01050788. Sarah E. Murray Department of Linguistics 212 Morrill Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 sarah.murray@cornell.edu [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01050788)

*Updated 24 October 2026*