@inproceedings{breitholtz-cooper-2021-dogwhistles,
title = "Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction",
author = "Breitholtz, Ellen and
Cooper, Robin",
editor = "Howes, Christine and
Dobnik, Simon and
Breitholtz, Ellen and
Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Reasoning and Interaction Conference (ReInAct 2021)",
month = oct,
year = "2021",
address = "Gothenburg, Sweden",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2021.reinact-1.6",
pages = "40--46",
abstract = "In this paper we will argue that the nature of dogwhistle communication is essentially dialogical, and that to account for dogwhistle meaning we must consider dialogical events in which dialogue partners can draw different conclusions based on communicative events. This leads us to a theory based on inference. However, as identified by Khoo (2017) and emphasised by Henderson {\&} McCready (2018), a problematic aspect of this approach is that expressions that have a similar meaning are analysed as generating the same dogwhistle inferences, which appears not always to be the case. By modelling meaning in terms of intensional types in TTR, we avoid this problem.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="breitholtz-cooper-2021-dogwhistles">
<titleInfo>
<title>Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ellen</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Breitholtz</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Robin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cooper</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2021-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Reasoning and Interaction Conference (ReInAct 2021)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Christine</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Howes</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Simon</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dobnik</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ellen</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Breitholtz</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Stergios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chatzikyriakidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Gothenburg, Sweden</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>In this paper we will argue that the nature of dogwhistle communication is essentially dialogical, and that to account for dogwhistle meaning we must consider dialogical events in which dialogue partners can draw different conclusions based on communicative events. This leads us to a theory based on inference. However, as identified by Khoo (2017) and emphasised by Henderson & McCready (2018), a problematic aspect of this approach is that expressions that have a similar meaning are analysed as generating the same dogwhistle inferences, which appears not always to be the case. By modelling meaning in terms of intensional types in TTR, we avoid this problem.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">breitholtz-cooper-2021-dogwhistles</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2021.reinact-1.6</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2021-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>40</start>
<end>46</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction
%A Breitholtz, Ellen
%A Cooper, Robin
%Y Howes, Christine
%Y Dobnik, Simon
%Y Breitholtz, Ellen
%Y Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios
%S Proceedings of the Reasoning and Interaction Conference (ReInAct 2021)
%D 2021
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Gothenburg, Sweden
%F breitholtz-cooper-2021-dogwhistles
%X In this paper we will argue that the nature of dogwhistle communication is essentially dialogical, and that to account for dogwhistle meaning we must consider dialogical events in which dialogue partners can draw different conclusions based on communicative events. This leads us to a theory based on inference. However, as identified by Khoo (2017) and emphasised by Henderson & McCready (2018), a problematic aspect of this approach is that expressions that have a similar meaning are analysed as generating the same dogwhistle inferences, which appears not always to be the case. By modelling meaning in terms of intensional types in TTR, we avoid this problem.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2021.reinact-1.6
%P 40-46
Markdown (Informal)
[Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction](https://aclanthology.org/2021.reinact-1.6) (Breitholtz & Cooper, ReInAct 2021)
ACL
- Ellen Breitholtz and Robin Cooper. 2021. Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction. In Proceedings of the Reasoning and Interaction Conference (ReInAct 2021), pages 40–46, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.