| Author | Title | Year | Journal/Proceedings | Reftype | DOI/URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R. | Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates | 2004 | Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 27(3), pp. 297-366 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: The paper investigates an elliptical construction, Clarification Ellipsis, that occurs in dialogue. We suggest that this provides data that demonstrates that updates resulting from utterances cannot be defined in purely semantic terms, contrary to the prevailing assumptions of existing approaches to dynamic semantics. We offer a computationally oriented analysis of the resolution of ellipsis in certain cases of dialogue clarification. We show that this goes beyond standard techniques used in anaphora and ellipsis resolution and requires operations on highly structured, linguistically heterogeneous representations. We characterize these operations and the representations on which they operate. We offer an analysis couched in a version of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar combined with a theory of information states (IS) in dialogue. We sketch an algorithm for the process of utterance integration in IS which leads to grounding or clarification. The account proposed here has direct applications to the theory of attitude reports, an issue which is explored briefly in the concluding remarks of the paper. | |||||
| Comment: A detailed analysis of Clarification Ellipsis and its implications for dynamic semantics. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Ginzburg2004,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Robin Cooper},
title = {Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates},
journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy},
year = {2004},
volume = {27},
number = {3},
pages = {297-366},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023369.19306.90}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. and Macura, Z. | Lexical Acquisition with and without Metacommunication | 2006 | The Emergence of Communication and Language, pp. 287-301 | incollection | DOI |
| Abstract: A central concern of work on the evolution of language has been to offer an account for the emergence of syntactically complex structure, which underwrites a compositional semantics. In this paper we consider the emergence of one class of utterances which illustrate that semantic expressiveness is not correlated with syntactic complexity, namely metacommunicative interaction (MCI) utterances. These are utterance acts in which conversationalists acknowledge understanding or request clarification. We offer a simple characterisation of the incremental change required for MCI to emerge from an MCI-less linguistic interaction system. This theoretical setting underpins and motivates the development of an ALife environment in which the lexicon dynamics of populations that possess and lack MCI capabilities are compared. We ran a series of experiments whose initial state involved agents possessing distinct lexicons and whose end state was one in which all agents associated meanings with each word in a lexicon. The main effect demonstrated, one we dub the Babel effect, is that the convergence rate of a population that relies exclusively on introspection is intrinsically bounded and, moreover, this bound decreases with an increasing population. This bound seems to disappear once agents are endowed with clarification requests. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Ginzburg2006,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Zoran Macura},
title = {Lexical Acquisition with and without Metacommunication},
booktitle = {The Emergence of Communication and Language},
publisher = {Springer},
year = {2006},
pages = {287-301},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-779-4_15}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R. and Schlangen, D. | Unifying Self- and Other-Repair | 2007 | Decalog 2007: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: We discuss similarities between midutterance self-correction, which is often seen as a phenomenon that lies outside the scope of theories of dialogue meaning, and other discourse phenomena, and argue that an approach that captures these similarities is desirable. We then provide a sketch of such an approach, using Ginzburg’s KoS formalism, and discuss the implications of including ‘sub-utterance-unit’ phenomena in discourse theories. | |||||
| Comment: Extends the analysis of Clarification interaction to self-correction. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Ginzburg2007,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen},
title = {Unifying Self- and Other-Repair},
booktitle = {Decalog 2007: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue},
year = {2007},
url = {https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/r.fernandezrovira/papers/2007/ginzburg_etal_semdial07.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. | Questions and internalizing relevance [BibTeX] |
2009 | Fall 2009 Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics, University of Michigan | inproceedings | URL |
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Ginzburg2009,
author = {Ginzburg, Jonathan},
title = {Questions and internalizing relevance},
booktitle = {Fall 2009 Workshop in Philosophy and Linguistics, University of Michigan},
year = {2009},
url = {http://web.eecs.umich.edu/ rthomaso/lpw09/ginzburg.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. and Fernández, R. | Computational Models of Dialogue | 2010 | Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing | incollection | URL |
| Comment: A description of the main issues surrounding dialogue processing, a survey of existing computational systems, and a sketch of solutions within KoS. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Ginzburg2010,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Raquel Fernández},
title = {Computational Models of Dialogue},
booktitle = {Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing},
publisher = {Blackwell},
year = {2010},
url = {https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/r.fernandezrovira/papers/2010/gf09.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. | Questions: Logic and Interaction | 2010 | Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd Edition | incollection | URL |
| Abstract: This update to Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof’s 1997 article focuses on the two main areas of logico-linguistic research on questions recently: first, the logic and ontology of questions—what are questions and how do they relate to other semantic entities? Second, questions in interaction— issues such as how questions affect context, why questions get asked, what range of responses—not just answers—do questions give rise to. The boundaries between these two areas is somewhat artificial and, therefore, not easy to demarcate, particularly in an era where meanings are often explicated in terms of context change. A brief indication of other research in the area is provided before the concluding remarks. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Ginzburg2010a,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg},
title = {Questions: Logic and Interaction},
booktitle = {Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd Edition},
publisher = {Elsevier},
year = {2010},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259810798_Questions_logic_and_interaction}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. | How to resolve how to [BibTeX] |
2011 | Knowing How: Essays on Mind, Knowledge, and Action | incollection | DOI |
BibTeX:
@incollection{Ginzburg2011,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg},
title = {How to resolve how to},
booktitle = {Knowing How: Essays on Mind, Knowledge, and Action},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
year = {2011},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195389364.003.0009}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R. and Schlangen, D. | On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dysfluency | 2011 | Logic, Language and Meaning, pp. 321-330 | incollection | DOI |
| Abstract: Although dysfluent speech is pervasive in spoken conversation, dysfluencies have received little attention within formal theories of dialogue. The majority of work on dysfluent language has come from psycholinguistic models of speech production and comprehension (e.g. [10, 3, 1]) and from structural approaches designed to improve performance in speech applications (e.g. [14, 8]). In this paper, we present a detailed formal account which: (a) unifies dysfluencies (self-repair) with Clarification Requests (CRs), without conflating them, (b) offers a precise explication of the roles of all key components of a dysfluency, including editing phrases and filled pauses, (c) accounts for the possibility of self-addressed questions in a dysfluency. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Ginzburg2011b,
author = {Ginzburg, Jonathan and Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen},
title = {On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dysfluency},
booktitle = {Logic, Language and Meaning},
publisher = {Springer},
year = {2011},
pages = {321-330},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_33}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. and Purver, M. | Quantification, the Reprise Content Hypothesis, and Type Theory | 2012 | From Quantification to Conversation, pp. 85-110 | incollection | URL |
| Abstract: In section 2 we provide some background needed for the remainder of the paper: first introducing the general view of meaning and context in dialogue that we assume, and then outlining (Purver and Ginzburg 2004)’s claims. Section 3 then sets out a new formulation of their (HPSG-based) approach using TTR, which yields a straightforward account of the dynamics of grounding, clarification, and anaphora for discourse involving both referential and nonreferential NPs. In section 4, we extend the account to deal with so-called scope ambiguities—we say ‘so-called’ since we will suggest that CRificational evidence indicates these ambiguities are better analyzed as essentially lexical. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Ginzburg2012a,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Matthew Purver},
title = {Quantification, the Reprise Content Hypothesis, and Type Theory},
booktitle = {From Quantification to Conversation},
publisher = {College Publications},
year = {2012},
pages = {85-110},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236273284_Quantification_the_Reprise_Content_Hypothesis_and_Type_Theory}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J., Fernandez, R. and Schlangen, D. | Self-addressed questions in disfluencies | 2013 | Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, DiSS 2013 | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: The paper considers self-addressed queries – queries speakers address to themselves in the aftermath of a filled pause. We study their distribution in the BNC and show that such queries show signs of sensitivity to the syntactic/semantic type of the sub-utterance they follow. We offer a formal model that explains the coherence of such queries. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Ginzburg2013,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Raquel Fernandez and David Schlangen},
title = {Self-addressed questions in disfluencies},
booktitle = {Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, DiSS 2013},
year = {2013},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281385788_Self-addressed_questions_in_disfluencies}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R. and Schlangen, D. | Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves | 2014 | Semantics and Pragmatics Vol. 7(9), pp. 1-64 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: Although disfluent speech is pervasive in spoken conversation, disfluencies have received little attention within formal theories of grammar. The majority of work on disfluent language has come from psycholinguistic models of speech production and comprehension and from structural approaches designed to improve performance in speech applications. In this paper, we argue for the inclusion of this phenomenon in the scope of formal grammar, and present a detailed formal account which: (a) unifies disfluencies (self-repair) with Clarification Requests, without conflating them, (b) offers a precise explication of the roles of all key components of a disfluency, including editing phrases and filled pauses, and (c) accounts for the possibility of self addressed questions in a disfluency. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Ginzburg2014,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen},
title = {Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves},
journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
year = {2014},
volume = {7},
number = {9},
pages = {1--64},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.9}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. and Poesio, M. | Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction | 2016 | Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 7 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: Much of contemporary mainstream formal grammar theory is unable to provide analyses for language as it occurs in actual spoken interaction. Its analyses are developed for a cleaned up version of language which omits the disfluencies, non-sentential utterances, gestures, and many other phenomena that are ubiquitous in spoken language. Using evidence from linguistics, conversation analysis, multimodal communication, psychology, language acquisition, and neuroscience, we show these aspects of language use are rule governed in much the same way as phenomena captured by conventional grammars. Furthermore, we argue that over the past few years some of the tools required to provide a precise characterizations of such phenomena have begun to emerge in theoretical and computational linguistics; hence, there is no reason for treating them as “second class citizens” other than pre-theoretical assumptions about what should fall under the purview of grammar. Finally, we suggest that grammar formalisms covering such phenomena would provide a better foundation not just for linguistic analysis of face-to-face interaction, but also for sister disciplines, such as research on spoken dialogue systems and/or psychological work on language acquisition. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Ginzburg2016,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Poesio, Massimo},
title = {Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
year = {2016},
volume = {7},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01938}
}
|
|||||
| Lupkowski, P. and Ginzburg, J. | A Corpus-based Taxonomy of Question Responses | 2013 | Proceedings of IWCS 2013 | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: In this paper we consider the issue of answering a query with a query. Although these are common, with the exception of Clarification Requests, they have not been studied empirically. After briefly reviewing different theoretical approaches on this subject, we present a corpus study of query responses in the British National Corpus and develop a taxonomy for query responses. We sketch a formal analysis of the response categories in the framework of KoS. | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Lupkowski2013,
author = {Pawel Lupkowski and Jonathan Ginzburg},
title = {A Corpus-based Taxonomy of Question Responses},
booktitle = {Proceedings of IWCS 2013},
year = {2013},
url = {https://aclanthology.org/W13-0209.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Macura, Z. and Ginzburg, J. | Dynamics and Adaptiveness of Metacommunicative Interaction in a Foraging Environment | 2008 | Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution | incollection | |
| Abstract: In this paper we will describe an artificial life model that is used to provide an evolutionary grounding for metacommunicative interaction (MCI)— utterance acts in which conversationalists acknowledge understanding or request clarification. Specifically, we ran artificial life experiments on populations of foraging agents who are able to communicate about entities in a simulated environment, where the main difference between the populations is in their MCI capability. Populations which possess MCI capabilities were quantitatively compared with those that lack them with respect to their lexicon dynamics and adaptability in diverse environments. These experiments reveal some clear differences between MCI-realised populations— that learn words using MCI—and MCI-non-realised population—that learn words solely by introspection, where the main finding using this model is that in an increasingly complex language, MCI has overwhelming adaptive power and importance. These results demonstrate in a very clear way how adaptive MCI can be in primordial settings of language use. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{Macura2008,
author = {Zoran Macura and Jonathan Ginzburg},
title = {Dynamics and Adaptiveness of Metacommunicative Interaction in a Foraging Environment},
booktitle = {Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution},
publisher = {College Publications},
year = {2008}
}
|
|||||
| Purver, M., Healey, P., King, J., Ginzburg, J. and Mills, G. | Answering Clarification Questions | 2003 | Proceedings of the 4th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 23-33 | inproceedings | URL |
| Abstract: This paper describes the results of corpus and experimental investigation into the factors that affect the way clarification questions in dialogue are interpreted, and the way they are responded to. We present some results from an investigation using the BNC which show some general correlations between clarification request type, likelihood of answering, answer type and distance between question and answer. We then describe a new experimental technique for integrating manipulations into text-based synchronous dialogue, and give more specific results concerning the effect of word category and level of grounding on interpretation and response type. | |||||
| Comment: Describes what later became the Dialogue Experimental Tool (DiET) | |||||
BibTeX:
@inproceedings{Purver2003,
author = {Matthew Purver and Patrick Healey and James King and Jonathan Ginzburg and Greg Mills},
title = {Answering Clarification Questions},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 4th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue},
year = {2003},
pages = {23-33},
url = {https://aclanthology.org/W03-2103.pdf}
}
|
|||||
| Purver, M. and Ginzburg, J. | Clarifying Noun Phrase Semantics | 2004 | Journal of Semantics | article | DOI |
| Abstract: Reprise questions are a common dialogue device allowing a conversational participant to request clarification of the meaning intended by a speaker when uttering a word or phrase. As such they can act as semantic probes, providing us with information about what meaning can be associated with word and phrase types and thus helping to sharpen the principle of compositionality. This paper discusses the evidence provided by reprise questions concerning the meaning of nouns, noun phrases and determiners. Our central claim is that reprise questions strongly suggest that quantified noun phrases denote (situationdependent) individuals – or sets of individuals – rather than sets of sets, or properties of properties. We outline a resulting analysis within the HPSG framework, and discuss its extension to such phenomena as quantifier scope, anaphora and monotone decreasing quantifiers. | |||||
| Comment: Extends the account of Clarification Ellipsis to NPs in general, including generalized quantifiers. The paper offers a new perspective on long standing semantic debates: NPs are taken as functional sets rather than generalised quantifiers, with definites and indefinites distinguished by differences in contextual parameter projection. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Purver2004,
author = {Matthew Purver and Jonathan Ginzburg},
title = {Clarifying Noun Phrase Semantics},
journal = {Journal of Semantics},
year = {2004},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.3.283}
}
|
|||||
| Woods, R. and Vicente, L. | Metacommunicative-why fragments as probes into the grammar of the speech act layer | 2021 | Glossa: a journal of general linguistics Vol. 6(1), pp. 84 |
article | DOI |
| Abstract: The English lexical item why can be used metacommunicatively in response to a previous question act. In these cases, its meaning is similar to “Why are you (the original questioner) asking me (the original addressee) that question?” This is also true of why’s counterparts in a range of other languages. We demonstrate how metacommunicative, or meta, why’s use and meaning is similar to and different from the paraphrase above, proposing a modal-driven ontology for why, and explore how different constructions involving meta-why are derived. We argue that meta-why is derived by eliding a question act, a syntactic object larger than a proposition, and provide support for theoretical frameworks in which discourse management and interlocutor commitment acts are encoded in syntax. | |||||
BibTeX:
@article{Woods2021,
author = {Rebecca Woods and Luis Vicente},
title = {Metacommunicative-why fragments as probes into the grammar of the speech act layer},
journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
year = {2021},
volume = {6},
number = {1},
pages = {84},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1169}
}
|
|||||
| Ginzburg, J. | Disentangling Public from Non-Public Meaning | 2003 | Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 183-211 | incollection | DOI |
| Abstract: Analyses of interaction need to characterize not solely’ success conditions’, a traditional and important means of analyzing action, but also ‘clarification potential’, the range of potential clarification requests (CRs) available in the aftermath of a conversational move. After briefly considering the very productive and effective ways of producing CRs relating to the grammatically governed content of an utterance, I turn to CRs that pertain to a conversational participant’s non-public intentions, the commonest being the bare Why?, dubbed here Whymeta. I demonstrate that Whymeta shows distinct behaviour from CRs that pertain to grammatically governed content. The most prominent feature perhaps being that, whereas the latter are almost invariably adjacent to the utterances whose clarification they seek, non-adjacency is quite natural for Whymeta. It can occur at a stage where a second part adjacency pair response has been provided to the utterance it pertains to, suggesting that the information Whymeta is seeking is a ‘useful extra’, not an essential ingredient required for providing an appropriate response. Rather than treat Whymeta as clarifying a contextually instantiable goals/plan parameter, I propose that it be treated as an instance of a metadiscursive utterance like I don’t want to talk about this. | |||||
| Comment: Analyzes clarification requests that pertain to a conversational participant's non-public intentions, the commonest being the bare Why? Demonstrates that the information Why? is seeking is a `useful extra', not an essential ingredient required for providing an appropriate response. | |||||
BibTeX:
@incollection{,
author = {Jonathan Ginzburg},
title = {Disentangling Public from Non-Public Meaning},
booktitle = {Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue},
publisher = {Springer},
year = {2003},
pages = {183-211},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_9}
}
|
|||||