Shards: Fragment Resolution In Dialogue

  • Raquel Fernández
  • Jonathan Ginzburg
  • Howard Gregory
  • Shalom Lappin
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 83)


Polar Question Anaphora Resolution Head Drive Phrase Structure Grammar Phrasal Type Interrogative Adjunct 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, N.: 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in English: a Philosophical Semantics for Natural Language Metaphysics, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Bohlin, P., R. Cooper, E. Engdahl, and S. Larsson: 1999, ‘Information states and dialogue move engines’. Gothenburg Papers in Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, L.: 1983, Dialogue Games, Synthese Language Library. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Chung, S., B. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey: 1995, ‘Sluicing and Logical Form’. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, R., S. Larsson, J. Hieronymus, S. Ericsson, E. Engdahl, and P. Ljunglof: 2001, ‘GODIS and Questions Under Discussion’. In: The TRINDI Book. Available from Scholar
  6. Cooper, R., S. Larsson, M. Poesio, D. Traum, and C. Matheson: 1999, ‘Coding Instructional Dialogue for Information States’. In: The TRINDI Book. Available from Scholar
  7. Dalrymple, M., F. Pereira, and S. Shieber: 1991, ‘Ellipsis and Higher Order Unification’. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebert, C., S. Lappin, H. Gregory, and N. Nicolov: 2004, ‘Full Paraphrase Generation for Fragments in Dialogue’. In: R. Smith and J. van Kuppevelt (eds.): Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Erbach, G.: 1995, ‘ProFIT: Prolog with Features, Inheritance and Templates’. In: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference of the ACL. pp. 180– 187.Google Scholar
  10. Fernández, R.: 2002, ‘An Implemented HPSG Grammar for SHARDS’. Technical Report TR-02-04, Department of Computer Science, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  11. Fernández, R. and J. Ginzburg: 2002a, ‘Non-Sentential Utterances: A Corpus Study’. Traitement automatique des languages. Dialogue 43(2), 13–42.Google Scholar
  12. Fernández, R. and J. Ginzburg: 2002b, ‘Non-Sentential Utterances: Grammar and Dialogue Dynamics in Corpus Annotation’. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2002. Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 253–259.Google Scholar
  13. Fernández, R. and J. Ginzburg: 2002c, ‘Non-Sentential Utterances in Dialogue: A Corpus Study’. In: Proceedings of the Third SIGdial Workshop on Discurse and Dialogue, ACL’02. Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher, C.: 1994, ‘Levels of Representation in Memory for Discourse’. In: M.A. Gernsbacher (ed.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 589–607.Google Scholar
  15. Gardent, C. and M. Kohlhase: 1997, ‘Computing Parallelism in Discourse’. In: Proceedings IJCAI’97. pp. 1016–1021.Google Scholar
  16. Ginzburg, J.: 1996, ‘Interrogatives: Questions, Facts, and Dialogue’. In: S. Lappin (ed.): Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Ginzburg, J.: 1999, ‘Ellipsis Resolution with Syntactic Presuppositions’. In: H. Bunt and R. Muskens (eds.): Computing Meaning, Volume 1. pp. 255 279– . . Kluwer,Google Scholar
  18. Ginzburg, J. and R. Cooper: 2004, ‘Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates’. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3), 297–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ginzburg, J., H. Gregory, and S. Lappin: 2001, ‘SHARDS: Fragment Resolution in Dialogue’. In: H. Bunt, I. van der Sluis, and E. Thijsse (eds.): Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Semantics. Tilburg, pp. 156–172.Google Scholar
  20. Ginzburg, J. and I. Sag: 2001, Interrogative Investigations. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gregory, H. and S. Lappin: 1999, ‘Antecedent Contained Ellipsis in HPSG’. In: Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 331–356.Google Scholar
  22. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1997, ‘Questions’. In: J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 1055–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grosz, B., A. Joshi, and S. Weinstein: 1995, ‘Centering: a framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse’. Computational Linguistics 21, 203–225.Google Scholar
  24. Hobbs, J.: 1991, Literature and Cognition, Vol. 21. Stanford: CSLI Lecture Notes.Google Scholar
  25. Kempson, R., W. Meyer-Viol, and D. Gabbay: 1999, ‘VP Ellipsis: Towards a Dynamic, Structural Account’. In: S. Lappin and E. Benmamoun (eds.): Fragments. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–223.Google Scholar
  26. Krifka, M.: 1992, ‘A Framework for Focus-sensitive Quantification’. In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2. Ithaca, NY, pp. 213–236, CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Lappin, S.: 2002, ‘Salience and Inference in Anaphora Resolution’. In: Fourth Discourse and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium, Lisbon. (Invited talk.)Google Scholar
  28. Lappin, S. and H. Gregory: 1997, ‘A Computational Model of Ellipsis Resolution’. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Grammar. Aix en Provence.Google Scholar
  29. Lappin, S. and H.-H. Shih: 1996, ‘A Generalized Reconstruction Algorithm for Ellipsis Resolution’. In: Proceedings of COLING-96. pp. 687–692.Google Scholar
  30. Larsson, S.: 2002, ‘Issue based Dialogue Management’. Ph.D. thesis, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, L. A.: 2003, ‘A Corpus-based Study of Verb Phrase Ellipsis’. In: Proceedings of the 6th CLUK Colloquium. Edinburgh, UK, pp. 109–115.Google Scholar
  32. Pollard, C. and I. Sag: 1994, Head Drieven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Pulman, S.: 1997, ‘Higher Order Unification and the Interpretation of Focus’. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 73–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Purver, M.: 2004, The Theory and Use of Clarification Requests in Dialogue. PhD thesis. King’s College, University of London.Google Scholar
  35. Purver, M., J. Ginzburg, and P. Healey: 2001, ‘On the Means for Clarification in Dialogue’. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACL SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 116–125.Google Scholar
  36. Reinhart, T.: 1997, ‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor is divided between QR and Choice Functions’. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rooth, M.: 1993, ‘A theory of focus interpretation’. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sag, I.: 1997, ‘English Relative Clause Constructions’. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vallduví, E.: 1992, The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  40. Webber, B.: 1991, ‘Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis’. Language and Cognitive Processes 14, 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raquel Fernández
  • Jonathan Ginzburg
  • Howard Gregory
  • Shalom Lappin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations