A coherence-based approach to the interpretation of non-sentential utterances in dialogue
This thesis is concerned with the syntax, compositional semantics and contextually-situated interpretation of a certain kind of non-sentential utterance occuring in dialogue, namely one where the utterance, despite its âincompleteâ syntactic form, is intended to convey a proposition, a question or a request. Perhaps the most prominent type of such utterances is the short answer, as in âA: Who came to the party? â B: Peter.â, but there are many other types as well. Following (Morgan 1973) and (Ginzburg 1999b) and others, we will call such utterances fragments. Clearly, the interpretation of fragments is highly context dependent. We will provide evidence that there are complex syntactic, semantic and pragmatic constraints governing the use of fragments. In particular, following (Ginzburg 1999b), we will present evidence that while the main resolution must be semantic, some limited syntactic information nevertheless has to persist beyond the boundaries of sentences to allow for the formulation of certain constraints on fragments. We will argue that consequently only a theory that has at its disposal a wide array of information sources âfrom syntax through compositional and lexical semantics to domain
Schlangen, David
A coherence-based approach to the interpretation of non-sentential utterances in dialogue. This thesis is concerned with the syntax, compositional semantics and contextually-situated interpretation of a certain kind of non-sentential utterance occuring in dialogue, namely one where the utterance, despite its âincompleteâ syntactic form, is intended to convey a proposition, a question or a request. Perhaps the most prominent type of such utterances is the short answer, as in âA: Who came to the party? â B: Peter.â, but there are many other types as well. Following (Morgan 1973) and (Ginzburg 1999b) and others, we will call such utterances fragments. Clearly, the interpretation of fragments is highly context dependent. We will provide evidence that there are complex syntactic, semantic and pragmatic constraints governing the use of fragments. In particular, following (Ginzburg 1999b), we will present evidence that while the main resolution must be semantic, some limited syntactic information nevertheless has to persist beyond the boundaries of sentences to allow for the formulation of certain constraints on fragments. We will argue that consequently only a theory that has at its disposal a wide array of information sources âfrom syntax through compositional and lexical semantics to domain
coherence based interpretation non sentential utterance dialogue concerned syntax compositional semantics contextually situated interpretation certain_kind non sentential utterance_occur dialogue namely utterance despite incomplete syntactic form intend convey proposition question request perhaps prominent type utterance short answer come party peter many type well following morgan others call utterance fragment clearly interpretation fragment highly context_dependent provide_evidence complex syntactic_semantic pragmatic constraint govern use fragment particular follow present_evidence main resolution must semantic limited syntactic_information nevertheless persist beyond boundary sentence allow formulation certain constraint fragment argue consequently theory disposal wide array information source syntax compositional lexical_semantics domain