Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 297–365 | Cite as

Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates in Dialogue

  • Jonathan Ginzburg
  • Robin Cooper

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher, N.: 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in English: A Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N. and A. Lascarides: 1998, ‘Questions in Dialogue’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. and J. Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Bohlin, P., R. Cooper, E. Engdahl, and S. Larsson: 1999, ‘Information States and Dialogue Move Engines’, Gothenburg Papers in Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  5. Branigan, H., M. Pickering, and A. Cleland: 2000, ‘Syntactic Coordination in Dialogue’, Cognition 75, 13–25.Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan, J.: 2000, Lexical Functional Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, L.: 1865, Alice in Wonderland, Mad Hatter Publications, London.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, G.: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1955, ‘The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory’, published in 1975 by University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1986a, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.: 1986b, Knowledge of Language, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, H.: 1993, Arenas of Language Use, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, H.: 1996, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, R.: 1998, ‘Mixing Situation Theory and Type Theory to Formalize Information States in Dialogue Exchanges’, in J. Hulstijn and A. Nijholt (eds.), Proceedings of TwenDial 98, 13th Twente workshop on Language Technology, Twente University, Twente.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, R. and J. Ginzburg: 2002, ‘Clarification Ellipsis in Dependent Type Theory’, in J. Bos and C. Matheson (eds.), Proceedings of Edilog, the 6th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, R. and M. Poesio: 1994, ‘Situation Theory’, in Fracas Deliverable D8, Centre for Cognitive Science, The Fracas Consortium, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  18. Copestake, A., D. Flickinger, C. Pollard, and I. A. Sag: n.d., ‘Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction’, Stanford University and Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  19. Crimmins, M.: 1993, Talk about Beliefs, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Crimmins, M. and J. Perry: 1989, ‘The Prince and the Phone Booth: Reporting Puzzling Beliefs’, Journal of Philosophy pp. 685–711.Google Scholar
  21. Dalrymple, M., F. Pereira, and S. Shieber: 1991, ‘Ellipsis and Higher Order Unification’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452.Google Scholar
  22. Dekker, P.: 1997, ‘First Order Information Exchange’, in G. Jaeger and A. Benz (eds.), Proceedings of MunDial 97 (Technical Report 97-106). Universitaet Muenchen Centrum fuer Informations-und Sprachverarbeitung, Muenchen.Google Scholar
  23. Fletcher, C.: 1994, ‘Levels of Representation in Memory for Discourse’, in M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Garvey, C.: 1979, ‘Contingent Queries and their Relations in Discourse’, in E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental Pragmatics, pp. 68–97, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Gawron, M. and S. Peters: 1990, Anaphora and Quantification in Situation Semantics, CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  26. Gazdar, G. and C. Mellish: 1988, Natural Language Processing in Prolog, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Ginzburg, J.: 1996, ‘Interrogatives: Questions, Facts, and Dialogue’, in S. Lappin (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Ginzburg, J.: 1997a, ‘On Some Semantic Consequences of Turn Taking’, in P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, and Y. Venema (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium on Formal Semantics and Logic, pp. 145–150, ILLC, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Ginzburg, J.: 1997b, ‘Structural Mismatch in Dialogue’, in G. Jaeger and A. Benz (eds.), Proceedings of MunDial 97 (Technical Report 97-106), pp. 59–80, Universitaet Muenchen Centrum fuer Informations-und Sprachverarbeitung, Muenchen.Google Scholar
  30. Ginzburg, J.: 1998, ‘Clarifying Utterances’, in J. Hulstijn and A. Nijholt (eds.), Proceedings of TwenDial 98, 13th Twente Workshop on Language Technology, pp. 11–30, Twente University, Twente.Google Scholar
  31. Ginzburg, J.: 2001a, ‘Clarification Ellipsis and Nominal Anaphora’, in H. Bunt, R. Muskens, and E. Thijsse (eds.), Computing Meaning: Volume 2, No. 77 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  32. Ginzburg, J.: 2001b, ‘Turn Taking Puzzles and the Semantics of Adjuncts’, King's College, London. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
  33. Ginzburg, J.: (forthcoming), Semantics and Interaction in Dialogue, CSLI Publications and University of Chicago Press, Stanford CA. Draft chapters available from http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg.Google Scholar
  34. Ginzburg, J., H. Gregory, and S. Lappin: 2001, ‘SHARDS: Fragment Resolution in Dialogue’, in H. Bunt (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Semantics, ITK, Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  35. Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag: 2000, Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives, No. 123 in CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI Publications, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  36. Gregory, H. and S. Lappin: 1999, ‘Antecedent Contained Ellipsis in HPSG’, in G. Webelhuth, J. P. Koenig, and A. Kathol (eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, pp. 331–356, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  37. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991a, ‘Dynamic Montague Grammar’, in M. Stokhof, J. Groenendijk, and D. Beaver (eds.), Quantification and Anaphora I, DYANA Report R2.2.A, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  38. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1991b, ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1), 39–100.Google Scholar
  39. Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  40. Hardt, D.: 1993, ‘Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  41. Heim, I.: 1982, ‘The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Israel, D. and J. Perry: 1991, ‘What is Information’, CSLI Report 91-145.Google Scholar
  43. Johnson, D. and S. Lappin: 1999, Local Constraints versus Economy, CSLI Publications, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  44. Kamp, H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in J. Groenendijk (ed.), Formal Methods in Semantics, Amsterdam Centre for Mathematics.Google Scholar
  45. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, No. 42 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  46. Kaplan, D.: 1989, ‘Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals’, in J. A. et al. (ed.), Themes from Kaplan, pp. 481–614, Oxford University Press, New York. An earlier unpublished version exists as a UCLA Ms from ca. 1977.Google Scholar
  47. Kehler, A.: 1993, ‘Common Topics and Coherent Situations: Interpreting Ellipsis in the Context of Discourse Inference’, Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  48. Kripke, S.: 1979, ‘A Puzzle about Belief’, in A. Margalit (ed.), Meaning and Use, Synthese Language Library, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  49. Lappin, S. and H. Gregory: 1997, ‘A Computational Model of Ellipsis Resolution’, in R. Oehrle (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar, ESSLLI, Aix en Provence.Google Scholar
  50. Larsson, S.: 2002, Issue based Dialogue Management, Ph.D. thesis, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
  51. McTear, M.: 1987, Children's Conversation, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  52. Milward, D.: 1995, ‘Integrating Situations into a Theory of Discourse Anaphora’, in P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  53. Milward, D.: 2000, ‘Distributing Representation for Robust Interpretation of Dialogue Utterances’, Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  54. Montague, R.: 1974a, ‘Pragmatics’, in R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  55. Montague, R.: 1974b, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  56. Moortgat, M.: 1997, ‘Categorial Grammar’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Linguistics, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. Ninio, A. and C. Snow: 1996, Pragmatic Development, Westview.Google Scholar
  58. Poesio, M.: 1998, ‘Underspecified Interpretations and a Theory of Language Processing’, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh Ms.Google Scholar
  59. Poesio, M. and R. Muskens: 1997, ‘The Dynamics of Discourse Situations’, in P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, and Y. Venema (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  60. Poesio, M. and D. Traum: 1997, ‘Conversational Actions and Discourse Situations’, Computational Intelligence 13, 309–347.Google Scholar
  61. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag: 1994, Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Chicago Press and CSLI, Chicago.Google Scholar
  62. Pulman, S.: 1997, ‘Focus and Higher Order Unification’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20.Google Scholar
  63. Purver, M.: 2001, ‘SCoRE: A Tool for Searching the BNC’, Technical report, King's College, London.Google Scholar
  64. Purver, M.: 2002, ‘Processing of Unknown Words in a Dialogue System’, in K. Jokinnen (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd SigDial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue.Google Scholar
  65. Purver, M. and J. Ginzburg: 2003, ‘Clarifying Noun Phrase Semantics’, unpublished ms., King's College, London.Google Scholar
  66. Purver, M., J. Ginzburg, and P. Healey: 2002, ‘On the Means for Clarification in Dialogue’, in J. van Kuppevelt and R. Smith (eds.), Advances in Discourse and Dialogue, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  67. Ranta, A.: 1994, Type Theoretical Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  68. Reinhart, T.: 1991, ‘Bare NP Ellipsis’, in A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskyan Turn, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  69. Sag, I. A. and T. Wasow (eds.), 1999, Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  70. Seligman, J. and L. Moss: 1997, ‘Situation Theory’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Linguistics, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  71. Stalnaker, R. C.: 1978, ‘Assertion’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 9, pp. 315–332, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  72. Traum, D.: 1994, ‘A Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversations’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  73. Traum, D., J. Bos, R. Cooper, S. Larsson, I. Lewin, C. Matheson, and M. Poesio: 1999, ‘A Model of Dialogue Moves and Information State Revision’, in TRINDI Deliverable 2.1, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Available from http://www.ling.gu.se/research/projects/trindi.Google Scholar
  74. van der Sandt, R.: 1992, ‘Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution’, Journal of Semantics 9(4).Google Scholar
  75. van Eijck, J. and H. Kamp: 1997, ‘Representing Discourse in Context’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Linguistics, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  76. Vermeulen, C. F. M.: 1993, ‘Sequence Semantics for Dynamic Predicate Logic’, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 2(3), 217–254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Ginzburg
    • 1
  • Robin Cooper
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKing's College, LondonThe StrandUK
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations