Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically

Gargett, Andrew; Gregoromichelaki, Eleni; Kempson, Ruth; Purver, Matthew; Sato, Yo

doi:10.1007/s11571-009-9088-y

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The transition from speaker to hearer can be modelled in a directly parallel way, without the need to produce a goal tree, due to the interchangeability of generation and parse states and the context they contain. Gargett et al [2009] also show how such a model can handle midsentence clarification and confirmation.…”

Section: Suitability For Compound Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Dialogue and compound contributions

Purver

Hough

Gregoromichelaki

2014

Natural Language Generation in Interactive Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter introduces the phenomenon of compound contributions in dialogue and discusses their implications for NLG in interactive systems. Contributions to dialogue are often split across multiple utterances -possibly by different speakers -with each adding to an incrementally emerging representation of meaning. A suitable NLG module must therefore not only behave incrementally -able to use and extend existing partial representations -but must also be tightly integrated with an equally incremental interpretation module. We examine the different aspects of incrementality required, and see that no previous approach to incremental NLG provides them all; we outline one possible approach that does.

show abstract

Section: Suitability For Compound Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Dialogue and compound contributions

Purver

Hough

Gregoromichelaki

2014

Natural Language Generation in Interactive Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With these fragments being characteristically used by reiterating words to trigger the building of propositional types by re‐running actions from context, substituting metavariables, etc, we also predict their construal as acknowledgement, extension and so on in dialogue as against in monologue (Gargett et al . ). The general pattern of a pair of LINKed structures of identical type and much shared content yielding discrete context‐relative effects is thus predicted…”

Section: Constructing Chinese Cleft Construalsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Chinese cleft structures and the dynamics of processing

Liu

Kempson

2017

Trans of the Philol Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the challenge of Chinese cleft structures, involving a pairing of the particles shi and de, which in different combinations display a variety of focus-related effects and different potentials for ambiguity: clefts and pseudo-clefts in particular differ only in order of the elements. We argue that retaining conventional assumptions necessarily involves positing unrelated structures and multiple ambiguities, leaving the systematicity of variation unexplained; and we go on to argue that it is only by turning to a dynamic framework in which syntax is defined as mechanisms for incremental build-up of interpretation that an integrated characterisation of these effects is made possible. Adopting the Dynamic Syntax framework (Cann et al 2005), we argue that shi and de induce procedures for incremental build-up of construal which feed and can be fed by other such procedures; and we show how the array of effects both in clefts and pseudo-clefts can be shown to follow from the dynamics of building up interpretation reflecting online processing. What Zhangsan bought were books [pseudo-cleft] the book(s) which Zhangsan bought [relative-modified NP]All of these are understood as cleft structures, with (1e) and (1f) having in addition alternative interpretations; and previous analyses have proposed distinct structures for the distinct wordsequences, invoking multiple homonymy. We will argue to the contrary, that these constructions and their interpretation should be explained in terms of how interpretation is progressively built up from the words uttered, with shi and de determining how incrementally that process takes place. On this account (broadly following that of Kempson et al. 2011;Seraku 2013), the difference between the various types of construal emerges from the different order in which structure is built up. Shi, we will argue, is a specialised demonstrative anticipating an update effect provided by the constituent following it. De, we will argue, is also a specialised anaphoric element whose task is to confirm the completion of this update effect. Upon our analysis, this de is the same de which marks the final position of relative clauses, which canonically precede the head. These two particles together will then be seen to interact in ways reflecting their variant orders to yield the different interpretations. The presentation will be informal throughout. Nonetheless, we shall demonstrate, at least in principle, how and why an integrated account of this range of constructions is made possible by adopting a dynamic procedural perspective. PREVIOUS STUDIES shiShi as a lexical item first occurred in Archaic Chinese (around 1200 BC to 220 AD) as a demonstrative pronoun (Zhao 1989). During the transition from Archaic Chinese to Middle Chinese (220 AD to 1279 AD), shi is however said to have developed into an assertive or copula verb, at least partly because such a use of shi is associated with the meaning of making an assertion (Xiao 2006). According to Xiao (2006), it was in the early Song dynasty...

show abstract

“…Comprehension involves the generation of predictions and goals and awaiting input to satisfy them, while production involves the deployment of action (verbalising) by the predictor themselves in order to satisfy their predicted goals. By imposing top-down predictive and goal-directed processing at all stages of both comprehension and production, interlocutor feedback is constantly anticipated and seamlessly integrated in the ICS (Gargett et al 2009;Purver et al 2010;Eshghi et al 2015). Feedback in the form of so-called "repair" is syntactically accommodated in DS with an apposition-like linking mechanism which associates incrementally either simple proposition-like structures such as ( 16) or, locally, structures of any type (as in e.g.…”

Section: Language As Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Completability vs (In)completeness

Gregoromichelaki

Mills

Howes

et al. 2020

Acta Linguistica Hafniensia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In everyday conversation, no notion of "complete sentence" is required for syntactic licensing. However, so-called "fragmentary", "incomplete", and abandoned utterances are problematic for standard formalisms. When contextualised, such data show that (a) non-sentential utterances are adequate to underpin agent coordination, while (b) all linguistic dependencies can be systematically distributed across participants and turns. Standard models have problems accounting for such data because their notions of 'constituency' and 'syntactic domain' are independent of performance considerations. Concomitantly, we argue that no notion of "full proposition" or encoded speech act is necessary for successful interaction: strings, contents, and joint actions emerge in conversation without any single participant having envisaged in advance the outcome of their own or their interlocutors' actions. Nonetheless, morphosyntactic and semantic licensing mechanisms need to apply incrementally and subsententially. We argue that, while a representational level of abstract syntax, divorced from conceptual structure and physical action, impedes natural accounts of subsentential coordination phenomena, a view of grammar as a "skill" employing domain-general mechanisms, rather than fixed form-meaning mappings, is needed instead. We provide a sketch of a predictive and incremental architecture (Dynamic Syntax) within which underspecification and time-relative update of meanings and utterances constitute the sole concept of "syntax".

show abstract

Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically

Cited by 18 publications

References 42 publications

Dialogue and compound contributions

Dialogue and compound contributions

Chinese cleft structures and the dynamics of processing

Completability vs (In)completeness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About