Abstract
Quotation is ubiquitous in natural language (NL). Recent grammars that take a dialogical view on the formal and semantic properties of NLs (Ginzburg, The interactive stance: meaning for conversation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012; Gregoromichelaki et al. Dialog Discourse 2(1):199–233, 2011; Eshghi et al. Feedback in conversation as incremental semantic update. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2015), Queen Mary University of London, UK April 2015, 261–271, 2015) indicate that quotation mechanisms need to be integrated within the purview of standard grammatical frameworks since such mechanisms are crucially involved in metacommunicative conversational interaction. Accordingly, the account presented in Ginzburg and Cooper (J Logic Lang Inf 23(3):287–311, 2014, G&C) provides syntactic analyses, denotations, and pragmatic constraints for quotational constructions that make use of grammatical entities independently needed for the analysis of conversation. However, despite the great advances achieved by G&C, the construction-based grammar employed lacks essential integration of the psycholinguistically grounded observation that NL use relies crucially on incremental/predictive processing with context integration at each word-by-word processing stage. For this reason, certain data showing the grammatical continuum underpinning various quotational constructions as well as interactions between quotation mechanisms and conversational phenomena (split-utterances, Gregoromichelaki et al. Dialog Discourse 2(1):199–233, 2011) are not amenable to G&C’s discrete constructional approach. Based on this inadequacy of even such a state-of-the-art, comprehensive model, this chapter argues that a satisfactory account of the function of quotational devices cannot be given within standard NL theories involving the division of labour between syntax and semantics/pragmatics. Instead, it adopts a dynamic, incremental perspective that takes joint action as the basis for the definition of the grammar as advocated within Dynamic Syntax (DS, Kempson et al. Dynamic syntax: the flow of language understanding. Blackwell, Oxford, 2001) updated with the integration of some of G&C’s proposed formal constructs (DS-TTR, Purver et al. Splitting the I’s and crossing the you’s: Context, speech acts and grammar. In Proceedings of SemDial 2010 (PozDial), Poznan, Poland, 2010; Eshghi et al. Feedback in conversation as incremental semantic update. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2015), Queen Mary University of London, UK, April 2015, 261–271, 2015).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Elements in the data that constitute the main focus of a claim appear shaded in the examples. Bold font indicates additional highlighting.
- 3.
PTT is not an acronym but somehow composed out of the names of its inventors.
- 4.
For quotation of thoughts, see Maier (2017).
- 5.
At least not until recently; for some preliminary moves in this direction see Ginzburg et al. (2014).
- 6.
This characterisation is related to Martin-Loef’s “propositions as types” implementation. Hence run(john) is a type of events and it correctly classifies events that constitute “proofs” of John’s running (see Ranta 1994: chapter 2).
- 7.
Note that this use of the term ‘sign’ does not coincide with that of Cappelen and Lepore (2007: chapter 12).
- 8.
The term pure quotation here follows G&C’s usage, namely it refers to citation. For objections to this usage, see Saka (2013: 939).
- 9.
Recanati speaks of the “language” of the context (2010: 190).
- 10.
Note that to this a new speech-act specification will eventually be added to the effect that the final (schematic) content will come out as Assert(Speaker, (Ask(x,q)) for a (schematic) sentence like ‘Johnx asked q’.
- 11.
The eventual content derived will again be Assert(Speaker, (Ask(x,q)).
- 12.
As a reviewer notes, there are various other subcategorisation possibilities for such verbs which are not discussed here.
- 13.
This does not imply that quotation marks are necessary for such uses. It is just that they constitute signals that facilitate the alternative interpretations indicated (see also Saka 2003/2005). In a particular context of use, their presence is not required for such interpretations to be possible.
- 14.
Such a process does not have to be conceived in a Gricean manner as inference driven by the need to derive the speaker’s intention. Instead it can be implemented mechanistically in the grammar in the sense, explained later, that the hearer understands the speaker’s actions through mirroring these actions as specified by her/his own grammar (see Gregoromichelaki et al. 2011).
- 15.
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, namely terms carrying uniqueness implications and descriptive content. Here no stance is taken on this issue as it does not affect current concerns.
- 16.
For eliminating worlds from the semantics, replacing them with more psycholinguistically plausible TTR contents in terms of (types of) situations, see Cooper (2005). Here we maintain the more conservative view for brevity of exposition.
- 17.
The differentiation context vs. content fields is for exposition purposes only, just for the convenience of shortening reference to fields in the displays; it does not signify any substantial claim regarding any qualitative differentiation among the parameters handled. In TTR there is always an intuitive inclusion of the context in that, via the notion of dependent types, subsequent fields can depend on elements introduced previously (up along the vertical dimension in record types) but not the other way round. In terms of expressivity, reference to a value in some record (type) can be indicated via the definition of paths leading to specific values; we show such paths with dots separating the sequence of steps, for example r.l 1 .l 2 , refers to the value of label l 2 which provides the value of l 1 in record (type) r. In the displays here, the various fields are freely simplified and condensed in various ways for uncluttered illustration of the relevant points.
- 18.
Note that ‘words’ in DS-TTR are conceptualised as phonological/graphemic/signed shapes, i.e. stimuli that serve as the triggers for DS-TTR actions; not, as usual, ‘signs’, or ‘expressions’ (Cappelen and Lepore 2007), or phonology/syntax/semantics feature bundles (cf. Saka (2011) for discussion about the nature of linguistic elements, leading to distinct conclusions).
- 19.
The initial arrow carrying a word string illustrates the process of scanning, the process of recognising stimuli as triggers of lexical macros. Subevents are sequentially numbered through subscripts and further subscripts can be used for mnemonic purposes (the subscripts s, a here stand for speaker, addressee but will not be maintained further to avoid confusion with occurrences of subscripts s on types where they indicate the subtype of type e (entities) that are situations (type e s ).
- 20.
Bold lower case variables in the lexical macros indicate rule-level variables that unify with specified values on the current tree descriptions (parse states). These values are then used in the further execution of the macro (for formal explication see Kempson et al. 2001: 90–91, 311).
- 21.
In the illustration of such phenomena, in my view, scripted dialogue provides valuable evidence because such occurrences cannot easily be attributed to speech errors.
- 22.
Note that this also shows that the above mentioned context vs. content distinction is indeed artificial and hence present here only for simplicity of display purposes. The truth values of “metalinguistic” statements rely on conceptualisations of the instantiation of implicit contextual variables.
- 23.
Metalinguistic judgements (involving concepts like ‘sentence’, ‘word’, etc.) involve G-dependent types that range over conceptualisations of NL-use that reflect folk-linguistic conceptions but do not necessarily correspond with the analysts’ grammar of a particular language (unless of course the discourse involves discussion of exactly such a grammar). The actual processing model (the grammar) used (unconsciously) for processing an utterance will be captured by the rule-level variable indicated as g in the quotation-related processing actions later. Unlike G&C, this is an essential reservation for the DS-TTR formalism which does not license form-meaning pairs (“expressions”) but, instead, interlocutors’ performance, i.e., the production and interpretation of actions. Any reification of (part of) the products of such actions is then necessarily the outcome of some coercion and reification of the actual language use.
- 24.
The representations here employ so-called manifest fields. The notation employing the equality sign is abbreviatory for a singleton type constructor (see e.g. Cooper 2012; Ginzburg 2012), indicating subtypes of some type restricted to a single member, that is, only the relevant value mentioned. So, for example, x =john : e means that the value of label x is of the subtype of type e whose unique witness is the individual John.
- 25.
The notation employing a dot indicates a path to a value, e.g. r.tn indicates that the value needed is to be found as the value of label tn in record (type) r (see also fn. 24). (Note that this use of the dot notation is different from its use in separating the λ-bound variable [plus restrictions in TTR] from the function expression, e.g. λx:[x =john : e]. Arrive′x)
- 26.
- 27.
Like x, a i,..., a i+n are also rule-level variables that become bound to whatever individual actions the current state provides; see fn. 19.
- 28.
As we saw, the position currently under development is indicated by a ‘pointer’, ◊, which is what accounts for variable word-orders.
- 29.
According to DS-TTR, case affixes in morphologically rich languages impose the prediction/goal of an appropriate tree-structural position to accommodate the conceptual content contributed by the linguistic element carrying it.
- 30.
When “focussing attention” is explicitly conceptualised, it is represented in DS-TTR by introducing additional inferentially derived propositional or sub-propositional contents as linked structures, the representational device used for the processing of adjuncts like relative clauses, conditionals etc. (see Kempson et al. 2001; Cann et al. 2005; Gregoromichelaki 2006).
- 31.
Alternative options in a lexical entry are listed as embedded in ELSE statements, before abort is encountered.
- 32.
As mentioned earlier, make, go, put, run, etc. are elementary DS actions processing strings and building conceptual structure. They are modelled via accessibility relations among information states in the Dynamic Logic underpinning DS (see Kempson et al. 2001: chapter 9; Cann et al. 2007) The specifications object/subject/predicate-node are just schematic name abbreviations to avoid the clutter of presenting actual DS-TTR step-by-step actions and modalities.
- 33.
Some collections of sequences of actions are indicated as freely ordered or optional through bracketing to account for variable word-orders.
- 34.
Note that due to the implementation of incremental licensing, parsing/generation in DS-TTR can be initiated from any subpropositional stage, e.g. here starting with the requirement to build a predicate (?Ty(e → t)).
- 35.
Complementisers in DS-TTR do not themselves contribute content that appears on treenodes, they just execute procedural functions of introducing constraints on what can occupy nodes or predictions of upcoming input.
- 36.
Further similarity requirements could be introduced following G&C’s definition of similarity relations; the complications mentioned by Cappelen and Lepore (1997), regarding similarity of content rather than replication of contents, could be implemented by loosening the same-type restriction through appealing to the subtyping relation.
- 37.
As an anonymous reviewer points out, there is potential for overgeneration in this overall approach. However, in my view, this should be handled on a case-by-case basis, given observed particularities of languages and constructions, not as systemic architectural grammatical constraints (unless there is solid evidence for the latter), which is what I am concerned with here.
- 38.
Goal-directedness should not be construed as consciously or even subconsciously “intentional” in the Gricean sense. All (subpersonal) DS-TTR grammatical operations are goal-directed in the sense that predictions of the next perceptual input are system-generated and, accordingly, constrain which input will be sought and how such input will be accommodated. For arguments against the Gricean construal see Gregoromichelaki et al. (2011), Gregoromichelaki (2013b), Gregoromichelaki et al. (2013b), and Pickering and Garrod (2004); see also Saka (2003/2005) for similar views regarding the processing of quotation.
- 39.
I wish to thank all my collaborators to the DS-TTR project: Ruth Kempson, Ronnie Cann, Stelios Chatzikyriakidis, Arash Eshghi, Pat Healey, Julian Hough, Chris Howes, Greg Mills, Matt Purver, and Graham White. I am especially grateful to Paul Saka for various suggestions, comments, invaluable editorial assistance and tremendous support. In addition, I am very thankful to an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments, data, and further sources of information. I acknowledge support from the ESRC (Grant ESRC-RES-062-23-0962).
References
Abbott, B. (2005). Some notes on quotation. In De Brabanter (2005b, 13–26).
Allen, J., Ferguson, G., & Stent, A. (2001, January). An architecture for more realistic conversational systems. In Proceedings of the 2001 international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI).
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., Diaz, F., & Collins, A. F. (1996). Keeping your footing: Conversational completion in three-part sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 151–171.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1987 \mbox{ISBN 0-87668-950-0.}
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. In M. Holquist (Ed.). (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Banfield, A. (1973). Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 1–39.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.
Bonami, O., & Godard, D. (2008). On the syntax of direct quotation in French. In S. Mueller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG08 conference (pp. 358–377). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Brendel, E., Meibauer, J., & Steinbach, M. (2011). Introduction. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Marten, L. (2005). The dynamics of language. Oxford: Elsevier.
Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Purver, M. (2007). Context and well-formedness: The dynamics of ellipsis. Research on Language and Computation, 5(3), 333–358.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2007). Language turned on itself. The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chater, N., Pickering, M., & Milward, D. (1995). What is incremental interpretation? Incremental interpretation, Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, 11.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: 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.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol 14: Philosophy of linguistics (pp. 271–323). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cooper, R., & Ranta, A. (2008). Natural languages as collections of resources. In R. Cooper & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in flux (pp. 109–120). London: College Publications.
Crystal, D. (2013). http://www.davidcrystal.community.librios.com/?id=2914. Accessed 13/1/15.
Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. In De Brabanter (2005b, 77–88).
Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40.
Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
De Brabanter, P. (2005a). Introduction. In De Brabanter (2005b, 1–2).
De Brabanter, P. (Ed.). (2005b). Hybrid quotations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
De Brabanter, P. (2010a). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00185.x.
De Brabanter, P. (2010b). Uttering sentences made up of words and gestures. In B. Soria & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication (pp. 199–216). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Brabanter, P. (2013). Francois Recanati’s radical pragmatic theory of quotation. Teorema, 32, 109–128.
De Ruiter, J., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speakers turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535.
Duff, M. C., Hengst, J. A., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. J. (2007). Talking across time: using reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia. Aphasiology, 21(6–8), 702–716.
Eckardt, R. (2014). The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill.
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), York, UK.
Eshghi, A., Purver, M., & Hough, J. (2011). Dylan: Parser for dynamic syntax. Technical report, Queen Mary, University of London.
Eshghi, A., Hough, J., Purver, M., Kempson, R., & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2012). Conversational interactions: Capturing dialogue dynamics. In L. Borin & S. Larsson (Eds.), From quantification to conversation. London: College Publications.
Eshghi, A., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., Hough, J., & Purver, M. (2015, April). Feedback in conversation as incremental semantic update. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computational semantics (IWCS 2015) (pp. 261–271). Queen Mary University of London, UK
Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Howes, C., & Sato, Y. (2008). Dialogue-grammar correspondence in dynamic syntax. In Proceedings of the 12th SemDial (LonDial), London.
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. In De Brabanter (2005b, 109–28).
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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(3), 287–311.
Ginzburg, J., Fernández, R., & Schlangen, D. (2014). Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(9), 1–64.
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 251–2, 1–30.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 16–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. (2012). Review of J. Ginzburg (2012) The interactive stance. Folia Linguistica, 47(1), 93–316.
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. (n.d.). Metalinguistic and metacommunicative mechanisms in DS-TTR. Ms. University of Osnabrueck. (in prep).
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. Cham: Springer.
Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2015). Joint utterances and the (split-) turn-taking puzzle. In Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 703–743). Springer.
Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2016). Reporting, dialogue, and the role of grammar. In Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp. 115–150). Springer.
Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2017). Procedural syntax. In R. Carston, B. Clark, & K. Scott (Eds.), tba Cambridge University Press.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Sato, Y., Kempson, R. Gargett, A., & Howes, C. (2009). Dialogue modelling and the remit of core grammar. In Proceedings of IWCS, Eighth international conference on computational semantics.
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., & Cann, R. (2012). Language as tools for interaction: grammar and the dynamics of ellipsis resolution. The Linguistic Review, 29(4), 563–584.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Cann, R., & Kempson, R. (2013a). Coordination in dialogue: subsentential speech and its implications. In L. Goldstein (Ed.), Brevity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Howes, C., & Eshghi, A. (2013b). On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In I. Wachsmuth, J. P. de Ruiter, P. Jaecks, & S. Kopp (Eds.), Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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. 213–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Johnson, M. (2011). The punctuation theory of quotation. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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: Mathematical Centre Tracts.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Purver, M., Mills, G. J., Gargett, A., & Howes, C. (2009a). How mechanistic can accounts of interaction be? In Proceedings of Diaholmia, the 13th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Sato, Y. (2009b). Incrementality, speaker/hearer switching and the disambiguation challenge. In Proceedings of European Association of Computational Linguistics (EACL). Athens.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Howes, C. (2011a). The dynamics of lexical interfaces. Chicago: CSLI Publications.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Meyer-Viol, W., Purver, M., White, G., & Cann, R. (2011b). 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, April 26–27). Joint utterances in Greek: Their implications for linguistic modelling. In Proceedings of 33rd annual linguistics meeting “Syntactic Theories and the Syntax of Greek”. Thessaloniki
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Eshghi, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Purver, M.. (2015). Ellipsis. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantics (2nd ed., pp. 114–140).
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2016). Language as mechanisms for interaction. Theoretical Linguistics, 42(3–4), 203–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl- 2016-0011.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Eshghi, A., & Hough, J. (n.d.). Ellipsis in dynamic syntax. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford University Press. (to appear).
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2017). Action-based grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 43(1–2), 141–167.
Koder, F., & E. Maier (2014). Children mix direct and indirect speech: Evidence from pronoun comprehension. Ms. University of Groningen.
Larsson, S. (2011, September). The TTR perceptron: Dynamic perceptual meanings and semantic coordination. In Proceedings of the 15th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 140–148). SemDial 2011 – Los Angelogue.
Larsson, S. (2015). Formal semantics for perceptual classification. Journal of Logic and Computation, 25(2), 335–369.
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.
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20, 441–458.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maier, E. (2007). Mixed quotation: Between use and mention. In Proceedings of LENLS 2007, Miyazaki, Japan.
Maier, E. (2014a). Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7(7), 1–67.
Maier, E. (2014b). Language shifts in free indirect discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics, 43(2), 143–167.
Maier, E. (2015). Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language, 30(3), 345–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12083.
Maier, E. (2017). Mixed quotation. Ms. University of Groningen (survey article for The Companion to Semantics edited by Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, Thomas Ede Zimmermann, Wiley/Blackwell, New York.)
Marslen-Wilson, W. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature (London), 244, 522–523.
McCawley, J. D. (1999). Participant roles, frames, and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(6), 595–619.
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, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Morris, P. (1997). The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noh, E.-J. (1998). Echo questions: Metarepresentation and pragmatic enrichment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 603–628.
Norrick, N. (2015). Indirect reports, quotation, and narrative. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Partee, B. (1973). The syntax and semantics of quotation. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 410–418). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(02), 169–190.
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 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), 309–347.
Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (1998). Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. In Proceedings of the twente workshop on the formal semantics and pragmatics of dialogues (13th twente workshop on language technology).
Postal, P. M. (2004). Sceptical linguistic essays. Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In P. Jacobson & C. Barker (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Predelli, S. (2003). Scare quotes and their relation to other semantic issues. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 1–28.
Purver, M., Cann, R., & Kempson, R. (2006). Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research Language Computation, 4, 289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9007-x
Purver, M., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Healey, P. G. T. (2009). Split utterances in dialogue: A corpus study. In Proceedings of SigDial. London.
Purver, M., Gregoromichelaki, E., Meyer-Viol, W., & Cann, R.. (2010). Splitting the I’s and crossing the you’s: Context, speech acts and grammar. In Proceedings of SemDial 2010 (PozDial), Poznan, Poland.
Purver, M., Eshghi, A., & Hough, J. (2011). Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computational semantics (IWCS). Oxford.
Quine, W. V. O. (1940). Mathematical logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ranta, A. (1994). Type-theoretical grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Recta, Oratio Obliqua. Cambridge, MA: 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.
Ross, J. R. (1970). Metalinguistic anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 273.
Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., Eshghi, A., & Hough, J.. (to appear) Ellipsis in Dynamic Syntax. In J. van Craenenbroeck & T. Temmerman, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. ISBN: 9780198712398
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Saka, P. (1998). Quotation and the use-mention distinction. Mind, 107(425), 113–135.
Saka, P. (2003/2005). Quotational constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17(1), 187–212.
Saka, P. (2011). Quotation and conceptions of language. Dialectica, 65(2), 205–220.
Saka, P. (2013). Quotation. Philosophy Compass, 8(10), 935–949.
Sato, Y. (2011). Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in dynamic syntax. In Kempson et al. (2011b) (Eds.).
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.
Shan, C.-c. (2011). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(5), 417–443.
Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(3), 353–395.
Slama-Cazacu, T. (1976). Nonverbal components in message sequence: ‘mixed syntax’. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (Eds.), Language and man: Anthropological issues (pp. 217–227). The Hague: Mouton.
Steedman, M. (1992). Grammars and processors (Tech. Rep. MS-CIS-92-52). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science.
Stone, M. (2004). Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of language. Cognitive Science, 28(5), 781–809.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narratives. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 311–322). Berlin: Mouton.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Quotation in Dialogue. In: Saka, P., Johnson, M. (eds) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68746-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68747-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)