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

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.864
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.744

CiteScore 2016: 0.72

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.555
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.105

Online
ISSN
1613-4060
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 43, Issue 1-2 (Jun 2017)

Issues

Action-Based Grammar

Ruth Kempson / Ronnie Cann
  • Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Eleni Gregoromichelaki
  • Department of Philosophy, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
  • Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Osnabrück, Neuer Graben, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
  • Department of Philosophy, Linguistics, Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Open University of Cyprus, B1 33, Latsia 2220, Cyprus
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0012

References

  • Anderson, John 1990. Cognitive psychology and its implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

  • Barton, Ellen 1991. Nonsentential constituents and theories of phrase structure. In K. Leffel & D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on phrase structure, 193–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Bickhard, Mark H. 1993. Representational content in humans and machines. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 5(4). 285–333.Google Scholar

  • Bickhard, Mark H. 2009. The interactivist model. Synthese 166. 547591.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bouzouita, Miriam. 2008. Clitic placement in the history of Spanish. London: King’s College, Ph.D. thesis, 22.Google Scholar

  • Cann, Ronnie. 2011. Towards an account of the English auxiliary system. In R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (eds.), The dynamics of lexical interfaces, 279–317. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

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

  • Cann, Ronnie & Wu Yicheng. 2011. The bei construction in Chinese. In R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (eds.), The dynamics of lexical interfaces, 239–378. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson & Daniel Wedgwood. 2012. Representialism and linguistic knowledge. In R. Kempson, T. Fernando & N. Asher (eds.), Philosophy of linguistics: Handbook of the philosophy of science 14, 357–401. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2010. Clitics in four dialects of Modern Greek: A dynamic account. London: King’s College, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar

  • Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2012. A dynamic account of the Cypriot Greek clitic positioning system. Lingua 122. 642–672.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios. 2017. Afterthoughts in Greek: Gender mismatches under a dynamic framework. Journal of Linguistics 53(2). 279–325.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Christiansen, Morton & Nick Chater. 2016. Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition and processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Andy. 2013. Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Brain and Behavioral Science 36. 181–204.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Andy. 2016. Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action and the embodied mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Eve. 2009. Language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Eve & Marisa Casillas. 2016. First language acquisition. In K. Allan (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics, 311–329. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

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

  • Cooper, Robin. 2012. Type theory and semantics in flux. in R. Kempson, T. Fernando & N. Asher (eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, Robin. 2014. Phrase structure rules as dialogue update rules. In V. Rieser & P. Muller (eds.), Proceedings of the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (SEMDIAL), vol. 18, 26–34. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, Robin. 2017. Adapting type theory with records for natural language semantics. In S. Chatzikyriakidis & Z. Luo (eds.), Modern perspectives in type-theoretical semantics, 71–94 Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

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

  • De Groote, Philippe 2001. Towards abstract categorial grammars. Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter. 148–155.

  • Demberg-Winterfors, Vera. 2010. Broad-coverage model of prediction in human sentence processing. The University of Edinburgh, Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar

  • Eshghi, Arash, Christine Howes, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Julian Hough & Matthew Purver. 2015. Feedback in conversation as incremental semantic update. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS). London.

  • 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 & Yo Sato. 2013. Probabilistic grammar induction in an incremental semantic framework. In D. Duchier & Y. Parmentier (eds.), CSLP lecture notes in computer science 8114, 92–107. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Friston, Karl & Christopher Frith. 2015. A duet for one. Consciousness and Cognition 36. 390–405.Google Scholar

  • Frith, Christopher. 2007. Making up the mind: How the brain creates our mental world. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Gärdenfors, Peter. 2014. The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Gargett, Andrew, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Christine Howes & Yo Sato. 2008. Dialogue-grammar correspondence in dynamic syntax. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. (LONDIAL’08).

  • Gibson, Hannah. 2015. The dynamics of structure building in Rangi: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8. 41–55.Google Scholar

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

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan & Massimo Poesio. 2016. Grammar is a system that characterizes talk in interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, Section Language Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01938Crossref

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

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan & Robin Cooper. 2014. Quotation via dialogical interaction. Journal of Logic, Linguistics and Information 23. 287–311.Google Scholar

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan, Raquel Fernández & David Schlangen. 2014. Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(9). 1–64.Google Scholar

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

  • Graf, Thomas. 2013. Local and transderivational constraints in syntax and semantics. University of California, PhD Thesis.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2013a. Grammar as action in language and music. In M. Orwin, C. Howes & R. Kempson (eds.), Language, music and interaction. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2013b. Clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling: A dynamic perspective on left-right asymmetries in Greek. In G. Webelhuth, M. Sailer & H. Walker (eds.), Rightward movement in a comparative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2016. Grammars as mechanisms for fine-grained situated conceptualisation. Talk presented at the ‘Word Meaning Workshop’ University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, November 2016.

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni. 2017. The case of non-sentential speech acts. Ms University of Osnabrueck.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, in press. Quotation in dialogue. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (eds.), The pragmatics of quotation. Springer.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni & Ruth Kempson. 2015. Joint utterances and the (split-)turn taking puzzle. In J. L. Mey & A. Capone (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Christine Howes, Arash Eshghi. 2013. On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In I. Wachsmuth, J. de Ruiter, P. Jaeck & S. Kopp (eds.), Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Ruth Kempson, Matthew Purver, Gregory Mills, Ronnie Cann, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Patrick G. T. Healey. 2011. Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1). 199–233.Google Scholar

  • Gregoromichelaki, Eleni, Yo Sato, Ruth Kempson, Andrew Gargett & Christine Howes. 2009. Dialogue modelling and the remit of core grammar. Proceedings of IWCS 2009.

  • Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3(S41). 58.Google Scholar

  • Guhe, Markus. 2007. Incremental conceptualization for language production. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Hale, John. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30. 643672.Google Scholar

  • Healey, Patrick. 2008. Interactive misalignment: The role of repair in the development of group sub-languages. In R. Cooper & R. Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Language coordination, language variation, change and evolution. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

  • Healey, Patrick, Matthew Purver & Christine Howes. 2014. Divergence in dialogue. PLoS One 9(2). . http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/7078Crossref

  • Healey, Patrick G.T. 1997. Expertise or expert-ese? The emergence of task-oriented sub-languages. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

  • Hendriks, Petra. 2014. Asymmetries between language production and comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Hilbrink, Elma, Herideth Gattis & Stephen Levinson. 2015. Early developmental changes in the timing of turn-taking: A longitudinal study of mother-infant interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1492. doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Honing, Henkjan & Willem Zuidema. 2014. Decomposing dendrophilia. Comment on Toward a computational framework for cognitive biology: Unifying approaches from cognitive neuroscience and comparative cognition by W. Tecumseh Fitch. Physics of Life Reviews 11(3). 375–376.Google Scholar

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

  • Hough, Julian & Matther Purver. 2017. Probabilistic record type lattices for incremental reference processing. In S. Chatzikyriakidis & Z. Luo (eds.), Modern perspectives in type-theoretical semantics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Hough, Julian & Matthew Purver. 2014. Probabilistic type theory for incremental dialogue processing. In R. Cooper, S. Dobnik & S. Lappin (eds.), Proceedings of the EACL 2014 workshop on Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics, 80–88. Gothenburg: ACL 2016.Google Scholar

  • Hurley, Susan. 1998. Consciousness in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Kempen, Gerard. 2014. Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics 12. 111–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kempen, Gerard, Nomi Olsthoorn & Simone Sprenger. 2012. Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(3). 345–380.Google Scholar

  • Kempson, Ruth. 1996. Semantics, pragmatics and deduction. In S. Lappin (ed.) The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 561–598. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kempson, Ruth & Jieun Kiaer. 2010. Multiple long-distance dependent scrambling: Syntax as reflections of processing. Journal of Linguistics 46. 127–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kempson, Ruth, Ronnie Cann, Arash Eshghi, Eleni Gregoromichelaki & Matthew Purver. 2015. Ellipsis. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kempson, Ruth, Andrew Gargett & Eleni Gregoromichelaki. 2007. Clarification requests: An incremental account. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Decalog 2007).

  • Kempson, Ruth & Eleni Gregoromichelaki. in press. Action sequences instead of representational levels: Commentary on branigan & pickering. Brain & Behavioral Sciences.Google Scholar

  • Kempson, Ruth, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Arash Eshghi & Julian Hough. forthcoming. Dynamics of ellipsis in situated interaction. In J. Craenenbroek & T. Temmerman (eds.), Handbook of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kempson, Ruth, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Dov Gabbay. 2001. Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kleist, Heinrich von. 1951. On the gradual construction of thoughts during speech. German Life and Letters 5(1). 42–46. Translated by Hamburger M.Google Scholar

  • Kobele, Gregory, 2012a. Eliding the derivation: A minimalist formalization of ellipsis. In S. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG 2012 Conference Chungnam National University Daejeon, 307–324. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Kobele, Gregory, 2012b. Ellipsis: Computation of. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3(3). 411–418.Google Scholar

  • Kobele, Gregory 2015. LF copying without LF. Lingua 166(part B). 236–259.Google Scholar

  • Kobele, Gregory, Sabrina Gerth & John T. Hale. 2013. Memory resource allocation in top-down minimalist parsing. In G. Morrill & MJ. Nederhof (eds.), Formal grammar. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8036. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Larsson, Staffan. 2003. The information-state approach to dialogue management. In D. Traum & S. Larsson (eds.) Current and new directions in dialogue, 325–353.Google Scholar

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

  • Lerner, Gene 2004. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2). 151–184.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, Shevaun & Colin Phillips. 2015. Aligning grammatical theories and language processing models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44(1). 27–46.Google Scholar

  • Lombardo, V. & P. Sturt 2002. Towards a dynamic version of TAG. Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on tree adjoining grammar and related formalisms. Universit‘a di Venezia.

  • Ludlow, Peter. 2005. A note on alleged cases of nonsentential assertion. In R. Elugardo & R. J. Stainton (eds.), Ellipsis and nonsentential speech, 95–108. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Marr, David. 1982. Vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Marti, Luisa 2006. Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 135. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mazzei, Alessandro, Vincenzo Lombardo & Patrick Sturt. 2007. Dynamic TAG and lexical dependencies. Research on Language and Computation 5(3). 309–332.Google Scholar

  • Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.Google Scholar

  • Merchant, Jason. 2010. Three kinds of ellipsis. In F. Recanati, I. Stojanovic & N. Villanueva (eds.), Context-dependence, perspective, and relativity, 152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Milkowski, Marcin. 2013. Explaining the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Mills, Gregory J. 2011. The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue. Cognitive Science Society Conference (COGSCI) 33. 471476.Google Scholar

  • Mills, Gregory J. & Eleni Gregoromichelaki. 2010. Establishing coherence in dialogue: Sequentiality, intentions and negotiation. In P. Lupkowski & M. Purver (eds.), Aspects of semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (SemDial), 1724. Poznan: Polish Society for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar

  • Morrill, Glyn. 2011. Categorial grammar: Logical syntax, semantics, and processing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Morrill, Glyn & Valentin Oriol. 2015. Multiplicative-additive focusing for parsing as deduction. In I. Cervesato & C. Schürmann (eds.), First International Workshop on Focusing, 29–54. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science series. DOI: 10,4204/EPCTS.197.4Google Scholar

  • O’Grady, William. 2005. Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Perruchet, Pierre & Arnaud Rey. 2005. Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12(2). 307–313.Google Scholar

  • Poesio, Massimo & Hannes Rieser. 2010. Completions, co-ordination and alignment in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 1. 1–89.Google Scholar

  • Progovac, Ljiljana. 2006. The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles & E. Barton (eds.), The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Purver, Matthew, Ronnie Cann & Ruth Kempson. 2006. Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research on Language and Computation 4. 289–326.Google Scholar

  • Purver, Matthew, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Ronnie Cann. 2010. Splitting the I’s and Crossing the You’s: Context, speech acts and grammar. Proceedings of the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue(PozDial). Poznan, Poland. June 2010.

  • Ranta, Aarne. 2011. Grammatical framework: Programming with multilingual grammars. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Rieser, Hannes 2016. A process algebra account of speech-gesture interaction. MS. University of Bielefeld. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sato, Yo. 2011. Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in dynamic syntax. In R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes. The dynamics of lexical interfaces, 205–234. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Schober, Michael & Susan Brennan. 2003. Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In A. Graesser, M. Garnbacher & S. Goldman (eds.), Handbook of discourse processes, 123–164. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Sehraku, Tohru. 2013. Clefts, relatives, and language dynamics: The case of Japanese. Oxford: DPhil.Google Scholar

  • Sober, Elliott & David Sloan. Wilson 1998. Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Stabler, Ed. 1997. Derivational minimalism. In C. Retoré (ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics, 68–95. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Stabler, Ed. 2011. Computational perspectives on minimalism. In C. Boeckx (ed.), Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 617–642. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stabler, Ed. 2013. Two models of minimalist, incremental syntactic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science DOI: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steedman, Mark. 2000. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Stokhof, Martin & van Lambalgen. Michiel 2011. Abstractions and idealizations: The constructions of modern linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 37(1–2). 1–26.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, Michael 2008. The origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Diss. University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, David Sloan. 2002 Darwin’s cathedral: Evolution, religion and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Yanchao, Yu, Arash Eshghi & Oliver Lemon. 2016. Training an adaptive dialogue policy for interactive learning of visually grounded word meanings. Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2016 Conference, The 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, 13-15 September 2016, Los Angeles, CA, 339–349.

About the article

Published Online: 2017-06-09

Published in Print: 2017-06-27


Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0012.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in