Natural-Language Syntax as Procedures for Interpretation: The Dynamics of Ellipsis Construal

In this paper we set out the preliminaries needed for a formal theory of context, relative to a linguistic framework in which naturallanguage syntax is defined as procedures for context-dependent interpretation. Dynamic Syntax provides a formalism where both representations of content and context are defined dynamically and structurally, with time-linear monotonic growth across sequences of partial trees as the core structure-inducing notion. The primary data involve elliptical fragments, as these provide less familiar evidence of the requisite concept of context than anaphora, but equally central. As part of our sketch of the framework, we show how apparent anomalies for a time-linear basis for interpretation can be straightforwardly characterised once we adopt a new perspective on syntax as the dynamics of transitions between parse-states. We then take this as the basis for providing an integrated account of ellipsis construal. And, as a bonus, we will show how this intrinsically dynamic perspective extends in a seamless way to dialogue exchanges with free shifting of role between speaking and hearing (split-utterances). We shall argue that what is required to explain such dialogue phenomena is for contexts, as representations of content, to include not merely partial structures but also the sequence of actions that led to such structures.

[1]  Raquel. FernaÌndez Rovira Non-sentential utterances in dialogue : classification, resolution and use , 2006 .

[2]  Danny Fox,et al.  Economy and Semantic Interpretation , 1999 .

[3]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Ellipsis and higher-order unification , 1991 .

[4]  Patrick Blackburn,et al.  Linguistics, Logic and Finite Trees , 1993, Log. J. IGPL.

[5]  Glyn Morrill,et al.  Incremental processing and acceptability , 2000, CL.

[6]  Lutz Marten,et al.  The Dynamics of Language , 2005 .

[7]  Robert F. Port,et al.  Dynamics of Language , 2009, Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science.

[8]  Ronnie Cann,et al.  Context and Well-Formedness: The Dynamics of Ellipsis , 2007 .

[9]  Eleni Gregoromichelaki,et al.  Incrementality, Speaker-Hearer Switching and the Disambiguation Challenge , 2009 .

[10]  Robert J. Stainton,et al.  Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language , 2006 .

[11]  E. Williams,et al.  Indices and identity , 1994 .

[12]  Jason Merchant,et al.  Fragments and ellipsis , 2005 .

[13]  Dale Miller,et al.  Formalizing Operational Semantic Specifications in Logic , 2009, WFLP.

[14]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives , 2001 .

[15]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Dynamic syntax - the flow of language understanding , 2000 .

[16]  Ronnie Cann,et al.  Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the Dialogue Challenge , 2006 .

[17]  Ronnie Cann,et al.  Context and Well-formedness: the Dynamics of , 2007 .

[18]  Matthew Purver,et al.  Split Utterances in Dialogue: a Corpus Study , 2009, SIGDIAL Conference.

[19]  P. Bernays,et al.  Grundlagen der Mathematik , 1934 .

[20]  Matthew Purver,et al.  Context-Based Incremental Generation for Dialogue , 2004, INLG.

[21]  Robin Cooper,et al.  Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates in Dialogue , 2004 .

[22]  Thierry Declerck,et al.  Proceedings of SRSL 2009, the 2nd Workshop on Semantic Representation of Spoken Language , 2009 .

[23]  Alexei Kopylov,et al.  Dependent intersection: a new way of defining records in type theory , 2003, 18th Annual IEEE Symposium of Logic in Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings..

[24]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Bridging , 1975, TINLAP.

[25]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Thinking; Readings in Cognitive Science , 1977 .

[26]  Matthew Purver,et al.  Incrementality, Alignment and Shared Utterances , 2004 .

[27]  John Nerbonne,et al.  Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives (review) , 2005 .