Abstract
In this paper, we present a formal approach to the compositional processing of questions and answers presented in the corpus SLAM-Schizophrenia and Language: Analysis and Modeling (Amblard et al. in Traitement Automatique des Langues, 55(3), 91115, 2015). In particular, we want to address issues surrounding dialogue lexicality by beginning with definitions as formalized in the framework of Düsseldorf Frame Semantics presented in Kallmeyer and Osswald (Journal of Language Modelling, 1(2), 267330, 2014). We then introduce a view of dialogue that emerges from compositions of negotiation phases that may be studied as separate elements while remaining linked by a common dialogue context (shared among all dialogue participants). Finally, we produce an analysis of English and French interrogative words toward an operationalization of our model for real-life data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Note that an assertion is an utterance that is not part of a question/answer relationship.
- 2.
- 3.
B does not contain “not”, as it is interpreted as a logical operation.
- 4.
It is possible to build a set of frames without a minimal frame.
- 5.
It is possible to show that \(\mathscr {I}\) necessarily contains at least one minimal frame.
- 6.
Technically, this corresponds to the use of \(find_v\).
References
Aarts, B., Chalker, S., & Weiner, E. (2014). The Oxford dictionary of English grammar. Oxford University Press.
Amblard, M., Boritchev, M., Carletti, M., Dieudonat, L., & Tsai, Y. (2009) A taxonomy of real-life questions and answers in dialogue. In SemDial 2019 - LondonLogue—23rd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, London, United Kingdom, September 2019.
Amblard, M., Fort, K., Demily, C., Franck, N., & Musiol, M. (2015). Analyse lexicale outillée de la parole transcrite de patients schizophrènes. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 55(3), 91–115.
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Boritchev, M., & Amblard, M. (2018). Coffee or tea? Yes. In The 22nd workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Aix-en-Provence, France, Laurent Prévot, Magalie Ochs and Benoît Favre, November 2018.
Boritchev, M., & Amblard, M. (2019) A compositional view of questions. In WiNLP—Widening NLP—ACL Workshop, Florence, Italy, July 2019.
Breitholtz, E., & Howes, C. (2017). Dialogical reasoning in patients with schizophrenia—Invited Talk. In (In)Coherence of Discourse 4.
Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(02), 56–68.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.
Cooper, R. (2008). Type theory with records and unification-based grammar. Logics for Linguistic Structures, 201(9).
Cooper, R., & Ginzburg, J. (2015). Type theory with records for natural language semantics. Handbook of contemporary semantic theory: The (pp. 375–407).
Cruz-Blandón, M.A., Minnema, G., Nourbakhsh, A., Boritchev, M., & Amblard, M. (2019). Toward dialogue modeling: A semantic annotation scheme for questions and answers. In LAW XIII 2019—The 13th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, Florence, Italy, August 2019.
de Groote, P. (2006). Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137).
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance. Oxford University Press.
Ginzburg, J. (2016). Semantics of dialogue. The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics.
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 41–58.
Guhe, M., Lascarides, A. (2012). Trading in a multiplayer board game: Towards an analysis of non-cooperative dialogue. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 34).
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Jurafsky, D. (2000). Speech and language processing. Pearson Education India.
Kallmeyer, L., Lichte, T., Osswald, R., Pogodalla, S., & Wurm, C. (2015). Quantification in frame semantics with hybrid logic. In Type Theory and Lexical Semantics.
Kallmeyer, L., & Osswald, R. (2014). Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars. Journal of Language Modelling, 1(2), 267–330.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal semantics—the essential readings (pp. 189–222).
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (2013). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory, Vol. 42. Springer Science & Business Media.
Lŏbner, S. (2014). Evidence for frames from human language. In Frames and concept types (pp. 23–67). Springer.
Lecomte, A., Quatrini, M., & Fleury-Donnadieu, M. R. (2007). Une introduction à La ludique et à ses applications à la pragmatique. Archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language (pp. 221–242). Springer.
Plüss, B. (2014). A Computational Model of Non-Cooperation in Natural Language Dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, The Open University.
Purver, M. R. J. (2004). The theory and use of clarification requests in dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
Rebuschi, M., Amblard, M., & Musiol, M. (2014). Using SDRT to analyze pathological conversations: Logicality, rationality, and pragmatic deviances. In Interdisciplinary Works in Logic, Epistemology, Psychology and Linguistics. Springer. 343–368
Rebuschi, M., Amblard, M., & Musiol, M. (2013). Schizophrénie, logicité et perspective en première personne. L’Évolution Psychiatrique, 78(1), 127–141.
Riegel, M., Pellat, J. C., & Rioul, R. (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Linguistique nouvelle.
Schlöder, J. J., Breitholtz, E., Fernañdez, R. (2016). Why? Proceedings of the 20th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of Dialogue (SEMDIAL 2016 JerSem) 5.
Schlöder, J. J., Venant, A., & Asher, N. (2017). Aligning intentions: Acceptance and rejection in dialogue. In Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol 21).
Van Ditmarsch, H., van Der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic (Vol. 337). Springer Science & Business Media.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported partly by the French PIA project “Lorraine Université d”Excellence”, reference ANR-15-IDEX-04-LUE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boritchev, M., Amblard, M. (2021). Picturing Questions and Answers—A Formal Approach to SLAM. In: Amblard, M., Musiol, M., Rebuschi, M. (eds) (In)coherence of Discourse. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71434-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71434-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71433-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71434-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)