Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:46:53.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanisms for interaction: Syntax as procedures for online interactive meaning building

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Ruth Kempson ,
Stergios Chatzikyriakidis  and
Ronnie Cann
Ruth Kempson
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdomruth.kempson@kcl.ac.ukhttp://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/people/staff/associates/emeritus/kempson/index.aspx
Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, 41124 Gothenburg, Swedenstergios.chatzikyriakidis@gu.sehttp://www.stergioschatzikyriakidis.com/contact.html
Ronnie Cann
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, Scotland. r.cann@ed.ac.ukhttp://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~ronnie/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that to reflect participant interactivity in conversational dialogue, the Christiansen & Chater (C&C) perspective needs a formal grammar framework capturing word-by-word incrementality, as in Dynamic Syntax, in which syntax is the incremental building of semantic representations reflecting real-time parsing dynamics. We demonstrate that, with such formulation, syntactic, semantic, and morpho-syntactic dependencies are all analysable as grounded in their potential for interaction.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blackburn, S. & Meyer-Viol, W. (1994) Linguistics, logic and finite trees. Bulletin of Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 2:3–29.Google Scholar
Bouzouita, M. & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2009) Clitics as calcified processing strategies. In: Proceedings of LFG09, Cambridge, UK, July 2009, ed. Butt, M. & Holloway-King, T., pp. 189–207. CSLI Press. Available at: http://www.stergioschatzikyriakidis.com/uploads/1/0/3/6/10363759/lfg09bouzouitachatzikyriakidis_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Cann, R., Kempson, R. & Marten, L. (2005) The dynamics of language: An introduction. Elsevier (now published by Emerald Insight Publishers).Google Scholar
Cann, R., Purver, M. & Kempson, R. (2007) Context and wellformedness: The dynamics of ellipsis. Research on Language and Computation 5:333–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatzikyriakids, S. & Kempson, R. (2011) Standard modern and Pontic Greek person restrictions: Feature-free dynamic account. Journal of Greek Linguistics 10:127–66. Available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/groups/ds/publications/assets/chatzikyriakidis-kempson-jgl-draft.pdf.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Howes, C. & Eshghi, A. (2013) On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In: Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication, ed. Wachsmuth, I., de Ruiter, J., Jaecks, P. & Kopp, S., pp. 57–86. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills, G., Cann, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Healey, P. (2011) Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2:199–33. Available at: http://dad.uni-bielefeld.de/index.php/dad/article/view/363/1460.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Howes, C. (2011) The dynamics of lexical interfaces. CSLI Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. & Kiaer, J. (2010) Multiple long-distance scrambling: Syntax as reflections of processing. Journal of Linguistics 6:127–92.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Gabbay, D. (2001) Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2013b) How tightly are production and comprehension interwoven? Frontiers in Psychology 4:377–92. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636456/.Google Scholar
Poesio, M & Rieser, H. (2011) An incremental model of anaphora and reference resolution based on resource situations. Dialogue and Discourse 2:235–77. http://dad.uni-bielefeld.de/index.php/dad/article/view/373/1461.Google Scholar