Aist, G., Allen, J. F., Campana, E., Gomez Gallo, C., Stoness, S., Swift, M., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). Incremental dialogue system faster than, preferred to its nonincremental counterpart. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), pages 761-766, Nashville, TN. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Allen, J. F., Byron, D., Dzikovska, M., Ferguson, G., Galescu, L., and Stent, A. (2001). Towards conversational human-computer interaction. AIMagazine, 22(4):27-37.Google Scholar

Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2008). Commitments, beliefs and intentions in dialogue. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (LONDIAL), pages 9-36, London, UK. SemDial.Google Scholar

Betarte, G. and Tasistro, A. (1998). Extension of Martin-Lof type theory with record types and subtyping. In 25 Years of Constructive Type Theory, pages 21-10. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

Brennan, S. E. and Schober, M. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2):274-296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnard, L. (2000). Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (World Edition). Available from: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/archive/worldURG/urg.pdf. Accessed on 11/24/2013.Google Scholar

BuB, O., Baumann, T., and Schlangen, D. (2010). Collaborating on utterances with a spoken dialogue system using an ISU-based approach to incremental dialogue management. In Proceedings of the SIGdial Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), pages 233-236, Tokyo, Japan. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Cann, R., Kaplan, T., and Kempson, R. (2005). Data at the grammar-pragmatics interface: The case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua, 115(11): 1551-1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, R. (2005). Records and record types in semantic theory. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(2):99-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Smedt, K. (1990). IPF: An incremental parallel formulator. In Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pages 167-192. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

De Smedt, K. (1991). Revisions during generation using non-destructive unification. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG), pages 63-70, Judenstein/Innsbruck, Austria. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

De Smedt, K., Horacek, H., and Zock, M. (1996). Some problems with current architectures in natural language generation. In Adorni, G. and Zock, M., editors, Trends in Natural Language Generation: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective, pages 17-46. Springer LNCS, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar

DeVault, D., Sagae, K., and Traum, D. (2009). Can I finish?: Learning when to respond to incremental interpretation results in interactive dialogue. In Proceedings of the SIGdial Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), pages 11-20, London, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

DeVault, D., Sagae, K., and Traum, D. (2011). Incremental interpretation and prediction of utterance meaning for interactive dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1):143-170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eshghi, A., Purver, M., and Hough, J. (2011). DyLan: Parser for dynamic syntax. Technical Report EECSRR-11-05, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar

Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(5):724-755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., and Sato, Y. (2009). Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3(4):347-363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Psathas, G., editor, Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pages 97-121. Irvington, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills, G. J., Cann, R., Meyer-Viol, W., and Healey, P. G. (2011). Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1):199-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guhe, M. (2007). Incremental Conceptualization for Language Production. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar

Guhe, M., Habel, C., and Tappe, H. (2000). Incremental event conceptualization and natural language generation in monitoring environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 85-92, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Healey, P. G. (2008). Interactive misalignment: The role of repair in the development of group sub-languages. In Cooper, R. and Kempson, R., editors, Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution. College Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar

Healey, P. G., Purver, M., and Howes, C. (2010). Structural divergence in dialogue. In Abstracts of the Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse, Chicago, IL. Society for Text & Discourse.Google Scholar

Hough, J. (2011). Incremental semantics driven natural language generation with self-repairing capability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP), pages 79-84, Hissar, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Howes, C, Purver, M., Healey, P. G., Mills, G. J., and Gregoromichelaki, E. (2011). On incre-mentality in dialogue: Evidence from compound contributions. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1):279-311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joshi, A. (1985). Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., and Zwicky, A. M., editors, Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives, pages 206-250. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Kay, M. (1985). Parsing in functional unification grammar. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., and Zwicky, A. M., editors, Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives, pages 251-278. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Kempen, G. and Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2):201-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kempson, R., Cann, R., Eshghi, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., and Purver, M. (2011). Ellipsis. In Lappin, S. and Fox, C., editors, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Wiley, New York, NY, 2nd edition.Google Scholar

Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., and Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar

Larsson, S. (2002). Issue-based Dialogue Management. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University.Google Scholar

Lascarides, A. and Asher, N. (2009). Agreement, disputes and commitments in dialogue. Journal of Semantics, 26(2):109-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehnert, W. G. (1978). The Process of Question Answering: A Computer Simulation of Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3): 441-458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (1996). On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., editors, Interaction and Grammar, pages 238-276. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, G. H., editor, Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pages 225-256. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1):41-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Milward, D. (1991). Axiomatic Grammar, Non-Constituent Coordination, Incremental Interpretation. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Neumann, G. (1994). A Uniform Computational Model for Natural Language Parsing and Generation. PhD thesis, Universitaat des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar

Neumann, G. (1998). Interleaving natural language parsing and generation through uniform processing. Artificial Intelligence, 99(1):121-163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neumann, G. and van Noord, G. (1994). Reversibility and self-monitoring in natural language generation. In Strzalkowski, T., editor, Reversible Grammar in Natural Language Processing, pages 59-96. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Ono, T. and Thompson, S. A. (1993). What can conversation tell us about syntax? In Davis, P., editor, Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, pages 213-271. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Otsuka, M. and Purver, M. (2003). Incremental generation by incremental parsing: Tactical generation in dynamic syntax. In Proceedings of the CLUK Colloquium, pages 93-100, Edinburgh, Scotland. The UK Special Interest Group for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. and Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2):169-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poesio, M. and Rieser, H. (2010). Completions, coordination, and alignment in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse, 1:1-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R. (1997). Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13(3):309-347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Purver, M., Cann, R., and Kempson, R. (2006). Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2-3):289-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Purver, M., Eshghi, A., and Hough, J. (2011). Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Semantics, pages 365-369, Oxford, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Purver, M., Gregoromichelaki, E., Meyer-Viol, W., and Cann, R. (2010). Splitting the I's and crossing the you's: Context, speech acts and grammar. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (PozDial), pages 43-50, Poznán, Poland. SemDial.Google Scholar

Purver, M., Howes, C., Healey, P. G., and Gregoromichelaki, E. (2009). Split utterances in dialogue: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the SIGdial Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), pages 262-271, London, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Purver, M. and Kempson, R. (2004a). Context-based incremental generation for dialogue. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG), pages 151-160, Brockenhurst, UK. Springer.Google Scholar

Purver, M. and Kempson, R. (2004b). Incrementality, alignment and shared utterances. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Catalog), pages 85-92, Barcelona, Spain. SemDial.Google Scholar

Purver, M. and Otsuka, M. (2003). Incremental generation by incremental parsing: Tactical generation in dynamic syntax. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), pages 79-86, Budapest, Hungary. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Reiter, E. and Dale, R. (2000). Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rühlemann, C. and McCarthy, M. (2007). Conversation in Context: A Corpus-Driven Approach. Continuum, London, UK.Google Scholar

Sato, Y. (2011). Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in dynamic syntax. In Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., and Howes, C., editors, The Dynamics ofLexical Interfaces. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24(1): 139-161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Givon, T., editor, Discourse and Syntax, pages 261-286. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlangen, D. and Skantze, G. (2009). A general, abstract model of incremental dialogue processing. In Proceedings of the Conference of the European Chapter of the Associationfor Computational Linguistics (EACL), pages 710-718, Athens, Greece. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Schlangen, D. and Skantze, G. (2011). A general, abstract model of incremental dialogue processing. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1):83-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shieber, S. M. (1988). A uniform architecture for parsing and generation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 614-619, Budapest, Czech Republic. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Skantze, G. and Hjalmarsson, A. (2010). Towards incremental speech generation in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the SIGdial Conference on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), pages 1-8, Tokyo, Japan. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Skantze, G. and Schlangen, D. (2009). Incremental dialogue processing in a micro-domain. In Proceedings of the Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pages 745-753, Athens, Greece. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Skuplik, K. (1999). Satzkooperationen. definition und empirische untersuchung. Technical Report 1999/03, Bielefeld University.Google Scholar

Sturt, P. and Crocker, M. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(5):449-494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szczepek Reed, B. (2000). Formal aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 17.Google Scholar

Thompson, H. (1977). Strategy and tactics: A model for language production. In Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 13, pages 651-668, Chicago, IL. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

van Wijk, C. and Kempen, G. (1987). A dual system for producing self-repairs in spontaneous speech: Evidence from experimentally elicited corrections. Cognitive Psychology, 19(4): 403-440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar