On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dysfluency

  • Jonathan Ginzburg
  • Raquel Fernández
  • David Schlangen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)

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.

Keywords

repair dysfluencies dialogue semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey, K.G.D., Ferreira, F.: The processing of filled pause disfluencies in the visual world. In: van Gompel, R.P.G., Fischer, M.H., Murray, W.S., Hill, R.L. (eds.) Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain, pp. 485–500. Elsevier (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan, S.E., Schober, M.F.: How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 274–296 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, H., FoxTree, J.: Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition 84, 73–111 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernández, R.: Non-Sentential Utterances in Dialogue: Classification, Resolution and Use. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College, London (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardent, C., Kohlhase, M.: Computing parallelism in discourse. In: IJCAI, pp. 1016–1021 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ginzburg, J.: The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R.: Computational models of dialogue. In: Clark, A., Fox, C., Lappin, S. (eds.) Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language. Blackwell, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heeman, P.A., Allen, J.F.: Speech repairs, intonational phrases and discourse markers: Modeling speakers’ utterances in spoken dialogue. Computational Linguistics 25(4), 527–571 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., Gabbay, D.: Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Blackwell, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levelt, W.J.: Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14, 41–104 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levelt, W.J.: Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Purver, M.: The Theory and Use of Clarification in Dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College, London (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H.: The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361–382 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shriberg, E.E.: Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steedman, M.: The Syntactic Process. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Ginzburg
    • 1
  • Raquel Fernández
    • 2
  • David Schlangen
    • 3
  1. 1.Univ. Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, CLILLAC-ARP (EA 3967)ParisFrance
  2. 2.Institute for Logic, Language & ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Linguistics and Literary StudiesBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations