Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory
Jonathan Ginzburg CLILLAC-ARP & Laboratoire d’Excellence (LabEx)–Empirical Foundations of Linguistics (EFL) Universit´eParis-Diderot
Lille, 21 January, 2015 supported by the Disfluency, Exclamations, and Laughter in Dialogue (DUEL) project within the projets franco-allemand en sciences humaines et sociales funded by the ANR and the DFG Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
Collaborative work with Robin Cooper (Gothenburg University) Initial write up in: Journal of Logic, Language, and Information (2014)
4 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation I ◮ Quotation is a means of diagonalization (in the Cantorian sense) out of any grammar—for any expression e deemed ungrammatical by grammar Γ, one can produce via quotation a well formed string that includes e, hence undermining Γ: (1) a. Damien, who’s only four years old, said ‘I go’ed to Grandma’s’ b. Pelle, whose native language is Swedish, said ‘Jag har varit hos mormor’ (meaning “I’ve been at Grandma’s”) c. Morry aimed the toothbrush at David and went ‘[˜æP˜æP˜æP˜æP]’ (Partee, 1973) d. The blender went ‘plplplpl’
5 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation II ◮ a wide range of philosophical accounts (e.g. Davidson (1979); Werning (2012), among many others) assume that what occurs between the quotation marks in the surface syntax is not part of the sentence in which those quotation marks occur. ◮ This, however, presents challenges for dealing with examples where the form or the content of the quotation is referred to from outside the quotation as in (2):
6 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation III
(2) a. ‘I talk better English than the both of youse!’ shouted Charles, thereby convincing me that he didn’t. (Partee, 1973, ex. 20) b. The sign says ‘George Washington slept here’, but I don’t believe he really did. (Partee, 1973, ex. 26) c. What he actually said was, ‘It’s clear that you’ve given this problem a great deal of thought,’ but he meant quite the opposite. (Partee, 1973, ex. 32)
7 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation IV ◮ There is no little amount of evidence that quotation is subject to general grammatical principles governing: — word order, —ability to be embedded, psuedo-clefted, and semantic selection (Postal, 2004; Bonami and Godard, 2008).
8 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation V ◮ Moreover, all natural languages seem to have quotation of some kind. ◮ Children use direct quotation from their earliest utterances (Ginzburg and Moradlou, 2013). ◮ Indirect quotation is acquired substantially later, but is nevertheless standardly present in the adult language.(Everett, 2012 claims that Piraha˜ lacks indirect quotation...)
9 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation VI ◮ Given the ubiquity of quotation in natural language, linguists need to explicate the mechanisms it employs. ◮ few formal grammatical treatments (for some recent formal treatments see Geurts and Maier (2005); Potts (2007); Bonami and Godard (2008), but these do not form part of a large scale grammar. ◮ Potts (2007): . . . ‘Quotation is a hugely important matter for linguistic theory. It forces us to enrich our stock of basic entities.’ ◮ Why, rather than being a heterodox linguistic process, is in fact quotation so straightforward?
10 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation VII
◮ Short answer—because quotation involves entities and mechanisms utilized ubiquitously during dialogue processing. ◮ Dialogue processing involves a periodic interaction concerning whether an utterance has been understood (grounding (Clark, 1996)) and if not the need to engage in clarification. Also: incremental self–monitoring, leading to continuation/self-correction/hesitation. ◮ On one model of dialogue processing (see (Ginzburg, 2012)) this involves assessing the truth of a locutionary proposition—a proposition constructed from the utterance event and a linguistic sign made available by grammatical resources available to the dialogue participants.
11 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The trickiness of quotation VIII
◮ We propose in the talk that signs and locutionary propositions offer simple and semantically parsimonious denotations for (pure/direct) quotation utterance representations used ubiquitously in dialogue.
12 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Introduction
The rest of this talk
◮ Basic quotation data: pure and direct quotation, quotative operators ◮ A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics ◮ Quotation using dialogical tools
13 / 85 Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Pure quotation
Pure quotation I ◮ Pure quotation involves general, rule–like statements about utterance types. ◮ As example (3) shows, these can target various dimensions of the linguistic sign, but they do not directly concern any utterance tokens as such:
15 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Pure quotation
Pure quotation II
(3) a. syntax: ‘Bo’ is a noun ‘Bo left’ is a declarative sentence b. phonology: ‘Bo’ starts with b ‘Bo left’ consists of two monosyllabic words c. semantics ‘Bo’ is used to refer to a person named ‘Bo’ ‘Bo left’ predicates leaving of a person named ‘Bo’ d. context: ‘Bye’ is used as the final move in a conversation
16 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Pure quotation
Pure quotation III ◮ To capture the data in (3), one needs to assume that quotation has a use in which it refers to an entity that incorporates information about the variety of linguistic dimensions (phonological, morphosyntactic, semantic, . . . ◮ relative to a particular language ◮ neither intra-linguistic, nor cross-linguistic homophones (English ‘rapport’ (relationship) and French ‘rapport’ (report); Hebrew ‘xatuna’ (wedding) and Georgian ‘xatuna’ (a proper name)) be conflated. ◮ So, the standardish assumptions about the pure quotation as ‘denoting the expression’ cannot be maintained. ( Quine (1960), Geurts and Maier (2005))
17 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Direct quotation I
◮ Unlike pure quotation, direct quotation involves reference to a particular linguistic event or situation (either a speech act or a textual situation of a given text containing a particular subtext). ◮ We mention here two contextual parameters that seem crucial for an account and have not been explicitly considered in previous work—similarity measures and grammatical resources.
18 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Similarity Measures I ◮ It is in the nature of events in general that they happen only once. ◮ The closest we can come to repeating an event is to create a new event which is similar to the previous one. ◮ This is the notion of demonstration introduced by De Cornulier, Clark and Gerrig. (4) Claire: How pleasant, mum’s being sick everywhere. I said erm is there a problem? (laugh) (vomiting noise) No. Not a problem. (BNC,KPH)
19 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Similarity Measures II ◮ A question that arises on this kind of view is whether there is a single similarity measure which can be used in all cases of quotation. ◮ No. ◮ The fact that we can quote utterances that were made in a different language suggests that it can be sufficient for the content of the quoting utterance to be the same. ◮ Here there is no requirement that the form of the utterance be similar to the original utterance. ◮ Even if the quotation is in the same language as the original it normally cleans up disfluencies such as hesitations or mispronunciations unless these are a relevant part of the demonstration involved in the quotation.
20 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Similarity Measures III (5) Aucun entretien n’est reproduit tel quel. Le journaliste ´elimine les scories du langage parl´e(ne serait-ce que les ‘euh’ et les ‘ah’), les r´ep´etitions, les bouts de phrase inutiles, et supprime les fautes de fran¸cais, sauf `avouloir faire ´echo `aun certain exotisme . . . No conversation is reproduced as such. The journalist eliminates the debris of spoken language (and that’s not only the ‘um’s and ‘uh’s), the repetitions, the of useless phrases. She corrects the grammatical errors, unless she wishes to convey a certain exoticism R. Sol´e, Le Monde 7/03/2003
21 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Similarity Measures IV ◮ However, the requirements on similarity are not so lax in (6) and (7). (6) a. John said, “gorse is beautiful.” b. 6→ John said, “furze is beautiful.” (Werning 2012) (7) A: John said “I left”. B: No he didn’t. He said “I leaved”.
22 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Similarity Measures V
◮ Further examples of different similarity measures are given in (8). (8) a. A: I can’t fight back, it’s finished. B: So what you’re saying is ‘I’m a loser’, right? b. Jo asked ‘Am I crazy?’ in French. c. Jean said ‘Je le ferai’ which I think means ‘I will do it’. d. Jean said ‘Je le ferai’ which I think means that he will do it.
23 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Grammatical resources I
◮ Agents who know a language have grammatical resources which will allow them to assign grammatical types, such as sign types, to speech events they observe. ◮ In computational terms we can think of the types assigned to a speech event (utterance) as the result of parsing the utterance. It is these types, not types in general, which have to be similar between the original event and the quotation event.
24 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Grammatical resources II ◮ We assume that agents have a collection of grammatical resources and that they draw on different subcollections of these resources on different occasions, depending, for example, on which language or dialect they are speaking, whether they are speaking about theoretical physics or the family outing at the weekend or are involved in a technical discussion about the offside rule.
25 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Grammatical resources III
◮ In many cases of quotation the resources applied to the original utterance—in terms of notation, Γ1—will be the same as the resources applied to the quotation utterance——in terms of notation, Γ2. ◮ This will not be the case when the original utterance was in a different language to the quoting utterance. In this case it may even be that the agent of the quoting utterance does not have access to resources Γ1 needed to process the original utterance – they may have benefitted from a translation at the time.
26 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Grammatical resources IV ◮ The choice of Γ1 and Γ2 has consequences for the kind of similarity measure, µ, that can be used. When Γ1 = Γ2 we can choose µ to be a strict measure which requires that the resources assign exactly the same sign type to both the original and the quoting utterance. ◮ But even here we will often want a looser notion of similarity. For example, a demonstration of an utterance editing out disfluencies we may want to count as a quotation, at least some of the time. ◮ Different choices of synonymous words may for some purposes count as quotation for others not. µ may be more or less strict depending on the purposes at hand, an extreme case being (9):
27 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Direct quotation
Grammatical resources V
(9) [An article about an orphaned walrus arriving in a new zoo:] During [the orphaned walrus’] first look at a walrus, he was like, ‘What’s that?’ (New York Times, 22/01/2014)
28 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Quotative operators
Quotative operators I
◮ There are a number of words that require direct quotation as their complements. ◮ In English the marker like and the verb go have a certain usage which requires a direct quotation as in (10a) and (10b) and does not allow an indirect quotation, as exemplified in (10c) and (10d). ◮ Such constructions do not even require a speech act to be demonstrated as Partee’s example (1c) shows and also (10e). ◮ Such constructions exist in many, if not all, languages although they tend to be restricted to an informal spoken register. ◮ E.g., French faire, German quasi, Swedish typ/ba as in (10f).
29 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Quotative operators
Quotative operators II
(10) a. I asked her if she wanted to read my paper and she was like “Are you crazy?” b. I asked her if she wanted to read my paper and she went “Yuck!” c. *I asked her if she wanted to read my paper and she was like whether I was crazy d. *I asked her if she wanted to read my paper and she went that she didn’t, in no uncertain terms e. I asked her if she wanted to read my paper and she was like [expression of disgust, slowly shaking head]
30 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Quotative operators
Quotative operators III f. f¨orst sa han typ, (“first he said like”) hej, hur gammal ¨ar du ? (“hi, how old are you?”) sen ¨ar du s˚ablond ? (“then, are you so blond?”) ja ba, nae inte precis, (“I just, no not exactly”) han typ ¨ar du singel ? (“he like, are you single?”)
http://nellierosengren.bloggsida.se/okategoriserad/ (accessed 6th Dec. 2013)
31 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Quotative operators
Quotative operators IV ◮ Given the possibility of non-speech act demonstrations in these examples one might come to the conclusion that direct quotations simply refer to the demonstration and lose the content of the original event, if it was a speech act. ◮ There is much discussion in the literature which shows this not to be true, including the examples (2) discussed by Partee. ◮ These examples involve predicates that can combine with direct quotation, as well as indirect quotation, as in (12). (11) a. The sign says ‘George Washington slept here’, but I don’t believe he really did. (Partee, 1973, ex. 26) b. What he actually said was, ‘It’s clear that you’ve given this problem a great deal of thought,’ but he meant quite the opposite. (Partee, 1973, ex. 32)
32 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Basic quotation data Quotative operators
Quotative operators V
◮ Indeed, there is a clear relationship between the indirect and direct quotation complements in (12a,b)—both support the inference (12d):
(12) a. Zohar asked whether she snored. b. Zohar asked ‘naxarti?’. c. Zohar asked ‘naxarti?’, a Hebrew sentence often uttered by people who have just woken up. d. Zohar asked a question, a question about herself.
33 / 85 Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Based on: ◮ Ginzburg 2012 The Interactive Stance, Oxford University Press ◮ Ginzburg 2015 ‘The Semantics of Dialogue’ In: Aloni and Dekker Cambridge Handbook of Semantics, CUP ◮ Cooper and Ginzburg 2015 ‘Type Theory with Records for natural language semantics’. In: Fox and Lappin Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd Edition, Wiley Blackwell
35 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
From Communitarian Semantics to the Interactive Stance
◮ Semantics as practised highly productively since Frege: ◮ characterizing successful communication: ◮ the proposition expressed by a sentence in context ◮ the referent of an NP ◮ anaphoric/presuppositional potential ◮ abstracting away from individual differences, from the communicative process ◮ Communitarian Semantics
36 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Grounding/Clarification interaction Conditions I ◮ Ginzburg (2012): What object needed to represent utterances in dialogue context in their immediate aftermath? ◮ Two essential branches: ◮ Grounding: utterance understood and signalled as such (Clark (1996)), its content added to common ground, uptake occurs. ◮ Clarification Interaction: some aspect of utterance causes a problem; triggers exchange to repair problem. ◮ Hence, need an entity off of which both ‘shared understanding’ update AND clarification potential (GRCR condititions) can be read.
37 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Grounding/Clarification interaction Conditions II
◮ In dialogue all words and phrases are, in principle, subject to clarification interaction (see Ginzburg and Cooper, Ling and Phil 2004, Purver Research on Lang and Comp. 2006, Ginzburg 2012, Cooper Dialogue and Discourse 2013) (13) a. A: Most researchers acknowledge that pragmatics is important. b. B: What do you mean by ‘most’? c. B: acknowledge?/important?/pragmatics? d. B: is? Since when? ◮ Some differences across open/closed class categories as to how CRs are construed. (See e.g. Healey et al. (2003); Purver et al. (2003); Purver (2004) for experimental evidence.).
38 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Grounding/Clarification interaction Conditions III
◮ But certainly among open class categories, nothing fixed a priori.
39 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
What entity delivers GRCR conditions?
◮ Content: pro: in Ariadne’s Dialogue GameBoard (relativized shared context) post-utterancely; con: not necessarily in Barabas’; too coarse grained. ◮ Meanings —functions from contextual parameters to contents): pro: range of contextual parameters offers a possible characterization of the contextually variable and hence potentially problematic constituents of utterance content.
40 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
What entity delivers GRCR conditions? ◮ Con 1: coarse grained (14) a. Ariadne: Jo is a lawyer. Barabas: A lawyer?/What do you mean a lawyer?/#What do you mean an advocate?/#What do you mean an attorney? b. Ariadne: Jo is an advocate. Barabas: #What do you mean a lawyer?/An advocate?/What do you mean an advocate?/#What do you mean an attorney? Con 2: need syn/phon information to ensure potential for syntactic and phonological parallelism e.g. in clarification interaction: (15) a. A: Did Bo leave? B: Max? (cannot mean: intended content reading: Who are you referring to? or Who do you mean?) b. A: Did he adore the book. B: adore? / #adored? 41 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Linking up the external world, grammar, and interaction
42 / 85 Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Type Theory with Records (TTR) I ◮ The logical underpinnings of our dialogue framework KoS is Type Theory with Records (TTR). ◮ For detailed descriptions see Cooper 2005 Research on Lang and Comp, Cooper 2012 Handbook of Phil of Linguistics ◮ Inspired by Situation Theory and Constructive Type Theory: ◮ From Situation Theory: semantics as ontology construction; in particular emphasis on structured objects for explicating properties, propositions, questions, ... ◮ From Constructive Type Theory: repertory of type constructors, in particular records and record types; witnessing conditions.
44 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Type Theory with Records (TTR) II
◮ central to type theory is the notion of a judgement than an object (token) a is of a type T (in symbols, a : T ) ◮ TTR (Type Theory with Records) is a rich type theory where there are not just types corresponding to basic ontological categories like individuals (entities), functions, sets and so on, but also types corresponding to ◮ common nouns like apple ◮ types of events (situations) corresponding to sentences like Amundsen flew over the North Pole ◮ ... ◮ more like the standard notion of token-type relation
45 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
The Type Theoretic Universe I
(16) Type Theoretic World (Cooper (2012), simplified) TYPEDWORLD = h Typen, BasicType, ComplexTypen, RecTypen, hA, F nii a. Typen is the set of types of order n, built up recursively using type construction operations. b. BasicType: IND, TIME, LOC, . . . c. ComplexTypen: tuples consisting of entities [from A] and predicates. d. RecTypen: set of records, record types defined with respect to a set of objects used as labels. e. hA, F ni is a model (An assigning entities to BasicType, and F n assigns tuples to ComplexTypen).
46 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
HPSGTTR I
◮ For this purpose we use HPSGTTR (Ginzburg (2012)), a variant of the grammatical formalism Head–driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Ginzburg and Sag (2000); Sag et al. (2003)). ◮ Claim: if we want use our utterance types as the basis for a theory of communicative interaction, then using a grammar based on records and record types is superior to a grammar formulated in terms of typed feature structures (TFSs). ◮ Abandon the use of type feature structures and of unification as a semantic glue for TFSs. ◮ For detailed discussion of this claim, see The Interactive Stance, Chapter 5.
47 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
HPSGTTR II ◮ Utterance types can be modelled as record types, whereas actual utterance tokens—speech events—can be modelled as records. ◮ parallel and fractal representation of all dimensions of linguistic information
48 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
HPSGTTR III phon : is georges here cat = V[+fin] : syncat is, georges, here, is georges here constits = : set(sign) n o spkr: IND addr: IND c1 : address(s,a) c-params : s0: SIT l: LOC g: IND c3: Named(g,‘georges’) sit = s0 cont = Ask(spkr,addr, ? ) : IllocProp "sit-type = In(l,g)# 49 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Austinian Propositions I
◮ Building on a conception articulated 30 years earlier by Austin (Austin (1961)), Barwise and Etchemendy (1987) developed a theory of propositions in which a proposition is a structured object prop(s,σ), individuated in terms of a situation s and a situation type σ. ◮ TTR offers a straightforward way for us to model propositions using records. A proposition is a record of the form in (17a). The type of propositions is the record type (17b):
(17) a. sit =r0 "sit-type=p0# b. Prop = sit : Record "sit-type : RecType#
50 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Austinian Propositions II ◮ Truth:
(18) A proposition sit = r0 is true iff r0 : p0 "sit-type = p0# ◮ The original Austinian conception was that s is a situation deictically indicated by a speaker making an assertion. ◮ The Austinian approach is also important for negation (see Cooper and Ginzburg,Proc of Amsterdam Coll. 2012) ◮ (Ginzburg (2012)) extends this idea to the notion of locutionary propositions to characterize the communicative process, here the propositions individuated in terms of an
utterance event u0 as well as to its grammatical type Tu0 .
51 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
What entity delivers GRCR conditions?
◮ The locutionary proposition defined by u, Tu is a grammatical type that classifies u is the proposition sit = u . This "sit-type = Tu# will deliver GRCR conditions. ◮ Why the grammatical type: ◮ Finer grain than content, meaning ◮ syn/phon parallelism with source utterance ◮ Why the utterance token: ◮ Need instantiated (speaker oriented) content, not merely meaning ◮ Reference to sub-utterances tokens figure in CRs (‘Bo?’ = Who referring to in that utterance of ‘Bo’.)
52 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
A locutionary proposition
(19) phon = dijoliv cat = V[+fin,+root] constits = di,jow,liv n o s0 = sit0 sit = t0 = time0 dgb-params = j = j0 c3 = c30 sit = s0 cont = ([]) sit-type = Leave(j,t0) " # phon : did jo leave cat = V[+fin,+root] : syncat constits = did, jo, leave : set(sign) n s0: SIT o sit-type = dgb-params t0: TIME : j: IND c3: Named(j,jo) sit = s0 cont = ([]) : Questn sit-type = Leave(j,t0) " #
53 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
What entity delivers GRCR conditions?
◮ Grounding: utterance type fully classifies utterance token ◮ CRification: utterance type calculated is weak (e.g. incomplete word recognition); need further information to spell out token (e.g. incomplete contextual resolution).
54 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Pending: composition
◮ Utterances are kept track of in a contextual attribute pending in the immediate aftermath of the speech event. ◮ Given a presupposition that u is the most recent speech event and that Tu is a grammatical type that classifies u, a record of the form sit = u (of type LocProp (locutionary "sit-type = Tu# proposition)), gets added to pending.
55 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Grounding and Clarification Interaction
◮ Grounding: utterance u understood: update MOVES with u ◮ Clarification Interaction: 1. u remains for future processing in PENDING; 2. a clarification question calculated from u, CQ(u) updates QUD (CQ(u) becomes discourse topic)
56 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Grounding and Clarification Interaction I ◮ Grounding (Clark, 1996), utterance u understood: update MOVES with prop(u, Tu) ◮ Clarification Interaction: 1. The locutionary proposition prop(u, Tu) remains for future processing in PENDING; 2. a clarification question CQ(u, Tu) calculated from u and Tu, updates QUD (CQ(u, Tu) becomes the discourse topic). ◮ If this interaction is successful, this leads to a new, more detailed (or corrected) representation of either u or Tu.
57 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Grounding and Clarification Interaction II
◮ Extended to Own communication management / disfluencies (self-corrections, hesitations etc) in (Ginzburg, Fern´andez and Schlangen 2014 ‘Disfluencies as intra-utterance moves’ Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(9)1–64). ◮ As the utterance unfolds incrementally there potentially arise questions about what has happened so far (e.g. what did the speaker mean with sub-utterance u1?) or what is still to come (e.g. what word does the speaker mean to utter after sub-utterance u2?). ◮ These can be accommodated into the context if either uncertainty about the correctness of a sub-utterance arises or the speaker has planning or realizational problems.
58 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Grounding and Clarification Interaction III
◮ Thus, the monitoring and update/clarification cycle is modified to happen at the end of each word utterance event, and in case of the need for repair, a repair question gets accommodated into QUD.
59 / 85 Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Back to Quotation I
◮ The ontology we have developed for dialogue processing can now be utilized for analyzing the quotation data introduced earlier. ◮ pure quotations denote signs (utterance types) ◮ direct quotations denoting locutionary propositions. ◮ Quotative predicates select for clauses restricted to denote either abstract entities simpliciter or locutionary propositions.
61 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Pure Quotation I ◮ we suggested that a pure quotation utterance concerns potentially the entire information about the sign, not merely its phonological form. ◮ This can be captured by using the construction type in (20), wherein the content of the quoted phrase is the whole sign-type. ◮ One additional aspect of this construction concerns its contextual parameters. We specify that these all get absorbed and the construction, hence, has no contextual parameters:
62 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Pure Quotation II
(20) pure-quot-ph = phon: T.phon c-params : [] cont= T : RecType
T : Sign head-dtr " :T#
63 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation I
◮ It has been argued that in dialogue an utterance u0 is represented in an interlocutor’s DGB by means of a locutionary proposition, a proposition whose situational component is the utterance event u0 and whose type
component is a grammatical type Tu0,Γ0 assigned to the utterance by a given grammatical resource Γ0. ◮ Our analysis of direct quotation assigns to such clauses as their content a locutionary proposition, with the situational component being the (original) utterance event and the type
component a grammatical type Tu0,Γ0 assigned to the utterance by a grammatical resource associated with the person reporting the speech.
64 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation II ◮ This is key both in capturing the similarity with indirect quotation (see data above examples (12)) and Partee–inspired data such as examples (2) above.
65 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation III
◮ Beyond this, though we emphasize that by postulating locutionary propositions as the denotations of direct quotation, we are offering a direct answer to the question we had posed earlier, namely Why is direct quotation so easy? ◮ The answer is that this is because it exploits mechanisms ubiquitously used for dialogue processing. ◮ By analyzing direct quotation complements as denoting locutionary propositions, which include as a component a sign we can capture simultaneously the type and token aspects of such complements. ◮ Indeed the fact that a single predication can address both type and token aspects, as in (21):
66 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation IV (21) a. ‘Was I snoring’ was asked by Bill and is a frequently used interrogative clause. b. ‘Am I snoring?’ asked Bill, a sentence frequently uttered by men who don’t think they snore. It is usually answered by ‘You were before you woke up.’
67 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation V
◮ The construction we associate with this type is a fairly minor variant on the one we posited for pure quotation. ◮ The crucial difference is that although the contextual parameters of the original type have been projected away, a new one is projected to include the utterance event. ◮ To this we need to add constraints that relate the utterance event and the grammatical type appearing in the construction. ◮ As we discussed earlier, what we need to enforce is similarity between the original utterance u and the type T used to quote it—we capture this in terms of a similarity measure µ and a set of grammatical resources Γ, the relationships between which we explicate below:
68 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation VI (22) a. direct-quot-ph = phon = T.phon : phoncat cat = T.cat : syncat u : Rec c-params µ : SimilarityMeasure : Γ : set(GrammType) c1 : Similar(T , u, µ, Γ) sit = u cont = : LocProp "sit-type = T#
T : GrammType head-dtr " :T #
69 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation VII
◮ Let Γ be a set of grammatical resources. We will not specify this formally here (see e.g., Cooper and Ranta (2008)). If u is a speech event and Γ a set of grammatical resources we use Γ(u) to represent the sign type assigned to u by Γ (ignoring the possibility that several alternative sign types may be provided for u). ◮ A similarity measure on types is a pair of a threshold θ and a binary function µ0 on types which returns a real number for any pair of types and whose maximum value is returned for any pair of identical types and for which any value greater than θ indicates similarity.
70 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Direct Quotation VIII
◮ If e is a speech event, T a grammatical type, µ a similarity measure and Γ a set of grammatical resources, the type Similar(T , u, µ, Γ)
is non-empty iff there exists a grammatical type T1 such that T1 ⊑ Γ1(e) e : T , and µ0(T1, T ) ≥ θ
71 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Quotative Predicates I
◮ We illustrate this with three lexical entries: one for a quotative predicate like ‘be like’, one for ‘ask’ taking a direct quotation complement, and one for an indirect quotation complement of ‘ask’. ◮ In the two first cases the complement selected is a locutionary proposition, representing an utterance whose speaker is identical to the entity associated with the subject of the predicate. ◮ The cont value of the predicate is identified with the value of the utterance component of the locutionary proposition. ◮ For ‘be like’ this can be any kind of illocutionary act,
72 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Quotative Predicates II ◮ And we could extend this somewhat to allow for speech events like, say, grunts that might not be illocutionary in a strict sense. ◮ whereas for direct ‘ask’ this has to be a query. ◮ In the final indirect case of ‘ask’, one simply unifies in the question–denoting complement daughter and the referent of the subject daughter:
73 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Quotative Predicates III (23) a. phon : be like cat = v[+fin] : PoS spr-dtr : np ∧ content = x : Ind conth i = p : LocProp comp-dtr : p.sit-type.ctxt-params.spkr = x : IND i = p.sit.cont : IllocProp cont = i : IllocProp
74 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Quotative Predicates IV b. phon : ask cat = v[+fin] : PoS spr-dtr : np ∧ content = x : Ind conth = p : LocPropi p.sit-type.ctxt-params.spkr = x : IND comp-dtr : q : Question i = Ask(x,q) : IllocProp cont = i : IllocProp
75 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Back to Quotation
Quotative Predicates V
c. phon : ask cat = v[+fin] : PoS spr-dtr : np ∧ content = x : Ind h i comp-dtr : cont= q : Question cont = Ask(x,q)h : Prop i
76 / 85 Outline
Introduction
Basic quotation data Pure quotation Direct quotation Quotative operators
A Dialogical Perspective on Semantics
Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Back to Quotation Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Concluding Remarks
◮ Direct and pure quotation often viewed as mysterious, requiring unorthodox semantic/logical treatment, despite direct quotation being typologically universal and ontogenetically prior to indirect. ◮ Type Theory with Records (TTR), an outgrowth of Situation Theory and Constructive Type Theory, provides speech events and their types simultaneously as first class citizens of the semantic ontology. ◮ This enables us to analyze quotation using mechanisms posited in KoS for routine utterance processing in dialogue—locutionary propositions, Austinian propositions about speech events.
78 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Many Thanks
79 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Bibliography I
Austin, J. L. (1961). Truth. In J. Urmson and G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press. Paper originally published in 1950. Barwise, J. and J. Etchemendy (1987). The Liar. New York: Oxford University Press. Bonami, O. and D. Godard (2008). On the syntax of direct quotation in French. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, pp. 358–377. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Bibliography II Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In R. Kempson, N. Asher, and T. Fernando (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 14: Philosophy of Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cooper, R. and A. Ranta (2008). Natural languages as collections of resources,. In R. Cooper and R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution. London: College Publications. Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision 11(1), 27–40. Everett, D. (2012). Quotatives in wari’ and piraha: different strategies for reporting the contents of other minds. Slides from Bochum Quotation Workshop.
81 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Bibliography III
Geurts, B. and E. Maier (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 17, 109ˆo`o´o28. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ginzburg, J. and S. Moradlou (2013). The earliest utterances in dialogue: towards a formal theory of parent/child talk in interaction. In R. Fern´andez and A. Isard (Eds.), Proceedings of SemDial 2013 (DialDam), University of Amsterdam. Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag (2000). Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning and use of English Interrogatives. Number 123 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford: California: CSLI Publications.
82 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Bibliography IV Healey, P., M. Purver, J. King, J. Ginzburg, and G. Mills (2003). Experimenting with clarification in dialogue. In R. Alterman and D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 539–544. Mahwah, N.J.: LEA. Partee, B. (1973). The syntax and semantics of quotation. A festschrift for Morris Halle, 410–418. Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford University Press Oxford. Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In P. Jacobson and C. Barker (Eds.), Direct Compositionality, pp. 405–431. Purver, M. (2004). The Theory and Use of Clarification in Dialogue. Ph. D. thesis, King’s College, London.
83 / 85 Quotation and underlying grammatical type theory Conclusion
Bibliography V
Purver, M., P. G. T. Healey, J. King, J. Ginzburg, and G. J. Mills (2003, July). Answering clarification questions. In Proceedings of the 4th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Sapporo. ACL. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, Mass: MIT press. Sag, I. A., T. Wasow, and E. Bender (2003). Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction (second edition). Stanford: CSLI. Werning, M. (2012). Making quotation transparent. Slides from Bochum Quotation Workshop.
84 / 85