Abstract
There is a lot of debate in the literature as to whether metalinguistic, echoing or metarepresentational phenomena require semantic or pragmatic explanations or, perhaps the widest consensus, a mixture of the two. Recently some attention has been paid on whether grammatical models, i.e., models that define syntactic-semantic mappings (see e.g. Potts 2007; Ginzburg and Cooper 2014; Maier 2014), can offer a more substantial contribution in answering this question. In this chapter, we argue that they can, but not under standard assumptions as to what kind of mechanism “syntax” is and what the differentiation is between grammatical and pragmatic processes. Like Ginzburg and Cooper (2014) we take natural languages (NLs) to be primarily means of social engagement and on this basis we believe that various mechanisms that have been employed in the analysis of conversation can be extended to account for metarepresentational phenomena, which, as stressed in the Bakhtinian literature, demonstrate how dialogic interaction can be embedded within a single clause. However, we take such phenomena as a case study to show that a model adequate for accounting for the whole range of metalinguistic data, as well as for their interaction with other dialogue phenomena, has to depart from some standard assumptions in grammatical theorising: (a) we have to abandon the view of syntax as a separate representational level for strings of words, and (b) we need to incorporate in the grammar formalism various aspects of psycholinguistic accounts of NL-processing, like the intrinsic incrementality-predictivity of parsing/production, and a realistic modelling of the context as information states that record or invoke utterance events and their modal and spatiotemporal coordinates.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We use the term discourse as neutral between reporting language (written or spoken) and thought.
- 2.
We cite throughout the publications where the relevant formal details can be found, and also see Gregoromichelaki (to appear).
- 3.
- 4.
Two analyses for names currently co-exist in DS: (a) as constants resulting from the contextual enrichment of metavariables introduced by names, and (b) as iota-terms. We remain agnostic on this as it does not affect the issues we discuss here.
- 5.
The differentiation context vs. content fields is for convenience of display only, it does not signify any substantial claim regarding any qualitative differentiation among the parameters handled.
References
Abbott, B. (2005). Some notes on quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 13–26.
Allen, J., George, F., & Amanda, S. (2001). An architecture for more realistic conversational systems. Proceedings of the 2001 international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI), January 2001.
Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2003). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 20–37). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Antaki, C., Díaz, F., & Collins, A. F. (1996). Keeping your footing: Conversational completion in three-part sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 151–171.
Arundale, R. B., & Good, D. (2002). Boundaries and sequences in studying conversation. In F. Anita Fetzer & M. Christiane (Eds.), Rethinking sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction (pp. 121–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bonami, O., & Godard, D. (2008). On the syntax of direct quotation in French. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG08 conference (pp. 358–377). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Marten, L. (2005). The dynamics of language. Oxford: Elsevier.
Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of quotation, explicatures and modularity of mind. Pragmatics and Society, 4(3), 259–284.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.
Chung-Chieh, S. (2011). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(5), 417–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9085-6..
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 84, 73–111.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.
Cooper, R. (2005). Records and record types in semantic theory. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(2), 99–112.
Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In R. Kempson, N. Asher, & T. Fernando (Eds.), Philosophy of linguistics (Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol. 14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Crystal, D. (2013). http://www.davidcrystal.community.librios.com/?id=2914. Accessed 13 Jan 2015.
Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–88.
Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19, 130–146.
Davidson, D. (1984). Quotation. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 79–92). Oxford: Clarendon.
de Brabanter, P. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2), 107–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00185.x.
Enç, M. (1986). Towards a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 405–426.
Eshghi, A., Healey, P. G. T., Purver, M., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2010, September). Incremental turn processing in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 16th annual conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AmLAP). New York.
Eshghi, A., Purver, M., & Hough, J. (2011). Dylan: Parser for dynamic syntax. Technical report, Queen Mary University of London.
Eshghi, A., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., Hough, J., & Purver, M. (2015). Feedback in conversation as incremental semantic update. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2015) (pp. 261–271). London: Queen Mary University of London.
Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Howes, C., & Sato, Y. (2008). Dialogue-grammar correspondence in dynamic Syntax. Proceedings of the 12th SemDial (LonDial).
Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., & Sato, Y. (2009). Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically. Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3(4), 347–363.
Geach, P. (1957). Mental acts. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2004). Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 297–365.
Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2014). Quotation via dialogical interaction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23, 287–311.
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 251–2, 1–30.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.
Gregoromichelaki, E. (to appear). Quotation in dialogue. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The pragmatics of quotation. Springer
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2006). Conditionals in dynamic syntax. PhD thesis. University of London.
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2011). Conditionals in dynamic syntax. In R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki, & C. Howes (Eds.), The dynamics of lexical interfaces. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2013a). Clitic left dislocation and clitic doubling: A dynamic perspective on left-right asymmetries in Greek. In G. Webelhuth, M. Sailer, & H. Walker (Eds.), Rightward movement in a comparative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2013b). Grammar as action in language and music. In M. Orwin, C. Howes, & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language, music and interaction. London: College Publications.
Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2013). The role of intentions in dialogue processing. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, Vol. 2). New York: Springer.
Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2015). Joint utterances and the (split-)turn taking puzzle. In A. Capone & J. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 703–744). Switzerland: Springer.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills, G. J., Cann, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Healey, P. G. T. (2011). Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1), 199–233. special issue on Incremental Processing in Dialogue.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Howes, C., & Eshghi, A. (2013a). On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In W. Ipke, J. de Ruiter, J. Petra, & K. Stefan (Eds.), Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication (Advances in interaction studies). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Cann, R., & Kempson, R. (2013b). Coordination in dialogue: Subsentential speech and its implications. In L. Goldstein (Ed.), Brevity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1987). Finishing other’s talk: some structural and pragmatic features of completion offers. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics, essays in honor of Michael Halliday (pp. 213–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(1), 39–100.
Henetz, T. & Clark, H. H. (2011) Managing delays in speaking. Paper presented at the IPrA 1413 meeting, July 2011, Manchester.
Hough, J. (2015). Modelling incremental self-repair processing in dialogue. PhD thesis. Queen Mary University of London.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic interpretation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In A. Joseph, P. John, & W. Howard (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Eshghi, A., & Hough, J. (to appear). Ellipsis in dynamic syntax. In van Craenenbroeck, J., & Temmerman, T. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford University Press.
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic syntax: The flow of langage understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Meyer-Viol, W., Purver, M., White, G., & Cann, R. (2011). Natural-language syntax as procedures for interpretation: the dynamics of ellipsis construal. In Proceedings of the PRELUDE workshop on games, Dialogues and Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2012) Joint utterances in Greek: their implications for linguistic modelling. In Proceedings of 33rd annual linguistics meeting Syntactic Theories and the Syntax of Greek (pp. 26–27). Thessaloniki.
Köder, F., & Maier, E. (2015). Children mix direct and indirect speech: Evidence from pronoun comprehension. (prefinal version) Online First. Journal of Child Language. doi:10.1017/S0305000915000318.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458.
Larsson, S., & Traum, D. R. (2000). Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI dialogue move engine toolkit. Natural Language Engineering, 6(3–4), 323–340.
Larsson, S. (2011) The TTR perceptron: Dynamic perceptual meanings and semantic coordination. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 2011 – Los Angelogue) (pp. 140–148), Los Angeles.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Maier, E. (2007). Mixed quotation: Between use and mention. In Proceedings of LENLS 2007, Japan: Miyazaki.
Maier, E. (2008). Breaking quotations. In S. Ken, I. Akihiro, N. Katashi, & K. Takahiro (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 4914, pp. 187–200). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78197-4_18.
Maier, E. (2014). Mixed quotation. Ms. University of Groningen [survey article for Blackwell Companion to Semantics], Groningen.
Maier, E. (2015). Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language, 30(3), 345–373. doi:10.1111/mila.12083.
McCloskey, J. (2006). Questions and questioning in a local English. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger, & P. H. Portner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture (pp. 87–126). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Partee, B. (1973) The syntax and semantics of quotation. In A festschrift for Morris Halle S.R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), New York: Holt, Reinehart and Winston, (pp. 410–418).
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2012). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences., 36, 329–347.
Poesio, M., & Rieser, H. (2010). Completions, coordination, and alignment in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse, 1(1), 1–89.
Poesio, M., & Traum, D. R. (1997). Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13(3).
Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (1998). Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogues (13th Twente Workshop on Language Technology).
Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). New York: Oxford University Press.
Purver, M., Cann, R., & Kempson, R. (2006). Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2–3), 289–326.
Purver, M., Howes C., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Healey, P. G. T. (2009 September). Split utterances in dialogue: a corpus study. In Proceedings of SigDial, London.
Purver, M., Gregoromichelaki, E., Meyer-Viol, W., & Cann, R. (2010, June). Splitting the I’s and Crossing the You’s: Context, Speech Acts and Grammar. In SemDial 2010 (PozDial), Poland: Poznan.
Purver, M., Arash E., & Julian, H. (2011, January). Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. In 9th international conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS), Oxford.
Quine, W. V. O. (1940). Mathematical logic. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio recta, oratio obliqua. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind, 110, 637–687.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruiter, D., Jan-Peter, H. M., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speakers turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535.
Ruth, K., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Howes, C. (2011). The dynamics of lexical interfaces. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Saka, P. (1998). Quotation and the use-mention distinction. Mind, 107(425), 113–135.
Saka, P. (2011). Quotation and conceptions of language. Dialectica, 65(2), 205–220.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlenker, P. (2011). Indexicality and De Se reports. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1561–1604). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(3), 353–395. doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stone, M. (2004). Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of language. Cognitive Science, 28(5), 781–809.
Tarski, A. (1993). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In A. Tarski (Ed.), Logic, semantics, metamathematics (2nd ed., pp. 152–278). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Washington, C. (1992). Quotation. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 582–605.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1988). Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In J. Dancy., J. Moravcsik., & C. Taylor (Eds.), Human agency: Language, duty and value (pp. 77–101). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Reprinted In A. Kasher (Ed.), (1998) Pragmatics: Critical concepts (Vol. II) (pp. 262–289). London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R. (2016). Reporting, Dialogue, and the Role of Grammar. In: Capone, A., Kiefer, F., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21394-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21395-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)