Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:12:10.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Action sequences instead of representational levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Ruth Kempson  and
Eleni Gregoromichelaki
Ruth Kempson
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, King's College, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom. ruth.kempson@kcl.ac.ukhttp://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/people/staff/associates/emeritus/kempson/index.aspx
Eleni Gregoromichelaki
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, King's College, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom. ruth.kempson@kcl.ac.ukhttp://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/people/staff/associates/emeritus/kempson/index.aspx Cognitive Science Department, Osnabrück University, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany. elenigregor@gmail.comhttps://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=WnwSV4cAAAAJ&hl=en
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite enthusiastic agreement that experimental data are directly relevant for determining grammar architecture, we present one main objection to the conclusions that the authors draw from their results: The data are perfectly compatible – in fact, much more in line – with an alternative that does not rely on syntactic representations. Instead, it is processing actions whose activation for comprehension/production explains intra-/inter-speaker priming.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Bock, K. & Loebell, H. (1990) Framing sentences. Cognition 35(1):1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90035-I.Google Scholar
Cann, R., Kempson, R. & Marten, L. (2005) The dynamics of language: An introduction. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (2012) Type theory and semantics in flux. In: Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol. 14: Philosophy of linguistics, ed. Kempson, R., Asher, N. & Fernando, T., pp. 271–323. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Covington, N. V. & Duff, M. C. (2016) Expanding the language network: Direct contributions from the hippocampus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(12):869–70.Google Scholar
Eshghi, A., Hough, J. & Purver, M. (2013) Incremental grammar induction from child-directed dialogue utterances. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL), Sofia, Bulgaria, August 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 2015), pp. 261–71. Queen Mary University of London, UK, April 2015.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., Bock, K., Wilson, M. P. & Cohen, N. J. (2008) Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science 19(9):940–46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02180.x.Memory.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2013) Grammar as action in language and music. In: Language, music and interaction, ed. Orwin, M., Howes, C. & Kempson, R., pp. 93–134. College Publications.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017) Quotation in dialogue. In: The semantics and pragmatics of quotation, ed. Saka, P. & Johnson, M.. Springer.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E. & Kempson, R. (2013) The role of intentions in dialogue processing. In: Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, ed. Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F. & Carapezza, M., pp. 185–216. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E. & Kempson, R. (2015) Joint utterances and the (split-)turn taking puzzle. In: Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society, ed. Mey, J. L. & Capone, A., pp. 703–43. Springer.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E. & Kempson, R. (forthcoming) Procedural syntax. In: Relevance: Pragmatics and interpretation, ed. Scott, K., Clark, B. & Carston, R.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R, Howes, C. & Eshghi, A. (2013) On making syntax dynamic: The challenge of compound utterances and the architecture of the grammar. In: Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication, ed. Wachsmuth, I., de Ruiter, J., Jaecks, P. & Kopp, S., pp. 57–86. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills, G. & Cann, R. (2011) Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, P. G. T, Purver, M. & Howes, C. (2014) Divergence in dialogue. PLoS ONE 9(2):e98598. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hough, J. (2015) Modelling incremental self-repair processing in dialogue. Doctoral thesis. Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar
Hough, J. & Purver, M. (2017) Probabilistic record type lattices for incremental reference processing. In: Modern perspectives in type-theoretical semantics, ed. Chatzikyriakidis, S. & Luo, Z., pp. 189–222. Springer.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2016) Language as mechanisms for interaction. Theoretical linguistics 42(3–4):203–76. doi:10.1515/tl-2016-0011.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2017) Action-based grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 43(1–2):141–67. Published Online: 2017-06-09. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2017-0012 Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. & Gabbay, D. (2001) Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Myslín, M. & Levy, R. (2016) Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: Evidence from syntactic processing. Cognition 147:29–56. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.021.Google Scholar
Purver, M., Eshghi, A. & Hough, J. (2011) Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics, ed. Bos, J. & Pulman, S., pp. 365–9. The Digital Library of The Association of Computational Linguistics. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2002669&picked=prox.Google Scholar
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 the Fourteenth Workshop on the Aspects of Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. ed. P. Lupkowski & Purver, M., pp. 43–50. Polish Society for Cognitive Science (Poznań).Google Scholar
Sato, Y. (2011) Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in dynamic syntax. In: The dynamics of lexical interfaces, ed. Gregoromichelaki, E. & Howes, C., pp. 205–34. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar