A “Maximal Exclusion” Approach to Structural Underspecification in Dynamic Syntax

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tohru Seraku
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Syntax

scholarly journals Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on Processing Contexts in Dynamic Syntax

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Howes ◽  
Arash Eshghi
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
British English ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Interactive Nature ◽  
Integrated Or ◽  
Dynamic Syntax ◽  
Do So

AbstractFeedback such as backchannels and clarification requests often occurs subsententially, demonstrating the incremental nature of grounding in dialogue. However, although such feedback can occur at any point within an utterance, it typically does not do so, tending to occur at Feedback Relevance Spaces (FRSs). We present a corpus study of acknowledgements and clarification requests in British English, and describe how our low-level, semantic processing model in Dynamic Syntax accounts for this feedback. The model trivially accounts for the 85% of cases where feedback occurs at FRSs, but we also describe how it can be integrated or interpreted at non-FRSs using the predictive, incremental and interactive nature of the formalism. This model shows how feedback serves to continually realign processing contexts and thus manage the characteristic divergence and convergence that is key to moving dialogue forward.

Dynamic Syntax Specification Using Grammar Forms

1978 ◽  
Vol SE-4 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Ginsburg ◽  
E.M. Rounds
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Syntax

scholarly journals Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Gregoromichelaki ◽  
Ruth Kempson ◽  
Matthew Purver ◽  
Gregory J. Mills ◽  
Ronnie Cann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Model ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Intention Recognition ◽  
Dialogue Modelling ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Dynamic Syntax ◽  
Do So

Ever since dialogue modelling first developed relative to broadly Gricean assumptions about utter-ance interpretation (Clark, 1996), it has remained an open question whether the full complexity of higher-order intention computation is made use of in everyday conversation. In this paper we examine the phenomenon of split utterances, from the perspective of Dynamic Syntax, to further probe the necessity of full intention recognition/formation in communication: we do so by exploring the extent to which the interactive coordination of dialogue exchange can be seen as emergent from low-level mechanisms of language processing, without needing representation by interlocutors of each other’s mental states, or fully developed intentions as regards messages to be conveyed. We thus illustrate how many dialogue phenomena can be seen as direct consequences of the grammar architecture, as long as this is presented within an incremental, goal-directed/predictive model.

scholarly journals Incrementality and the Dynamics of Routines in Dialogue

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-197
Author(s):  
Andrew Gargett
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Dual Processing ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Interdisciplinary Work ◽  
The Core ◽  
Incremental Model ◽  
Dual Processing Model ◽  
Dynamic Syntax ◽  
The Way

We propose a novel dual processing model of linguistic routinisation, specifically formulaic ex- pressions (from relatively fixed idioms, all the way through to looser collocational phenomena). This model is formalised using the Dynamic Syntax (DS) formal account of language processing, whereby we make a specific extension to the core DS lexical architecture to capture the dynamics of linguistic routinisation. This extension is inspired by work within cognitive science more broadly. DS has a range of attractive modelling features, such as full incrementality, as well as recent ac- counts of using resources of the core grammar for modelling a range of dialogue phenomena, all of which we deploy in our account. This leads to not only a fully incremental model of formulaic lan- guage, but further, this straightforwardly extends to routinised dialogue phenomena. We consider this approach to be a proof of concept of how interdisciplinary work within cognitive science holds out the promise of meeting challenges faced by modellers of dialogue and discourse.

Defining Linear Dynamic Syntax

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Kułacka
Keyword(s):  
Linear Dynamic ◽  
Dynamic Syntax

Cashing in on William James

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Davis
Keyword(s):  
William James ◽  
Hot Spot ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Process Philosophy ◽  
Literary Language ◽  
Dynamic Syntax ◽  
Mental Well Being ◽  
The Brain

William James, philosopher and psychologist, offers a style of thinking in which the forming of an idea is experienced as live event, a hot spot in the brain of writer and reader. It requires what is argued to be a literary language offered within an apparently non-literary medium, involving not a stylish vocabulary so much as a dynamic syntax. The first section describes the new grammar of philosophy central to James’s style: Process Philosophy where reality is best registered through verbs and conjunctions rather than nouns. The second section concerns the psychology of such a style, liberated through the mental pathways made by creative sentence-making. Such sentences reach forward in making an immediate mental future, pursuing ‘the more’ beyond the already known. It is concluded that this model of thinking is intrinsically useful to the mental well-being of humans, as art put to profitable work outside the realm of aesthetics.

Dynamic Syntax and Proof Theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham White
Keyword(s):  
Proof Theory ◽  
Dynamic Syntax
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document