Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:46:11.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Better late than Now-or-Never: The case of interactive repair phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Patrick G. T. Healey ,
Christine Howes ,
Julian Hough  and
Matthew Purver
Patrick G. T. Healey
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, United Kingdomp.healey@qmul.ac.ukm.purver@qmul.ac.uk
Christine Howes
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Swedenchristine.howes@gu.se
Julian Hough
Affiliation:
Fak. LiLi, Universität Bielefeld, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany. julian.hough@uni-bielefeld.de
Matthew Purver
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, United Kingdomp.healey@qmul.ac.ukm.purver@qmul.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical evidence from dialogue, both corpus and experimental, highlights the importance of interaction in language use – and this raises some questions for Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) proposals. We endorse C&C's call for an integrated framework but argue that their emphasis on local, individual production and comprehension makes it difficult to accommodate the ubiquitous, interactive, and defeasible processes of clarification and repair in conversation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bavelas, J. B. & Gerwing, J. (2007) Conversational hand gestures and facial displays in face-to-face dialogue. In: Social communication, ed. Fiedler, K., pp. 283–308. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E. & Schober, M. F. (2001) How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44(2):274–96.Google Scholar
Colman, M. & Healey, P. G. T. (2011) The distribution of repair in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, July 2011, ed. Carlson, L. & Shipley, T. F., pp. 1563–68.Google Scholar
Eshghi, A., Hough, J. & Purver, M. (2013) Incremental grammar induction from child-directed dialogue utterances. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACL Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL), Sofia, Bulgaria, August 8 2013, pp. 94–103, ed. Demberg, V. & Levy, R.. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
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), London, UK, April 15–17 2015, pp. 261–71, ed. Purver, M., Sadrzadeh, M. & Stone, M.. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. Psathas, G., pp. 97–121. Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Healey, P. G. T., Eshghi, A., Howes, C. & Purver, M. (2011) Making a contribution: Processing clarification requests in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. Poitiers, France, July 11–13 2011,Google Scholar
Healey, P. G. T., Purver, M. & Howes, C. (2014) Divergence in dialogue. PLOS ONE 9(6):e98598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hough, J. & Purver, M. (2012) Processing self-repairs in an incremental type-theoretic dialogue system. In: Proceedings of the 16th SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SeineDial), Paris, France, September 19–21, 2012, pp. 136–44, ed. Brown-Schmidt, S., Ginzburg, J. & Larsson, S.. SemDialGoogle Scholar
Hough, J. & Purver, M. (2013) Modelling expectation in the self-repair processing of annotat-, um, listeners. In: Proceedings of the 17th SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DialDam), Amsterdam, Netherlands, December 16–18, 2013, pp. 92–101, ed. Fernández, R. & Isard, A.. SemDial.Google Scholar
Howes, C., Purver, M., McCabe, R., Healey, P. G. & Lavelle, M. (2012) Helping the medicine go down: Repair and adherence in patient-clinician dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 16th SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SeineDial), Paris, France, September 19–21 2012, pp. 155–56, ed. Brown-Schmidt, S., Ginzburg, J. & Larsson, S.. SemDial.Google Scholar
Lake, J. K., Humphreys, K. R. & Cardy, S. (2011) Listener vs. speaker-oriented aspects of speech: Studying the disfluencies of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(1):135–40.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1993) Speaking: From intention to articulation, vol. 1. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Purver, M., Cann, R. & Kempson, R. (2006) Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research in Language and Computation 4(2–3):289–326.Google Scholar
Purver, M., Eshghi, A. & Hough, J. (2011) Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS), Oxford, UK, January 12–14, 2011, pp. 365–69, ed. Box, J. & Pulman, S.. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2):361–82.Google Scholar