Abstract
Analyses of interaction need to characterize not solely’ success conditions’, a traditional and important means of analyzing action, but also ‘clarification potential’, the range of potential clarification requests (CRs) available in the aftermath of a conversational move. After briefly considering the very productive and effective ways of producing CRs relating to the grammatically governed content of an utterance, I turn to CRs that pertain to a conversational participant’s non-public intentions, the commonest being the bare Why?, dubbed here Whymeta. I demonstrate that Whymeta shows distinct behaviour from CRs that pertain to grammatically governed content. The most prominent feature perhaps being that, whereas the latter are almost invariably adjacent to the utterances whose clarification they seek, non-adjacency is quite natural for Whymeta. It can occur at a stage where a second part adjacency pair response has been provided to the utterance it pertains to, suggesting that the information Whymeta is seeking is a ‘useful extra’, not an essential ingredient required for providing an appropriate response. Rather than treat Whymeta as clarifying a contextually instantiable goals/plan parameter, I propose that it be treated as an instance of a metadiscursive utterance like I don’t want to talk about this.
The research described here is funded by grant number R00022269 from the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom and by grant number GR/R04942/01 from the Engineering and Physical Seiences Research Council of the United Kingdom. Portions of this paper have been presented at Stuttgart and Gθreborg. For many helpful comments I would like to thank Robin Cooper, Jan van Kuppevelt, Staffan Larsson, and David Traum.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, J. and Perrault, R. (1980). Analyzing intention in utterances. Artificial Intelligence, 15:143–178.
Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in English: a Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Bohlin, P., Cooper, R., Engdahl, E., and Larsson, S. (1999). Information states and dialogue move engines. Gothenburg Papers in Computational Linguistics.
Carpenter, B. (1993). Skeptical and credulous default unification with applications to templates and inheritance. In T. Briscoe, A. Copestake, V. d. P., editor, Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cooper, R. (1998). Mixing situation theory and type theory to formalize information states in dialogue exchanges. In Hulstijn, J. and Nijholt, A., editors, Proceedings of Twen Dial 98, 13th Twente workshop on Language Technology. Twente University, Twente.
Cooper, R., Larsson, S., Hieronymus, J., Ericsson, S., Engdahl, E., and Ljunglof, P. (2000). GODIS and Questions Under Discussion. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Available from http://www.ling.gu.se/research/projects/trindi.
Fernandez, R. and Ginzburg, J. Non-sentential utterances: a corpus-based study. Traitement Automatique des Languages. Forthcoming.
Garrod, S. and Pickering, M. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. Forthcoming.
Ginzburg, J. (1996). Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue. In Lappin, S., editor, Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford.
Ginzburg, J. (1997a). On some semantic consequences of turn taking. In Dekker, P., Stokhof, M., and Venema, Y., editors, Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium on Formal Semantics and Logic, pages 145–150. ILLC, Amsterdam.
Ginzburg, J. (1997b). Structural mismatch in dialogue. In Jaeger, G. and Benz, A., editors, Proceedings of MunDial 97 (Technical Report 97–106), pages 59–80. Universitaet Muenchen Centrum fuer Informations-und Sprachverarbeitung, Muenchen.
Ginzburg, J. (2001a). Clarification ellipsis and nominal anaphora. In Bunt, H., Muskens, R., and Thijsse, E., editors, Computing Meaning: Volume 2, number 77 in Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Ginzburg, J. (2001b). Turn taking puzzles and the semantics of adjuncts. Paper presented at Informatics Faculty Seminar, October 26, 2001.
Ginzburg, J. (forthcoming). Semantics and Interaction in Dialogue. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press, Stanford: California. Draft chapters available from http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg.
Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R. Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates. Linguistics and Philosophy, to appear.
Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R. (2001). Resolving ellipsis in clarification. In Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning and use of English Interrogatives. Number 123 in CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford: California.
Gregory, H. and Lappin, S. (1999). Antecedent contained ellipsis in hpsg. In Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J. P., and Kathol, A., editors, Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, pages 331–356. CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen, London.
Larsson, S. (2002). Issue based Dialogue Management. PhD thesis, Gothenburg University.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Milward, D. (2000). Distributing representation for robust interpretation of dialogue utterances. ACL.
Montague, R. (1974). Pragmatics. In Thomason, R., editor, Formal Philosophy. Yale UP, New Haven.
Moore, J. (1995). Participating in Explanatory Dialogues. Bradford Books. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Purver, M. (2001). Score: A tool for searching the bnc. Technical report, King’s College, London.
Purver, M. (2002). Processing of unknown words in a dialogue system. In Sig-Dial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue.
Purver, M., Ginzburg, J., and Healey, P. On the means for clarification in dialogue. In (This Volume).
Scott, C., Clancey, W., Davis, R., and Shortliffe, E. (1984). Methods for generating explanations. In Buchanan, B. and Shortliffe, E., editors, Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, pages 338–362. Addison Wesley.
Sidner, C. (1981). Focusing for interpretation of pronouns. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 4:217–231.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P., editor, Syntax and Semantics, Volume 9, pages 315–332. AP, New York.
Webber, B. (1991). Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14:107–135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ginzburg, J. (2003). Disentangling Public from Non-Public Meaning. In: van Kuppevelt, J., Smith, R.W. (eds) Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1615-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0019-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive