Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The new challenge of conversational dialogue Clark 1996, Pickering & Garrod 2004, Ginzburg 2009 ◮ Dialogue contains a high proportion of ellipsis hence radically context-dependent processing but ◮ Dialogue primary site of language use ◮ Conversational dialogue sole basis for data from which children learn language so ◮ Dialogue as merely degenerate language use or a unified analysis of ellipsis (in monologue/dialogue) as context-dependence? Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 7/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Split-utterances ◮ Collaboratively constructed discourse (1) Context: Friends of the Earth club meeting A: So what is that? Is that er... booklet or something? B: It’s a book C: Book B: Just ... talking about al you know alternative D: On erm... renewable yeah B: energy really I think...... A: Yeah [BNC:D97] Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 8/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Split-utterances ◮ Collaboratively constructed discourse (1) Context: Friends of the Earth club meeting A: So what is that? Is that er... booklet or something? B: It’s a book C: Book B: Just ... talking about al you know alternative D: On erm... renewable yeah B: energy really I think...... A: Yeah [BNC:D97] ◮ Where do utterance boundaries occur? (2) A: We’re going to Marlborough B: to see Granny. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 8/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Developing utterances (together) in dialogue ◮ Speaker/hearer exchange of roles across all syntactic dependencies (Purver et al 2009): (3) A: Have you read ... B: any of your chapters? Not yet. (4) Gardener: I shall need the mattock. Home-owner: The... Gardener: mattock. For breaking up clods of earth.[BNC] Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 9/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Developing utterances (together) in dialogue ◮ Speaker/hearer exchange of roles across all syntactic dependencies (Purver et al 2009): (3) A: Have you read ... B: any of your chapters? Not yet. (4) Gardener: I shall need the mattock. Home-owner: The... Gardener: mattock. For breaking up clods of earth.[BNC] ◮ A language game emerging at earliest stages of language acquisition (5) Carer: Old McDonald had a farm... On that farm he had a Child: cow. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 9/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Guessing intentions? ◮ Interruptions possible before proposition-intention fixable: (6) A. They X-rayed me, and took a urine sample, took a blood sample. Er, the doctor B: Chorlton? A: Chorlton, mhm, he examined me....... [BNC] Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 10/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Guessing intentions? ◮ Interruptions possible before proposition-intention fixable: (6) A. They X-rayed me, and took a urine sample, took a blood sample. Er, the doctor B: Chorlton? A: Chorlton, mhm, he examined me....... [BNC] ◮ Intentions emerge/develop during dialogue: (7) Daughter: Oh here dad, a good way to get those corners out Dad: is to stick yer finger inside. Daughter: well, that’s one way (Lerner 1991) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 10/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Guessing intentions? ◮ Interruptions possible before proposition-intention fixable: (6) A. They X-rayed me, and took a urine sample, took a blood sample. Er, the doctor B: Chorlton? A: Chorlton, mhm, he examined me....... [BNC] ◮ Intentions emerge/develop during dialogue: (7) Daughter: Oh here dad, a good way to get those corners out Dad: is to stick yer finger inside. Daughter: well, that’s one way (Lerner 1991) ◮ Utterances may be multi-functional: (8) A: Are you left or B: Right-handed (9) M: It’s generated with a handle and J: Wound round? [BNC] M: Yes, wind them round and this should, should generate a charge Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 10/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: - highly elliptical Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: - highly elliptical - multifunctionality/underspecification poses challenge of defining syntactic/semantic types for a range of fragment types/speech acts (with incomplete information in the signal): clarifications , acknowledgements , answers , completions ... Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: - highly elliptical - multifunctionality/underspecification poses challenge of defining syntactic/semantic types for a range of fragment types/speech acts (with incomplete information in the signal): clarifications , acknowledgements , answers , completions ... - radical incrementality poses challenge for all sentence-based grammar formalisms Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: - highly elliptical - multifunctionality/underspecification poses challenge of defining syntactic/semantic types for a range of fragment types/speech acts (with incomplete information in the signal): clarifications , acknowledgements , answers , completions ... - radical incrementality poses challenge for all sentence-based grammar formalisms - poses challenge of modelling the interlocutor’s mind (with incomplete information) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: - highly elliptical - multifunctionality/underspecification poses challenge of defining syntactic/semantic types for a range of fragment types/speech acts (with incomplete information in the signal): clarifications , acknowledgements , answers , completions ... - radical incrementality poses challenge for all sentence-based grammar formalisms - poses challenge of modelling the interlocutor’s mind (with incomplete information) - switching parsing/producing tasks before propositional content is available: - highly incremental understanding - highly incremental planning what to say (while listening) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue data: challenges ◮ Dialogue should be difficult: - highly elliptical - multifunctionality/underspecification poses challenge of defining syntactic/semantic types for a range of fragment types/speech acts (with incomplete information in the signal): clarifications , acknowledgements , answers , completions ... - radical incrementality poses challenge for all sentence-based grammar formalisms - poses challenge of modelling the interlocutor’s mind (with incomplete information) - switching parsing/producing tasks before propositional content is available: - highly incremental understanding - highly incremental planning what to say (while listening) ◮ How can children do it so easily? these are the sole data on which children acquire language Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 11/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue and standard syntax/semantics models ◮ Denotational semantics (NB: not of the Bosch kind) is externalist, unrelated to all cognitive considerations, and, without structure, inadequate for explanation of dialogue ellipsis. - (naive) GQ semantics not predicting psycholinguistic results/dialogue phenomena (Bosch 2008, Purver & Ginzburg 2004) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 12/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue and standard syntax/semantics models ◮ Denotational semantics (NB: not of the Bosch kind) is externalist, unrelated to all cognitive considerations, and, without structure, inadequate for explanation of dialogue ellipsis. - (naive) GQ semantics not predicting psycholinguistic results/dialogue phenomena (Bosch 2008, Purver & Ginzburg 2004) ◮ Non-incremental, context-insensitive grammars : ◮ inadequacy of head-driven models: fragments can be resolved before emergence of head-projected structure. ◮ speaker/listener switching deeply problematic for all sentence-based models. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 12/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue and standard syntax/semantics models ◮ Denotational semantics (NB: not of the Bosch kind) is externalist, unrelated to all cognitive considerations, and, without structure, inadequate for explanation of dialogue ellipsis. - (naive) GQ semantics not predicting psycholinguistic results/dialogue phenomena (Bosch 2008, Purver & Ginzburg 2004) ◮ Non-incremental, context-insensitive grammars : ◮ inadequacy of head-driven models: fragments can be resolved before emergence of head-projected structure. ◮ speaker/listener switching deeply problematic for all sentence-based models. ◮ Concept of context needed for ellipsis neither denotational nor static: context involves incremental structural update. ◮ Arbitrary sentence parts can be context for subsequent (elliptical) fragment (Purver et al 2009) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 12/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Ellipsis and current syntax/semantics models ◮ Elliptical forms need syntactic characterisation but involve postulating multiple phenomena/ambiguities: stripping , gapping , sluicing , antecedent-contained ellipsis . No basis for parallelism ( Fiengo & May 1994, etc.) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 13/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Ellipsis and current syntax/semantics models ◮ Elliptical forms need syntactic characterisation but involve postulating multiple phenomena/ambiguities: stripping , gapping , sluicing , antecedent-contained ellipsis . No basis for parallelism ( Fiengo & May 1994, etc.) ◮ Semantic accounts explain parallelism but not fully successfully despite over-powerful mechanism (Dalrymple et al 1991) with no basis for morpho-syntactic or syntactic constraints (see Morgan 1973, Webber 1979, Steedman 2000 ) (1) Hat Kim nicht den Brief geschrieben? Nein Ich/*Mich Did Kim not write the letter ? No, I NOM (2) *John interviewed everyone who Bill knew the woman who had. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 13/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Ellipsis and current syntax/semantics models ◮ Elliptical forms need syntactic characterisation but involve postulating multiple phenomena/ambiguities: stripping , gapping , sluicing , antecedent-contained ellipsis . No basis for parallelism ( Fiengo & May 1994, etc.) ◮ Semantic accounts explain parallelism but not fully successfully despite over-powerful mechanism (Dalrymple et al 1991) with no basis for morpho-syntactic or syntactic constraints (see Morgan 1973, Webber 1979, Steedman 2000 ) (1) Hat Kim nicht den Brief geschrieben? Nein Ich/*Mich Did Kim not write the letter ? No, I NOM (2) *John interviewed everyone who Bill knew the woman who had. ◮ Pragmatic accounts are partial and presume an independent grammar (Carston 2002, Stainton 2006) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 13/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and pragmatic models ◮ Standard assumption: understanding involves recognition of speaker’s intentions, grounded in mutual knowledge/common ground (Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Clark etc etc) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 14/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and pragmatic models ◮ Standard assumption: understanding involves recognition of speaker’s intentions, grounded in mutual knowledge/common ground (Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Clark etc etc) but ◮ Mutual knowledge paradox/common ground intractability Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 14/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and pragmatic models ◮ Standard assumption: understanding involves recognition of speaker’s intentions, grounded in mutual knowledge/common ground (Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Clark etc etc) but ◮ Mutual knowledge paradox/common ground intractability ◮ Speech act recognition in dialogue shown to be derivative (Conversation Analysis, Levinson 1983, Pickering & Garrod 2004) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 14/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and pragmatic models ◮ Standard assumption: understanding involves recognition of speaker’s intentions, grounded in mutual knowledge/common ground (Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Clark etc etc) but ◮ Mutual knowledge paradox/common ground intractability ◮ Speech act recognition in dialogue shown to be derivative (Conversation Analysis, Levinson 1983, Pickering & Garrod 2004) ◮ Radical incrementality of parsing/generation in dialogue: recognition of propositional intention appears not to be basic Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 14/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and pragmatic models ◮ Standard assumption: understanding involves recognition of speaker’s intentions, grounded in mutual knowledge/common ground (Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Clark etc etc) but ◮ Mutual knowledge paradox/common ground intractability ◮ Speech act recognition in dialogue shown to be derivative (Conversation Analysis, Levinson 1983, Pickering & Garrod 2004) ◮ Radical incrementality of parsing/generation in dialogue: recognition of propositional intention appears not to be basic so ◮ What grounds utterance understanding? Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 14/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and pragmatic models ◮ Standard assumption: understanding involves recognition of speaker’s intentions, grounded in mutual knowledge/common ground (Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Clark etc etc) but ◮ Mutual knowledge paradox/common ground intractability ◮ Speech act recognition in dialogue shown to be derivative (Conversation Analysis, Levinson 1983, Pickering & Garrod 2004) ◮ Radical incrementality of parsing/generation in dialogue: recognition of propositional intention appears not to be basic so ◮ What grounds utterance understanding? ◮ Children can engage in sophisticated dialogue exchanges before mind-reading capacity emerges: - do children communicate in the same way as adults? (Breheny 2006) - since children acquire systematic sentence-building abilities from conversational dialogue, how do they do it? Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 14/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Dialogue/ellipsis and psycholinguistic models ◮ Coordination in dialogue emergent without necessary calculation of common ground/speaker’s intention (Pickering & Garrod 2004, Keysar, Barr et al, Horton & Gerrig) ◮ perspective-adjustment/audience design experiments (Keysar, Barr, Horton, Gerrig et al): egocentrism - no default explicit metarepresentation of interlocutor’s mental state “common ground is a functionally distinct process that belongs to an ’adjustment’ stage of processing, but that it imposes no constraint on production or comprehension per se” (Barr & Keysar: 904) - a mechanistic model of apparent common ground computation based on more basic memory mechanisms ◮ maze game experiments (Mills 2007; Mills & Gregoromichelaki in prep): rich structure of exchange guides interpretation and coordination Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 15/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Chat-tool design http://imc.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/diet/index.php/Main Page Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 16/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Maze game through chat-tool Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 17/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Fragments in maze game ◮ At late stages of interaction sequences contract radically and become highly elliptical ( telescoping ): A: 4,5 2,6 1,4 B: 1,2 3,4 7,1 A: 1,2 (1) B: 4,5 A: 1,2 from Mills (2007) ◮ Contraction not only of referring expressions, (e.g. Krauss and Weinheimer 1975): (2) A: 1, 2 “1 across from the left and 2 down” ◮ But also of sequences of instructions (sequential ordering provides interpretation of what turn “is doing”) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 18/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Fragments in maze game A: 4,5 2,6 1,4 B: 1,2 3,4 7,1 A: 1,2 B: 4,5 A: 1,2 Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 19/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Unpacking the fragments (1) A: 1,2 2,6 1,4 (I have 3 switches: Counting in the same way that we were counting, starting at 0 as the edge of the maze, and counting down from the top of the maze, also from 0, 1 square along and 2 squares down, 2 squares along and 6 down, 1 along and 4 down. If you go to any of them, they will open all of my gates, and I’ll go through and then you can guide me to yours to do the same. Can you get to any of these switches?) B: 4,5 3,4 7,1 (as above) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 20/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Unpacking the fragments (2) A: 1,2 (Out of those three switches, 1 along and 2 across, counting from left to [......] I can get to this one. I’m going there right now, and can you please tell me whether your gates are open?) B: 4,5 (I can get to 4,5 and I am on it) A: 1,2 (So now I am blocked by a gate between me and my goal, I’m stuck at 1,2 [...] so could you please tell me another gate that is close to this location for me to go to, or if you can get to one of my switches directly, then please go there to open my gates, and then I will go to my goal.) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 21/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Chat-tool data: interpetation in dialogue ◮ interpretation of fragments in chat-tool data diagnostic of underspecification and plasticity of language to make it adaptable to novel situations: ◮ Interaction in context allows association of words with ad hoc concepts to suit the situation (e.g. Carston 1998; Cooper & Ranta 2006; Larson 2008; Bosch this workshop) ◮ Semantic ontologies/interpretations arise during interaction rather than a priori (Healey & Mills 2006; Mills & Healey 2008) ◮ Fragments interpretable according to (routinised) structure imposed by the task/participants Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 22/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ Explicit negotiation more likely to impede at initial rounds of tasks (Mills 2007; Healey 2007) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 23/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ Explicit negotiation more likely to impede at initial rounds of tasks (Mills 2007; Healey 2007) (1) Negotiation of descriptive schema : A: OK, let’s use rows and columns, mine is row 3 and column 6 ( explicit attempt to introduce matrix scheme ) B: Mine is on the sticking out bit A: Mine is underneath that (2) Negotiation of sequence of actions to solve the maze : A: OK, first you’ve got to tell me where to go and then I can go through B: where are your switches? A: tell me where to go and then I can get through B: I’m blocked by the gate in front of me Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 23/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ clarifications interpreted as concerning intentions at late rounds of maze-game Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 24/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ clarifications interpreted as concerning intentions at late rounds of maze-game as task experience increases, participants’ responses to clarification requests are disambiguated significantly more frequently as concerning “intentions” (Mills 2007; Mills & Gregoromichelaki in prep) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 24/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ clarifications interpreted as concerning intentions at late rounds of maze-game as task experience increases, participants’ responses to clarification requests are disambiguated significantly more frequently as concerning “intentions” (Mills 2007; Mills & Gregoromichelaki in prep) First few mazes : (1) A: Go to the top right of the maze Server: why? A: dunno/no idea (2) A: Can you get to the top of the maze? B: Why? A: Can you get to the top of the maze / Try it Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 24/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions (3) Later on : A: Go to the 5th row, 3rd square Server: why? A: That’s where my switch is (4) A: 5, 6 Server: what?/5? A: because you’ve got to go there/you asked me to go there (see e.g. Drew 1997; cf Purver 2004; Ginzburg & Cooper 2004) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 25/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ there are no clear underlying intentions/common ground computation at work (even in task-specific dialogue) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 26/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ there are no clear underlying intentions/common ground computation at work (even in task-specific dialogue) ◮ rather the emergence of (’routinised’) structure guides efficient coordination Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 26/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ there are no clear underlying intentions/common ground computation at work (even in task-specific dialogue) ◮ rather the emergence of (’routinised’) structure guides efficient coordination ◮ Conversational Analysis: the function utterances perform are due in large part to the place they occupy within specific conversational sequences Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 26/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design The emergence of intentions ◮ there are no clear underlying intentions/common ground computation at work (even in task-specific dialogue) ◮ rather the emergence of (’routinised’) structure guides efficient coordination ◮ Conversational Analysis: the function utterances perform are due in large part to the place they occupy within specific conversational sequences ◮ “joint-intentions” emergent from conversation (cf Clark 1996) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 26/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design ◮ If we revise the concept of utterance understanding, dropping the necessary recovery of the proposition “which the speaker could have intended” on the basis of some pre-established “mutual knowledge”/“common ground” ◮ what does utterance interpretation amount to? Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 27/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Language as action model: interactional approach * “speakers recraft their utterances mid-stream, taking into account the responses, or more often the lack of them, from recipients . . . As a result, what is produced is actually a joint production, which can hardly correspond to the speaker’s own initial intention or goal.” (Goodwin 1979; 1981) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 28/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Language as action model: interactional approach * “speakers recraft their utterances mid-stream, taking into account the responses, or more often the lack of them, from recipients . . . As a result, what is produced is actually a joint production, which can hardly correspond to the speaker’s own initial intention or goal.” (Goodwin 1979; 1981) * communication accomplished via a trial-and-error process (Arundale 2008) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 28/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Language as action model: interactional approach * “speakers recraft their utterances mid-stream, taking into account the responses, or more often the lack of them, from recipients . . . As a result, what is produced is actually a joint production, which can hardly correspond to the speaker’s own initial intention or goal.” (Goodwin 1979; 1981) * communication accomplished via a trial-and-error process (Arundale 2008) ◮ Ginzburg et al: Dialogue understanding involves modelling distinct fragment-categories via assigning distinct syntactic/semantic types (Ginzburg 2009) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 28/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue data Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions What does context-dependence amount to? Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Grammar design Language as action model: interactional approach * “speakers recraft their utterances mid-stream, taking into account the responses, or more often the lack of them, from recipients . . . As a result, what is produced is actually a joint production, which can hardly correspond to the speaker’s own initial intention or goal.” (Goodwin 1979; 1981) * communication accomplished via a trial-and-error process (Arundale 2008) ◮ Ginzburg et al: Dialogue understanding involves modelling distinct fragment-categories via assigning distinct syntactic/semantic types (Ginzburg 2009) ◮ Dynamic Syntax: Dialogue understanding via incremental interdependence of parsing/production - speaker and hearer joint construction of turns via own context Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 28/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Outline Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dialogue data What does context-dependence amount to? Language as action alternative: understanding via interaction Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 29/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design The Process of Building up interpretation ◮ Building representations of content as goal-driven monotonic tree-growth from word-sequence Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 30/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design The Process of Building up interpretation ◮ Building representations of content as goal-driven monotonic tree-growth from word-sequence - Parsing ‘Mary, John upset’ ? Ty ( t ) , ♦ �→ Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) , Ty ( t ) , ♦ John ′ Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) NPs map onto (epsilon) terms of type e , propositions are of type t . All terms are concepts, induced from procedures given by words Scope evaluation defined on resulting tree. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 30/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Actions all the way ◮ words as packages of actions, e.g. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 31/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Actions all the way ◮ words as packages of actions, e.g. - verbs induce (partial) propositional templates: Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 31/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Actions all the way ◮ words as packages of actions, e.g. - verbs induce (partial) propositional templates: upset IF { ? Ty ( e → t ) } ? Ty ( e → t ) THEN make( �↓ 1 � );go( �↓� ); put( Fo ( Upset ′ ), Ty ( e → ( e → t ))) go( �↑ 1 � ); make( �↓ 0 � ); ? Ty ( e ) , go( �↓ 0 � ); put(? Ty ( e )) Upset ′ ♦ ELSE ABORT ◮ Requirements, ? X drive all tree growth Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 31/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) , ♦ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Mary ′ , �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) , ♦ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Mary ′ , ? Ty ( e ) �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) ? Ty ( e → t ) ♦ ? ∃ xTn ( x ) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary, John Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Mary ′ , ? Ty ( e ) , John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) ? Ty ( e → t ) ♦ , Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary, John Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Mary ′ , Ty ( e ) , John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) ? Ty ( e → t ) , ♦ ? ∃ xTn ( x ) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary, John upset’ Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Mary ′ , Ty ( e ) , John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) ? Ty ( e → t ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) ? Ty ( e ) ♦ Upset ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary, John upset’ Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Mary ′ , Ty ( e ) , John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) ? Ty ( e → t ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) merge ? Ty ( e ) ♦ Upset ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary, John upset’ Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Ty ( e ) , John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) , ♦ Ty ( e ) , Mary ′ Upset ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: structural ◮ Processing non-contiguous dependencies ◮ e.g. ‘Mary, John upset’ ‘Mary, John upset’ Tn (0) , Ty ( t ) , Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) , ♦ Ty ( e ) , John ′ Ty ( e → t ) , Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) Ty ( e ) , Mary ′ Upset ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 32/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: content ◮ Pronouns project meta-variables ( U ) Substituted by item from context during construction (1) Someone was smoking He fainted. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 33/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Underspecification: content ◮ Pronouns project meta-variables ( U ) Substituted by item from context during construction (1) Someone was smoking He fainted. Tree as Context: Tree under Construction: ? Ty ( t ) Smoking ′ ( ǫ, x , Person ′ ( x )) U , Faint ′ ? ∃ xFo ( x ) ǫ, x , Person ′ ( x ) Smoking ′ ♦ substitution Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 33/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Context: parsing ◮ Context consists of a store of parse states, hence a set of triples � T , W , A � (a (partial) tree, the string so far processed, the sequence of actions used) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 34/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) , ♦ John ′ Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Mary ′ , John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) ♦ Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Mary ′ , ? Ty ( e ) John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) ♦ Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gen: ‘Mary Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Mary ′ , ? Ty ( e ) John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) ♦ , Ty ( e ) Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gen: ‘Mary John Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Mary ′ , Ty ( e ) John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) , ♦ Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gen: ‘Mary John Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Mary ′ , Ty ( e ) John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) ? Ty ( e ) ♦ Upset ′ Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gen: ‘Mary John upset Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Mary ′ , Ty ( e ) John ′ �↑ ∗ � Tn (0) John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) ? ∃ xTn ( x ) merge ? Ty ( e ) ♦ Upset ′ Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gen: ‘Mary John upset Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Generation ◮ Speakers go through the same tree-growth actions, except they also have a somewhat richer goal tree. ◮ Each word licensed must update partial tree towards the goal tree - Generating Mary John upset goal tree test tree Upset ′ ( Mary ′ )( John ′ ) Ty ( t ) , ♦ ? Ty ( t ) , Tn (0) Ty ( e ) John ′ John ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) , ♦ Upset ′ ( Mary ′ ) , Ty ( e → t ) Ty ( e ) Ty ( e ) , Mary ′ Upset ′ Mary ′ Upset ′ Ty ( e ) Ty ( e → ( e → t )) Gen: ‘Mary John upset Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 35/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Context: generation ◮ Generation thus characterised in exactly same terms as parsing, except in current parse state, current partial tree must subsume , ⊒ , the goal tree. ◮ Context uniformly defined in parsing and generation: a set of parse states: (partial) tree structure, (partial) string, sequence of actions. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 36/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis - Filling out interpretation from Context ◮ With semantics as structural representations of content, syntax as the process of constructing such representations, production and parsing as both using the same processes ◮ Context can be defined as a store of evolving structures + actions used to build them Purver et al 2007, Cann et al 2009 ◮ Users can retrieve actions stored in context and re-use those to build up interpretation Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 37/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis - Filling out interpretation from Context ◮ With semantics as structural representations of content, syntax as the process of constructing such representations, production and parsing as both using the same processes ◮ Context can be defined as a store of evolving structures + actions used to build them Purver et al 2007, Cann et al 2009 ◮ Users can retrieve actions stored in context and re-use those to build up interpretation ◮ The parallelism effects in ellipsis (structural and semantic) follow immediately Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 37/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis (a): re-use of structure ◮ Using structure from context - parser/generator starts from partial tree: (2) Q: Who did John upset ? Ans: Himself. Context Tree: becomes Tree under Construction: Upset ′ ( WH )( John ′ ) Upset ′ ( WH )( John ′ ) John ′ Upset ′ ( WH ) John ′ Upset ′ ( WH ) substitution WH , Upset ′ Ty ( e ) , ♦ WH Upset ′ (3) Q: Who did every woman ignore? Ans: Her husband. Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 38/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis (b): re-using actions from context Interpreting: (4) Who hit himself? John did. Context Tree under Construction Upset ′ ( WH )( WH ) ? Ty ( t ) WH Upset ′ ( WH ) U , John ′ Ty ( e → t ) ♦ WH Upset ′ actions of upset context actions actions of reflexive to re-run completing/evaluating tree Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 39/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis & Syntactic constraints – ACE ◮ Antecedent-contained ellipsis constraints emerge from encoded incremental growth (5) Bill saw someone [ that John did ] Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 40/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis & Syntactic constraints – ACE ◮ Antecedent-contained ellipsis constraints emerge from encoded incremental growth (5) Bill saw someone [ that John did ] Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) Bill ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) See ′ ? Ty ( e ) Bill saw someone ? Ty ( cn ) λ P ( ǫ, x , P ( x )) x , Ty ( e ) Person ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 40/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis & Syntactic constraints – ACE ◮ Antecedent-contained ellipsis constraints emerge from encoded incremental growth (5) Bill saw someone [ that John did ] Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) ? Ty ( t ) Bill ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) x See ′ ? Ty ( e ) Bill saw someone that ? Ty ( cn ) λ P ( ǫ, x , P ( x )) L x , Ty ( e ) Person ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 40/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis & Syntactic constraints – ACE ◮ Antecedent-contained ellipsis constraints emerge from encoded incremental growth (5) Bill saw someone [ that John did ] Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) ? Ty ( t ) Bill ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) x John ′ U See ′ ? Ty ( e ) Bill saw someone that John did ? Ty ( cn ) λ P ( ǫ, x , P ( x )) L x , Ty ( e ) Person ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 40/62
Linguistic knowledge: the relevance of dialogue Dialogue Modelling: new challenge, new data, new solutions Dynamic Syntax: incremental structure/content growth Grammar design Ellipsis & Syntactic constraints – ACE ◮ Antecedent-contained ellipsis constraints emerge from encoded incremental growth (5) Bill saw someone [ that John did ] Tn (0) , ? Ty ( t ) ? Ty ( t ) Bill ′ ? Ty ( e → t ) x John ′ U See ′ ? Ty ( e ) ? Ty ( e ) See ′ Bill saw someone that John did ? Ty ( cn ) λ P ( ǫ, x , P ( x )) L re-run : see x , Ty ( e ) Person ′ Gregoromichelaki et al Osnabr¨ uck 19/09/09 40/62
Recommend
More recommend
