Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 2.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.343

CiteScore 2017: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.318

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 43, Issue 1-2


Charting a Way through the Trees

Robin Cooper
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 200, SE 40530 Göteborg, Sweden
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0009


  • Austin, John. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

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

  • Cooper, Robin. 2014a. How to do things with types. In V. de Paiva et al, (eds.), Joint proceedings of the second workshop on Natural Language and Computer Science (NLCS 2014) & 1st international workshop on Natural Language Services for Reasoners (NLSR 2014) July 17–18, 2014 Vienna, Austria, 149–158, Center for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, Robin. 2014b. Phrase structure rules as dialogue update rules. In V. Rieser & P. Muller (eds.), Proceedings of The 18th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, 26–34.

  • Cooper, Robin. in prep. Type theory and language: From perception to linguistic communication. Draft of book chapters available from https://sites.google.com/site/typetheorywithrecords/drafts.

  • Eshghi, Arash, Matthew Purver & Julian Hough. 2011. Dylan: Parser For dynamic syntax, Technical report. Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar

  • Eshghi, Arash, Matthew Purver & Julian Hough. 2013 Probabilistic induction for an incremental semantic grammar. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013) – Long Papers, 107–118, Potsdam, Germany: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

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

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan, Robin Cooper, Julian Hough & David Schlangen. 2016. Incrementality and Clarification/Sluicing potential. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan & Massimo Poesio. 2016. Grammar is a system that characterizes talk in interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 1938.Google Scholar

  • Hough, Julian. 2015. Modelling incremental self-repair processing in dialogue. Queen Mary University of London PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Jurafsky, Daniel & James H. Martin. 2009. Speech and language processing, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

  • Kalatzis, Dimitrios, Arash Eshghi & Oliver Lemon. 2016. Bootstrapping incremental dialogue systems: Using linguistic knowledge to learn from minimal data. In Proceedings of the NIPS 2016 workshop on Learning Methods for Dialogue, Barcelona.

  • Kaplan, Ronald M. 1973. A general syntactic processor. In R. Rustin (ed.), Natural language processing, 193–241. New York: Algorithmics Press.Google Scholar

  • Kay, Martin. 1982. Algorithm schemata and data structures in syntactic processing. In S. Allén (ed.), Text processing: Text analysis and generation, text typology and attribution, 327–358. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

  • Larsson, Staffan. 2002. Issue-based dialogue management. University of Gothenburg PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Larsson, Staffan & David R. Traum. 2001. Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI dialogue move engine toolkit. Natural Language Engineering 6(3&4). 323–340.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8. 339–359.Google Scholar

  • Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in Ordinary English, J. Hintikka et al. (eds.), Approaches to natural, 247–270. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Pereira, Fernando C. N. & Stuart M. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and natural-language analysis, CSLI Lecture Notes 10. Center for the Study of Language and Information.

  • Pereira, Fernando C. N. & David H. D. Warren. 1983. Parsing as deduction. ACL '83 Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 137–144.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Woods, William A. 1970. Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Communications of the ACM 13. 591–606.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-06-07

Published in Print: 2017-06-27

Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 43, Issue 1-2, Pages 121–128, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0009.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in