Incrementality, Speaker-Hearer Switching and the Disambiguation Challenge

Taking so-called split utterances as our point of departure, we argue that a new perspective on the major challenge of disambiguation becomes available, given a framework in which both parsing and generation incrementally involve the same mechanisms for constructing trees reflecting interpretation (Dynamic Syntax: (Cann et al., 2005; Kempson et al., 2001)). With all dependencies, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic, defined in terms of incremental progressive tree growth, the phenomenon of speaker/hearer role-switch emerges as an immediate consequence, with the potential for clarification, acknowledgement, correction, all available incrementally at any sub-sentential point in the interpretation process. Accordingly, at all intermediate points where interpretation of an utterance subpart is not fully determined for the hearer in context, uncertainty can be resolved immediately by suitable clarification/correction/repair/extension as an exchange between interlocutors. The result is a major check on the combinatorial explosion of alternative structures and interpretations at each choice point, and the basis for a model of how interpretation in context can be established without either party having to make assumptions about what information they and their interlocutor share in resolving ambiguities.

[1]  Patrick Sturt,et al.  Monotonic Syntactic Processing : A Cross-linguistic Study of Attachment and Reanalysis , 1996 .

[2]  Christine Howes,et al.  Dialogue Modelling and the Remit of Core Grammar , 2009, IWCS.

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

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

[5]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Completions, Coordination, and Alignment in Dialogue , 2010, Dialogue Discourse.

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

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

[8]  Matthew Purver The Theory and Use of Clarification Requests in Dialogue , 2004 .

[9]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[10]  Gregory Mills,et al.  A: An Experimental Investigation into... B: ...Split Utterances , 2009, SIGDIAL Conference.

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

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

[13]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication , 2002 .

[14]  Matthew Purver,et al.  Incremental Generation by Incremental Parsing: Tactical Generation in Dynamic Syntax , 2003, ENLG@EACL.

[15]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[17]  Giovanni Soda,et al.  Enhancing First-Pass Attachment Prediction , 2002, ECAI.