Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Joint Utterances and the (Split-)Turn Taking Puzzle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter argues that the occurrence of jointly constructed utterances (split utterances) in conversation has wide implications for current linguistic theories. Firstly, we show that standard formal syntactic and semantic/pragmatic theories are unable to cope with such conversational data due to the widely assumed competence/performance distinction. We then present some recent developments in the domain of formal models of dialogue in order to assess whether they meet the design features that a general analysis of dialogue, and of the split-utterance phenomenon in particular demand. We argue that what is crucial for such an account is incorporating both the physical and social situatedness of language use, combined with modelling the incrementality of linguistic processing, within the grammar formalism employed. In previous work, we have argued that the grammatical framework of Dynamic Syntax (DS) augmented with the flexible semantic representations made available by Type Theory with Records (TTR) meets these requirements. Accordingly, through the phenomenon of split utterances, we illustrate how the grammar itself needs to be seen as a holistic, action-based model of language use incorporating incremental interaction with context and flexible mechanisms of processing. These requirements are needed in order to deal not only with what have been traditionally thought of as indexicals but also with the representation of fine-grained sub-sentential utterance events, speech-act information, roles assigned to participants, etc. This stepwise interaction is necessary for a general account of how a speaker-change in mid-utterance affects the form and interpretation of linguistic elements. As a result, the incremental stance allows a natural characterisation of split utterances as continuations/interruptions, whereas, without it, the only recourse is the assumption of widespread ellipsis, mind-reading and multiple ambiguity of sub-sentential fragments. We then take a wider view of the data characterised as the Turn Taking Puzzle (Ginzburg 2012) by combining the phenomenon of split utterances with an account of the function of why? fragments ((Split-)Turn-Taking Puzzle, STTP). On the basis of the STTP data, we argue that it is crucial for syntactic specifications and interpretation to interact with the modelling of the sub-sentential dynamics of the discourse-situation updates. From these interactions, we draw conclusions as to the significance of the STTP data for the design of grammar formalisms and dialogue models, as well as for the general conception of linguistic knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The data that constitute the main focus of this chapter, here, split utterances, appear shaded in the examples.

  2. 2.

    We use here the notion of grammar common in formal semantics, where it consists of a syntactic component and a semantic component. We seek to redefine this notion of “grammar” to a more holistic model that includes pragmatics, and any relevant processing issues.

  3. 3.

    The significance of intention recognition even in task-oriented dialogue experiments has been disputed (see Mills and Gregoromichelaki 2010).

  4. 4.

    Despite the fact that Ginzburg uses the predicate cause, he talks about explanation as regards the content of the query which, in at least most cases, will involve, in our view, a notion of ‘reason’ rather than ‘cause’. Note also that question is the semantic object contributed by, among others, interrogatives and employed in acts of querying. Questions are analysed uniformly as λ-abstracts in Ginzburg’s account.

  5. 5.

    Although it is crucial for Ginzburg’s model to distinguish various semantic objects like propositions, facts, questions etc., for simplicity, consistency and brevity of presentation here we avoid to make these distinctions as they do not affect the general argumentation.

  6. 6.

    The symbol # in fic unacceptability.

  7. 7.

    We cite throughout the publications where the relevant formal details can be found.

  8. 8.

    The language of the epsilon calculus is combined with the lambda calculus in order to deal with quantification, see Kempson et al. (2001); Gregoromichelaki (2006, 2011).

  9. 9.

    Whether there are “grammaticised” associations between moods/grammatical devices and speech acts is an empirical issue to be decided on a language-by-language basis.

  10. 10.

    Multi-party dialogue data that, in our view, indicate similar results were also noted in Ginzburg (1998) but were taken as leading to distinct conclusions.

References

  • Allen, James, George Ferguson, and Amanda Stent. 2001. An architecture for more realistic conversational systems. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI), January 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundale, Robert B. 2008. Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 5 (2): 229–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2001. Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128 (1–2): 183–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyssade, Claire, and J.-M. Marandin. 2006. From complex to simple speech Acts: A bidimensional analysis of illocutionary forces. Potsdam: Brandial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolden, Galina B., and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61 (1): 94–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, Robert B. 1994. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, Michael E. 1990. What is intention? In Intentions in communication, ed. Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, Michael E. 1992. Shared cooperative activity. Philosophical Review 101:327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, Michael E. 1993. Shared intention. Ethics 104:97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, Jon, and John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, and Lutz Marten. 2005. The dynamics of language. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition 84:73–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robin. 2005. Records and record types in semantic theory. Journal of Logic and Computation 15 (2): 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robin. 2012. Type theory and semantics in flux. In Philosophy of linguistics (part of the Handbooks of the Philosophy of Science series), eds. R. Kempson, T. Fernando, and N. Asher, 14, 271–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robin, and Aarne Ranta. 2008. Natural languages as collections of resources. In Language in flux, eds. Robin Cooper and Ruth Kempson, 109–120. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 1967. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17:304–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 1986. A nice derangement of epitaphs. In Truth and interpretation, ed. E. Lepore, 433–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 1994. The social aspect of language. In The philosophy of Michael Dummet, eds. B. McGuiness and G. Oliveri. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ruiter, Jan-Peter, Holger Mitterer, and Nicholas J. Enfield. 2006. Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82 (3): 515–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshghi, Arash, Patrick G. T. Healey, Matthew Purver, Christine Howes, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, and Ruth Kempson. 2010. Incremental Turn Processing in Dialogue. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AmLAP), York, UK, September 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshghi, Arash, Michael Purver, and Julian Hough. 2011. Dylan: Parser for dynamic syntax. Technical report. London: Queen Mary University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshghi, Arash, J. Hough, Michael Purver, Ruth Kempson, and Eleni Gregoromichelaki. 2012. Conversational interactions: Capturing dialogue dynamics. In From Quantification to conversation, eds. L. Borin and S. Larsson. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantic of subjunctive complements. In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, ed. P. Hirschbühler. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, Raquel, and Jonathan Ginzburg. 2002. Nonsentential utterances: A corpus study. Traitement automatique des langages. Dialogue 43 (2): 13–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, Kathleen. 1992. The interactive achievement of a sentence: Joint productions in therapeutic discourse. Discourse Processes 15:207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1884/1980. The foundations of arithmetic (Trans. J. L. Austin). Second Revised Edition. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargett, Andrew, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Christine Howes, and Yo Sato. 2008. Dialogue-grammar correspondence in Dynamic Syntax. In Proceedings of the 12th SemDial (LonDial).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargett, Andrew, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Ruth Kempson, Matthew Purver, and Yo Sato. 2009. Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically. Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics 3 (4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1997. On some semantic consequences of turn taking. In Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Paul Dekker, Martin Stokhof, and Yde Venema. Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1998. Uttering in dialogue. Ms. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Robin Cooper. 2004. Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (3): 297–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. G. Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Charles. 1995. Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3): 233–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2006. Conditionals in Dynamic Syntax. PhD thesis, Oxford University. London: King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2011. Conditionals in dynamic syntax. In The dynamics of lexical interfaces, ed. R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki, and C. Howes, CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, E. 2012. Review of J. Ginzburg (2012) The Interactive Stance. Folia Linguistica 47 (1): 293–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2013a. Clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling: A dynamic perspective on left-right asymmetries in Greek. In Rightward movement in a comparative perspective, eds. Gert Webelhuth, Manfred Sailer, and Heike Walker. John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2013b. Grammar as action in language and music. In Language, Music and Interaction, eds. M. Orwin, C. Howes, and R. Kempson. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, and Ruth Kempson. to appear. Joint utterances and indirect reports. In The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports, ed. Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, and Ruth Kempson 2013. The role of intentions in dialogue processing. In Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, and M. Carapezza). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Yo Sato, Ruth Kempson, Andrew Gargett, and Christine Howes. 2009. Dialogue Modelling and the Remit of Core Grammar. In: Proceedings of IWCS 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Matthew Purver, Gregory J. Mills, Ronnie Cann, Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Patrick G. T. Healey. 2011. Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2 (1): 199–233. (Special issue on Incremental Processing in Dialogue)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, and Ronnie Cann. 2012. Language as tools for interaction: Grammar and the dynamics of ellipsis resolution. The Linguistic Review 29 (4): 563–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ronnie Cann, and Ruth Kempson. 2013a. Coordination in dialogue: Subsentential speech and its implications. In Brevity, ed. L. Goldstein. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregoromichelaki, E., Ruth Kempson, Christine Howes, and Arash Eshghi. 2013b. On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In Alignment in Communication: Towards a New Theory of Communication, eds. Ipke Wachsmuth, Jan de Ruiter, Petra Jaecks, and Stefan Kopp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, Barbara J., and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12 (3): 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, Michael and Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt. in press. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, eds. Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt and Keith Allan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, Patrick G. T. 2008. Interactive misalignment: The role of repair in the development of group sub-languages. In Language in Flux, eds. Robin Cooper and Ruth Kempson. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howes, Christine, Patrick G. T. Healey, and Gregory J. Mills. 2009. A: An experimental investigation into B:…split utterances In Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2009: The 10th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group in Discourse and Dialogue, Queen Mary University of London, Sept. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howes, Christine, Matthew Purver, Patrick G. T. Healey, and Gregory J. Mills. 2011. On incrementality in dialogue: Evidence from compound contributions. Dialogue and Discourse 2 (1). Special Issue on Incremental Processing in Dialogue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntley, M. 1984. The semantics of the English imperative. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:103–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Dov Gabbay. 2001. Dynamic syntax: The flow of langage understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, and Yo Sato. 2009a. Incrementality, speaker/hearer switching and the disambiguation challenge. In Proceedings of European Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL Athens 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Matthew Purver, Gregory J. Mills, Andrew Gargett, and Christine Howes. 2009b. How mechanistic can accounts of interaction be? In: Proceedings of Diaholmia, the 13th Workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Wilfried Meyer-Viol, Matthew Purver, Graham White, and Ronnie Cann. 2011a. Natural-language Syntax as Procedures for Interpretation: The dynamics of ellipsis construal. In Proceedings of the PRELUDE Workshop on Games, Dialogues and Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, and Christine Howes. 2011b. The dynamics of lexical interfaces. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, and S. Chatzikyriakidis. 2012b. Joint utterances in Greek: their implications for linguistic modelling. In: Proceedings of 33rd Annual Linguistics Meeting “Syntactic Theories and the Syntax of Greek”. Thessaloniki, 26–27 April 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, and Ronnie Cann. 2012. Context and compositionality: The challenge of conversational dialogue. In Philosophical and formal approaches to linguistic analysis, ed. Piotr Stalmaszczyk, 215–240. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Arash Eshghi, and Julian Hough. (to appear). Ellipsis in Dynamic Syntax. In The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, eds. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Tanja Temmerman. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R., and G. Segal. 1995. Knowledge of meaning: An introduction to semantic theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, Staffan. The TTR perceptron: Dynamic perceptual meanings and semantic coordination. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2011– Los Angelogue), 140–148, September 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, Staffan, and David R. Traum. Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI dialogue move engine toolkit. Natural language engineering 6 (3-4): 323–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, Gene H. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20:441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing. explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Goffman. Exploring the interaction order, eds. P. Drew and A. Wootton, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Interactional biases in human thinking. In Social intelligence and interaction, ed. Esther N. Goody, 221–260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In The handbook of conversation analysis, eds. J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardo, Vincenzo, and Patrick Sturt. 2002. Incrementality and lexicalism: A treebank study. In The lexical basis of sentence processing: formal, computational and experimental issues, ed. S. Stevenson and P. Merlo, 137–155. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. 1998. Mind, value and reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, Ruth G. 2005. Language: A biological model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Gregory J., and Eleni Gregoromichelaki. 2010. Establishing coherence in dialogue: Sequentiality, intentions and negotiation. In Proceedings of the 14th SemDial, PozDial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. 1970. English as a formal language. In Linguaggi nella Societa et nella Technica, ed. B. Visentini et al., 188–221. Milan: Edizioni di Communità. Reprinted in Thomason (ed.) 1974, pp. 188–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. Issues in Linguistics 719–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Jerry L. 1973. Sentence Fragments and the Notion ‘Sentence’. In Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, Eds. Braj Kachru, Robert Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta, 719–751. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peldszus, Andreas, and David Schlangen. 2012. Incremental construction of robust but deep semantic representations for use in responsive dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the Workshop Advances in discourse analysis and its computational aspects at Coling 2012, Mumbai, India, ed. Eva Hajičová.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 37–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27:169–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2012. ‘An integrated theory of language production and comprehension’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwek, P. 2011. Dialogue structure and logical expressivism. Synthese 183:33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poesio, Massimo and David R. Traum. 1997. Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence 13(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Poesio, Massimo, and David Traum. 1998. Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogues (13th Twente Workshop on Language Technology).

    Google Scholar 

  • Poesio, Massimo, and Hannes Rieser. 2010. Completions, coordination, and alignment in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 1 (1): 1–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner, P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. K. Watanabe and R. B. Young, 235–252. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purver, Matthew, Patrick Healey, James King, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Gregory Mills. 2003. Answering clarification questions. In Proceedings of the 4th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 23–33, Association for Computational Linguistics, Sapporo, Japan, July 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purver, Matthew, Ronnie Cann, and Ruth Kempson. 2006. Grammars as Parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research on Language and Computation 4 (2–3): 289–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purver, Matthew, Christine Howes, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, and Patrick G. T. Healey. 2009. split utterances in dialogue: A corpus study. In: Proceedings of SigDial London, September 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purver, Matthew, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Ronnie Cann. 2010. Splitting the I’s and Crossing the You’s: Context, Speech Acts and Grammar. In SemDial 2010 (PozDial), Poznanń, Poland, June 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purver, Matthew, Arash Eshghi, and Julian Hough. 2011. Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. In 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS), Oxford, January 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Jeffrey D., and Galina B. Bolden. 2010. Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies 12 (4): 501–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Vols I and II (G. Jefferson, ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlangen, David. 2003. A Coherence-Based Approach to the Interpretation of Non-Sentential Utterances in Dialogue. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schober, Michael F., and Herbert H. Clark. 1989. Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology 21:211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, Robert. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1979. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. Peter Cole. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Matthew. 2004. Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of language. Cognitive Science 28 (5): 781–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturt, Patrick, and Vincenzo Lombardo. 2005. Processing coordinate structures: Incrementality and connectedness. Cognitive Science 29:291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, Lucy A. 1987/2007. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Human agency: Language, duty and value, ed. J. Dancy, J. Moravcsik, and C. Taylor, 77–101. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Reprinted in A. Kasher (ed.). 1998. Pragmatics: Critical concepts, vol. II. Routledge, London: 262–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. Remarks on the philosophy of psychology. vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, UK

    Eleni Gregoromichelaki & Ruth Kempson

Authors
  1. Eleni Gregoromichelaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Kempson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleni Gregoromichelaki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Alessandro Capone

  2. Dept. of Lang & Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

    Jacob L. Mey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R. (2016). Joint Utterances and the (Split-)Turn Taking Puzzle. In: Capone, A., Mey, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12615-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12616-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation