Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Paper 1

Integrating Conversational Move Types in the

Grammar of Conversation
Jonathan Ginzburg and Ivan A. Sag and Matthew Purver
fginzburg,purvergd s.k l.a .uk
sag sli.stanford.edu
http://www.d s.k l.a .uk/fstaff/ginzburg, pg/purverg
http://www- sli.stanford.edu/~sag

Abstra t

Analyses of dialogue that in orporate the insights of spee h a t theory presuppose that an ut-
teran e gets asso iated with a onversational move type (CMT). Due to diÆ ulties that beset
attempts to integrate CMTs into grammar in early generative work, as well as the per eived
problems on erning multifun tionality, CMT information is typi ally not in luded in most for-
mal grammati al analyses. We provide arguments as to why CMT does need to be integrated in
grammati al analysis of onversation. We o er a proposal for su h an integration ou hed in Head
Driven Phrase Stru ture Grammar (HPSG). We sket h explanations as to why our proposal does
not run into the foundational and empiri al pitfalls that have beset previous proposals.

1 Introdu tion

Categorizing utteran es in terms of a notion of illo utionary for e or onversational move type
(CMT) is ommon in orpus-based work (for some re ently proposed CMT taxonomies, see (Car-
letta et al., 1996), (Core & Allen, 1997)). Indeed any analysis of dialogue that in orporates the
insights of spee h a t theory presupposes that an utteran e ultimately gets asso iated with a
CMT. Nonetheless, there exist few attempts to integrate su h notions into ontemporary formal
grammati al work. In part, this is due to the fa t that most grammati al formalisms to date
have been designed with monologue or text in mind, where this issue is easier to put aside than
in onversational settings. A more prin ipled reason for this la una is perhaps the phenomenon
of multifun tionality (see e.g. (Allwood, 1995)): it is often the ase that a given utteran e serves
more than one purpose|an assertion an fun tion also as an o er, a query as a suggestion et .
This has often led to the feeling that issues pertaining to CMT belong entirely to the realm of
pragmati s. Although no worked out pragmati theory as to how CMTs get assigned to utteran es
has emerged to date, the one in uential series of attempts to subsume CMT into the grammar,
based on the Performative Hypothesis (PH) is generally viewed to have been a resounding failure
(see (Levinson, 1983), pp. 247-263).
In this paper we argue that CMT an and should be integrated in the semanti analyses
provided by the grammar. That is, CMT is a parameter of meaning onventionally asso iated
with ertain words and lasses of phrases. For instan e, in hearing an utteran e by A of a senten e
su h as (1a), we laim that a ompetent interlo uter B knows that its meaning is the template
BI-DIALOG 2001 (P. K uhnlein, H. Rieser, & H. Zeevat (eds)).
Paper 1, Copyright 2001, Jonathan Ginzburg and Ivan A. Sag and Matthew Purver
fginzburg,purvergd s.k l.a .uk
sag sli.stanford.edu
http://www.d s.k l.a .uk/ fstaff/ginzburg, pg/purver g
http://www- sli.stanford.edu/~sag.
s hemati ally given as (1b), not simply the proposition (1 ). That is, B knows that in order to
ground A's utteran e she must try to instantiate the parameters A; t; l; P within the template
given in (1b) in su h a way as to satisfy the onstraints provided by the grammar (e.g. A must
be the speaker, t must be a time the day after utteran e time, P ranges over a set that in ludes
fassert, threaten, promise,: : :g, but not over, for instan e, fask, ex laim, apologize,: : :g)1

(1) a. A: I will leave tomorrow.

b. ( (
P A; B; leave leaver : A; time : t; lo ation : l))
. (
leave A; time : t; lo ation : l)))
The paper is stru tured as follows: we start by providing a ouple of on rete arguments as
to why CMT does need to be integrated in grammati al analysis of onversation. We then o er
a proposal for su h an integration ou hed in Head Driven Phrase Stru ture Grammar (HPSG).
We sket h explanations as to why our proposal does not run into the problems asso iated with
the PH, or other foundational and empiri al pitfalls.

2 Motivation for integrating CMT in grammati al analysis

Although there are a variety of versions of the PH, they essentially boil down to positing that all
(English) matrix senten es have the form I illo -verb S, where I is the rst person singular pronoun
and illo -verb is a verb from the lass of performative verbs (e.g. assert, ask, order, bet, : : :). For
all matrix senten es whi h do not have this form overtly, the PH involves the assumption that
the `illo utionary pre x' I illo -verb is not realized at the surfa e but is represented at some other
synta ti level. In its formulations in the 1970s, at least, the PH ran into a variety of problems,
the most serious of whi h revolved around the diÆ ulty of maintaining a oherent de nition of
truth for de laratives. The diÆ ulty arises from the parallelism that the PH enfor es between
senten es that la k an overt illo utionary pre x (e.g. (2a)) and expli it performatives (e.g. (2b)):
(2) a. Snow is bla k.
b. I laim that snow is bla k.
Su h a parallelism is untenable be ause it either on ates the truth onditions of quite on-
tingent senten es su h as (2a) with those of (2b), whi h, essentially, be ome true on e they are
uttered. Alternatively, the parallelism requires a mysterious ltering away of the semanti e e t
of the illo utionary pre x. Despite the diÆ ulties for the PH, we argue that in fa t there are
good reasons for assuming that the ontents spe i ed by the grammar do ontain CMTs as a
onstituent. Our rst argument on erns the existen e of words that a tually arry their CMT on
their sleeve. Examples of su h words are given in (3):
(3) a. [Context: A sees B as she enters a building℄ A: Hi.
b. [Context: A enters train arriage, sees B leave℄ A: Bye.
. [Context: in a bus queue A slips and unintentionally pushes B℄ A: Sorry.
d. [Context: B is a bus ondu tor who gives A a ti ket.℄ A: Thanks.
A ompetent speaker of English might paraphrase ea h of these utteran es as in (4):
1 How any of these values get instantiated, if indeed B manages to do so, an involve highly omplex reasoning
(involving e.g. domain-spe i knowledge, reasoning about intentions et ) with whi h of ourse the grammar as
su h provides no assistan e. However, the use of su h reasoning to resolve the value of a onstituent of ontent also
a e ts onstituents of ontent (e.g. tense and anaphora) that lie un ontroversially within the realm of semanti s.
Hen e, this annot be used as an argument against integrating CMT within grammati al analysis.

(4) a. A greeted B.
b. A bid farewell to B.
. A apologized to B (for having pushed her).
d. A thanked B (for giving her a ti ket).
This an be used as eviden e that these words are asso iated with meanings s hematized as
in (5). In these representations, the main predi ate onstitutes the CMT asso iated with the
utteran e, whereas m(es)s(a)g(e)-arg indi ates the semanti type of the propositional/des riptive
ontent sele ted by the CMT. Note a ontrast illustrated in (4): whereas both [the relations
denoted by℄ apologize and thank sele t lausal omplements (whose denotations) onstitute the
des riptive ontent, there is no su h sele tion by greet and bid-farewell. This provides some of the
motivation for assuming that these latter should not spe i ed for a msg-arg, in other words that
su h spee h a ts have no des riptive ontent.
(5) a. Hi: greet(speaker,addressee,msg-arg:none)

b. Bye: bid-farewell(speaker,addressee,msg-arg:none)

. Sorry: apologize(speaker,addressee,msg-arg: event)

d. Thanks: thank(speaker,addressee,msg-arg: event)
If we assumed the existen e of a `post-semanti module' whi h asso iates CMTs with the (de-
s riptive) ontents provided by the grammar, we would run into signi ant problems. To get the
right result for hi, we would need to assume that a null des riptive ontent however represented
somehow gets asso iated with the CMT greet. But this would result in a problem with bye,
utteran es of whi h equally la k a des riptive ontent.2 Assuming underspe i ation|e.g. null
des riptive ontent asso iates with, say, greet _ bid-farewell|would lead to the unintuitive ex-
pe tation that hi and bye potentially allow for multiple CMTs. Assuming that eventive des riptive
ontents are asso iated with the CMT of apologize or alternatively with thank or are under-
spe i ed between, say, apology and thank, would lead to similar problems mutatis mutandis.
Thus, in their representation in the lexi on su h words must have a CMT asso iated with them.
A se ond argument on erns reprise utteran es. It has been argued (see e.g. (Ginzburg &
Sag, 1999; Ginzburg & Cooper, 2001)) that utteran es su h as B's in (6a,b) an be understood
(on the ` lausal' reading, where the addressee veri es she has understood the ontent of the
utteran e orre tly) as in the respe tive parenthesized paraphrases; whereas B's utteran e in (6 )
unambiguously involves the adja ent parenthesized ontent:
(6) a. A: Who left? B: Who left? ( lausal reading: Are you asking who left?)
b. A: Go home Billie. B: Go home? ( lausal reading: Are you ordering me, of all things, to
go home?)
2 An anonymous reviewer for BIDIALOG expresses skepti ism about this argument on the grounds that our
assumption that hi and bye la k des riptive ontent is dubious. Before turning to onsider this assumption, we
should point out that our argument here is a tually independent of this assumption, as it applies equally to pairs
su h as sorry and thanks, whi h learly do possess a des riptive ontent. The reviewer questions our assumption
that hi and bye la k des riptive ontent by pointing to the existen e of expressions su h as good morning, good
afternoon, and good night. A ording to the reviewer `[these℄ all have the same CMT but a di erent ontent'. We
agree with the reviewer that, at least to a rst approximation, hi, good morning, and good afternoon all involve
the same CMT, namely greeting (good night is a tually akin to bye, as it is used to bid a no turnal farewell by
onversationalists who will not speak again before the morrow.). Where these words di er is in terms of their
presuppositions|good morning presupposes that the utteran e time is basi ally before noon, good afternoon that
the utteran e time is basi ally before sundown, whereas hi arries no temporal presupposition. En oding these
varying presuppositions does not require postulating a des riptive ontent for the a t of greeting (see footnote 8 for
exempli ation.).

. A: Did Belula resign? B: Did WHO resign? (unambiguously: Whoi are you asking
whether i resigned?)
If su h paraphrases are the orre t basis for an analysis of su h utteran es, this indi ates
that in reprise utteran es at least CMT (the CMT of the pre eding utteran e, to be pre ise) an
be ome a onstituent of the des riptive ontent of an utteran e.3 In other words, CMT be omes
a onstituent of the ontent the grammar in ontrovertibly needs to build up.
In fa t, following (Ginzburg & Sag, 2000), we suggest that reprise utteran es provide a probe
that allows one to lter away the indire t for e of an utteran e and establish a single dire t CMT
with a given utteran e.4 Consider (7), uttered outside a West End theater urrently showing a
best selling musi al:
(7) (1) Stina: I have a ti ket for tonight's performan e.
(2) Padraig: You have a ti ket for tonight's performan e?
(3) Stina: Yes.

(8) a. I'm o ering to sell a ti ket for tonight's performan e.

b. Are you laiming that you have a ti ket for tonight's performan e?
. Are you saying that you wish to sell a ti ket for tonight's performan e
d. I'm laiming that I have a ti ket for tonight's performan e.
e. I'm o ering to sell a ti ket for tonight's performan e.
Stina's utteran e (7[1℄) ould naturally be understood to onvey (8a). However, Padraig's reprise|
(7[2℄)|merely requests lari ation of the laim Stina made; it an be understood solely as (8b),
not as (8 ). This an be further demonstrated by noting that yes in (7[3℄) onveys (8d) in this
ontext, but annot onvey (8e), despite the salien e of the o er.5
Indeed, far from asting doubt on the assumption that grammati ally asso iated CMTs exist,
we believe that the phenomenon of multifun tionality strengthens the need for the assumption.
In order to deal with indire tly onveyed messages su h as (8a), one will need to state domain
axioms whose ante edents will often involve a ontent with a gramati ally asso iated CMT. For
instan e, If agent A states to B that he has a ti ket, he might wish to sell it to B, rather than simply
If agent A has a ti ket, he might wish to sell it to B. Programming a robot with the latter axiom

is a re ipe for disaster, as the robot will hassle any approa hing theatre-goer, rather than solely
loudly de laiming touts.
3 This laim was originally made, independently, by (Ginzburg, 1992) and (Ja obs, 1991).
4 Using reprises as su h a probe was rst suggested to us by Ri hmond Thomason in an oral dis ussion that
followed presentation of (Ginzburg & Sag, 1999).
5 Our dis ussion of these data is of ne essity all too brief. As dis ussed in (Ginzburg & Cooper, 2001), reprises
exemplify an additional reading dubbed the onstituent-reading, whi h involves a request for reformulation of the
import of the reprised (sub)-utteran e. Thus, for an referential NP utteran e, as in (i), this will be understood as
a request for referen e resolution:
(i) Andie: Did Jo leave?
Bo: Jo?
Andie: Your ousin.
Given this, reprises su h as (7[2℄) will also yield readings paraphrasable as (ii), where the inferred omponent of
ontent is not ne essarily ltered away:
(ii) Shi: What do you mean by saying you have a ti ket for tonight's performan e?
yes, however, is an inappropriate response to this reading.

3 Integrating CMT into a onstraint-based grammar

We adopt a version of HPSG developed in (Sag, 1997; Ginzburg & Sag, 2000). The ontent asso-
iated with signs, phrasal or lexi al, is drawn from a situation theoreti ontology. The ontology
distinguishes inter alia questions, propositions, fa ts, situations/events, and out omes. Informa-
tion about phrases is en oded by ross- lassifying them in a multi-dimensional type hierar hy.
Phrases are lassi ed not only in terms of their phrase stru ture s hema or X-bar type, but also
with respe t to a further informational dimension of lausality. Clauses are divided into inter
alia de larative lauses whi h denote propositions, interrogative lauses denoting questions, ex la-
mative lauses denoting fa ts, and imperative lauses denoting out omes. Ea h maximal phrasal
type an inherit from both these dimensions. This lassi ation allows a spe i ation of systemati
orrelations between lausal onstru tion types and types of semanti ontent.
We note two onsiderations that an a ount integrating CMT information into the grammar
needs to heed:
 In order to avoid the problems asso iated with the PH, one has to ensure that the way in
whi h CMT information enters into the ontent of a sign does not a e t the assignment of
(non-CMT) ontent. One must also ensure that a sign that has CMT information (of the
urrent utteran e) annot be embedded as a daughter of another sign.
 In order to des ribe reprise utteran es, one must have the means to let signs with CMT
information be inputs to grammati al onstraints, e.g. to build questions whose queried
proposition ontains CMT information.
We will satisfy these requirements by making a ner grained distin tion than usually made
with respe t to \matrix" (non-embedded) signs. Whereas all signs that annot be omplements
of an embedding predi ate bear the spe i ation i(ndependent) (lause):+, we will introdu e
a further partition among su h signs, depending as to whether or not they an play a role in
re ursive operations of the grammar. Those that annot will be designated as root:+. Before we
an illustrate how this a tually works, we need to bring CMTs into the pi ture.
Our approa h is onsistent with various ontologies of CMTs. The minimal su h ontology one
ould posit involves a 1{1 relationship between what is often alled the ontent of a sign, i.e.
entities of type message (proposition, question, out ome, fa t, : : :) and CMTs: propositions are
asso iated with the CMT of asserting, questions with asking, out omes with ordering, and fa ts
with ex laiming. This involves positing a type illo (utionary)-rel as the immediate supertype of
these four CMTs:
(9) illo -rel

assert-rel ask-rel order-rel ex laim-rel

Ea h of these types introdu es its own onstraint on the type of its msg-arg value:
h i
(10) a. assert-rel ) msg-arg proposition
h i
b. ask-rel ) msg-arg question
h i
. order-rel ) msg-arg out ome
h i
d. ex laim-rel ) msg-arg fa t

Arguably, su h a relationship between message types and CMTs onstitutes something like
a default. But ea h of the afore-mentioned subtypes of message learly does have other uses:
questions an be used `rhetori ally' (also known as a reassertion of a resolved question), out omes
an be suggested, propositions an feature in threats and so on. Thus, an adequate view of

utteran e ontent needs to allow for a ri her ontology of CMTs and for the CMT asso iated with
a given message-type to be underspe i ed. This re nement is easy to implement by (a) positing
more maximal subtypes of illo -rel (e.g. threat-rel, promise-rel, reassert-rel et ) and (b) positing
types intermediate between illo -rel and the leaves of the hierar hy in (9) (e.g. a type prop-illo -
rel whi h would subsume all propositional CMTs|assert-rel, threat-rel, promise-rel et .). In this
abstra t, as in our implementation at present, we maintain the more simplisti view, enshrined in
The nal ingredient we need as far as phrases go is a onstraint that determines the appropriate
ontent value for utteran es, i.e. for root lauses. We propose that the ontent of every root
lause be a proposition whose soa value is of type illo -rel. This proposition represents the belief
an agent forms about the (full, dire t illo utionary) ontent of an utteran e. More spe i ally, this
is the ontent a speaker will assign to her utteran e, as will an addressee in ase ommuni ation is
su essful. Given (9), this will mean that a root lause will be resolved so as to have as its ontent
a proposition whose soa value is of one of the subtypes of illo -rel.
In order to ensure that root lauses have ontents in whi h CMT information is represented,
we posit a type root- l and propose a onstru tional treatment of root utteran es in terms of a
non-bran hing phrasal type (hd-only-ph) that embeds message-denoting senten es as arguments
of an illo -rel. The onstraints idiosyn rati to this onstru tion, akin to a `start' symbol in a
ontext free grammar, are illustrated in (11):6
(11) root- l:
2 3
root +
6 v 7
6head 7
6 vform n 7
6 2 37
6 proposition 7
6 7
6 6 2 377
6 6 illo -rel 77
6 ont 6 1 777 2 3
6 6
6soa 4utterer 77
6 3 557 root
4 addressee
msg-arg 2 7
7 ! H4i +5
6 2 3 7 ont 2
6 7
6 -spkr 1 7
6 ntxtj -indi es 4 -addr 35 7 7
6 4 7
6 -time 7
6 7
6slash f g 7
4 5
store fg
wh fg
Note that the arguments of the illo -rel are identi ed with the appropriate individuals in the
ontext of utteran e. As mentioned above, we now distinguish root lauses from other independent
lauses in terms of positive versus negative spe i ations for the feature root.7
Let us illustrate the e e ts of the onstraint in (11). (12a) has an analysis as a polar question
in whi h it expresses the question in (12b). Therefore, given (10) and (11), the ontent su h a
lause gets as a root utteran e (ignoring tense) is (12 ):

6 The onstraint here relates the mother to its (sole) daughter, denoted with a large bold fa ed H.
7 On this view, signs are [root ℄ by default. Sin e this is the ase, we will suppress [root ℄ spe i ations
on all phrases other than instan es of the type root- l.

(12) a. A: Did Jo leave?
b. 2question 3

6params fg
6 proposition 7
6 7
6 6sit 2 77
6 6 2 377
6prop 6 leave-rel 77
6 6 77
4 4soaj nu l 4leaver 3 555
time 4

b kgrd named( 3 ,Jo), t-pre ede( 5 , 4 )
2 3
-spkr 1
ntxt -indi es 4 -addr 65
-time 5
2 3
. proposition
6sit 0 7
6 2 37
quants hi 7
6 6 2 377
6 6 ask-rel 77
6 6utterer 1 7
6 6 6 6 777
6 6addressee 7 7
6 6 2 3777
6 6 6 question 777
6 6 777
6params f g
6 6
6 6 7777
6soa 6 6 6 2 7
377 7
6 6nu l 6 6 proposition 7777
6 6 6 6 7777
6 6 6msg-arg 6 6sit 2 77777
6 6 6 6 6 2 377777
6 6 6 6prop 6 leave-rel 77777
6 6 6 6 6 77777
6 6 4 4 4soaj nu l 4leaver 3 555577
4 4 55
time 4

b kgrd named( 3 ,Jo), t-pre ede( 5 , 4 )
2 3
-spkr 1
ntxt -indi es 4 -addr 65
-time 5

So far we have fo ussed on phrases. However, one an within this approa h equally des ribe
words su h as those dis ussed in (3){(5). For instan e, the word hi an be des ribed as follows:8
2 3
(13) phon
h hi i 3
 " #
6 7
6 interj 7
6 6 at head 77
6 6 i + 77
6 6 7
6 6 2 377
6 6 proposition 77
6 6 6 0 77
6 6 sit 77
6ssjlo 6 6 2 3777
6 6 6 quants h i 777
6 6 6 2 3777
6 ont 6 6 greet-rel 7 7
6 6 6 6 777
6 6 6soa 6 6 i 77777
7 7
6 6 6 7
4addressee j 5557
6 nu l 7
6 4 4 4 57
6 time k 7
6 7
6 7
6arg-st h i 7
6 2 3 7
6 -spkr i 7
6 7
4 txtj -indi es 4 -addr j 5 5
-time k
8 A lexi al entry for e.g. good morning would involve adding the assumption in b kgrd that the time k is lo ated
before noon.

Note that hi is spe i ed as i :+, whi h means that it annot be embedded. However, it
is underspe i ed for root. This means, as we will soon see, that this entry an be the head-
daughter of a reprise onstru tion (re e ting ases su h as [Context: A is a rusty brigadier, B a
raw re ruit℄ B: Hi. A (growls): Hi? (= Are you greeting me)).9; 10
Finally, we explain brie y how the CMT of the previous utteran e enters as a onstituent
of the ontent of ertain reprise utteran es. We assume the a ount developed in (Ginzburg
& Cooper, 2001) of how lari ations arise during attempted integration of an utteran e in a
onversationalist's information state (IS). Simplifying somewhat, on this view a ne essary ondition
for B to ground an utteran e by A is that B manage to nd values for the ontextual parameters
of the meaning of the utteran e. What happens when B annot or is at least un ertain as to how
he should instantiate in his IS a ontextual parameter i? In su h a ase B needs to do at least
the following: (1) perform a partial update of the existing ontext with the su essfully pro essed
omponents of the utteran e (2) pose a lari ation question that involves referen e to the sub-
utteran e ui from whi h i emanates. Sin e the original speaker, A, an oherently integrate a
lari ation question on e she hears it, it follows that, for a given utteran e, there is a predi table
range of < partial updates + onsequent lari ation questions>. These we take to be spe i ed by
a set of oer ion operations on utteran e representations.11 Indeed we assume that a omponent
of dialogue ompeten e is knowledge of these oer ion operations.
One su h operation is dubbed parameter fo ussing by (Ginzburg & Cooper, 2001). This involves
a (partially updated) ontext in whi h the issue under dis ussion is a question that arises by
instantiating all ontextual parameters ex ept for i and abstra ting over i. In su h a ontext,
one an on rm that i gets the value B suspe ts it has by uttering with rising intonation any
apparently o-referential phrase whose synta ti ategory is identi al to u1's (see (6a,b) above).
One onstru tion type appropriate for this ontext are reprise interrogative lauses (repr-int- l).
In the framework of (Ginzburg & Sag, 2000) they are des ribed by means of the following s hema:
(14)2repr-int- l 3
2 "  #3
2 3 +
6 question 7 i
6 7 6 at head
n 7
6 ont 4params 3 57 6 vform 7
6 prop

1 soajnu ljmsg-arg
2 7 ! H 6
6 ont 2
6 7 6 7
4store 1 7
4store ( 1 ℄ 3 ) 5
b kgrnd prev-utt( 0 ), ont( 0 , 1 ) ℄ 2 b kgrd

To illustrate this: a reprise of (12a) an be performed using (15a). This an be assigned the
ontent in (15b) on the basis of the s hema in (14):12
9 As with all CE utteran es, this one an be understood in a number of ways. In this ase, the onstituent
reading alluded to in footnote 5 is possibly even more prominent. It would yield a reading paraphrasable as what
do10you mean by saying hi to me.
Underspe ifying hi for root might suggest that it ould fun tion as the head daughter in (11), thereby yielding
an unwanted reading I assert that I greet you. However, in the framework of (Ginzburg & Sag, 2000) all headed
phrases are subje t to the Generalized Head Feature Prin iple (GHFP), whi h involves the synsem value of the
mother of a headed phrase and that of its head daughter being identi al by default. This means that the head
daughter of a root- l is spe i ed to be atjhead:v[ n℄; hi (as its relatives bye, sorry, thanks et ) is spe i ed as
atjhead: interj, and hen e annot serve as the head daughter of a root- l.
11 The term oer ion operation is inspired by work on utteran e representation within a type theoreti framework
reported in (Cooper, 1998).
12 Note that the previous utteran e identi ed the utterer of the ask-rel with the speaker of that utteran e (this is
ensured by the onstraint in (11) on the type root). Hen e, the utterer of the ask-rel in the ontent of the reprise
must also be that individual, indi ated as spkr 0 in (15).

Did WHO leave?
2 3
repr-int- l
6store f g 7
6 2 37
6 question 7
6 (  7
6 6 ) 77
6 6 ind k 77
6 6params 4 77
6 6 restr fperson(k )g 77
6 6 77
6 6 2 2 3377
6 ask-rel 77
6 77
6 6 6 6utterer spkr 0 7777
6 6 6 6 2 77
6 6 6 6 question 77
6 ont 6 6 6  7777
6 6 6 6 6 77
6 6 6 6 6
7 77
6 6 6 6 6 2 377777
6prop 36 6soajnu l 6
6 6 6 proposition 77777
6 6 6 77777
6 6 6 6msg-arg 26 6sit s 777777
6 6 6 6 6 2 3777777
quants h i
6 6 6
6 6 6prop 6 7 7777
6 6 6 6 6 6   777777
6 6 6 6 4 4 soa 4 leave-rel 557
6 4 4 4 nu l 5557
6 leaver k 7
6 7
4  5
b kgrnd prev-utt( 0 ), ont( 0 , 3 )

2 3
pol-int- l
4store f 4 g5
ont 2


Did WHO leave

wh-less reprises, as in (6a,b), are a ommodated as a spe ial ase of no parameters being
abstra ted over. Reprise uses of hi an be similarly analyzed, using an instantiation of (13) with

4 Con lusions and Future Work

In this paper, we have presented a number of arguments that indi ate the need to integrate
CMT information in grammars intended to analyze onversational intera tion. One su h argu-
ment on erns the proper analysis of words su h as hi, thanks, sorry whi h an stand alone as
omplete utteran es. Another arguent derives from the onsideration of reprise utteran es. We
have sket hed brie y the basi s of an HPSG in whi h CMT information is integrated. This gram-
mar has been implemented as part of the SHARDS system (Ginzburg, Gregory, & Lappin, 2001).
In future work we hope to show how grammars of this type an, when integrated with domain
knowledge, o er insightful solutions to the many puzzles posed by multifun tionality.

A knowledgements

We would like to thank three anonymous BIDIALOG reviewers for very useful omments. The
resear h des ribed here is funded by grant number R00022269 from the E onomi and So ial Re-
sear h Coun il of the United Kingdom and by grant number GR/R04942/01 from the Engineering
and Physi al S ien es Resear h Coun il of the United Kingdom.


Allwood, J. (1995). An a tivity based approa h to pragmati s. In Gothenburg Papers in Theoreti al

Linguisti s, No. 76. Dept. of Linguisti s, University of Goteborg.
Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Anderson, A. (1996). Map
task oder's manual. HCRC Resear h Paper, RP-82.
Cooper, R. (1998). Mixing situation theory and type theory to formalize information states in
dialogue ex hanges. In Hulstijn, J. & Nijholt, A. (Eds.), Pro eedings of TwenDial 98, 13th
Twente workshop on Language Te hnology. Twente University, Twente.
Core, M. & Allen, J. (1997). Coding dialogs with the damsl s heme. Working notes of the AAAI
Fall Symposium on Communi ative A tion in Humans and Ma hines.
Ginzburg, J. (1992). Questions, Queries, and Fa ts: a semanti and pragmati s for interrogatives.
Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Ginzburg, J. & Cooper, R. (2001). Resolving ellipsis in lari ation. In Pro eedings of the 39th
Meeting of the Asso iation for Computational Linguisti s.
Ginzburg, J., Gregory, H., & Lappin, S. (2001). SHARDS: fragment resolution in dialogue. In
Bunt, H. (Ed.), Pro eedings of the 1st International Workshop on Computational Semanti s.
ITK, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. (1999). Constru tional ambiguity in onversation. In Dekker, P. (Ed.),
Pro eedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, Amsterdam.
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning and use of English
Interrogatives. No. 123 in CSLI Le ture Notes. CSLI Publi ations, Stanford: California.
Ja obs, J. (1991). Implikaturen und `alte information' in w-fragen. In Reis, M. & Rosengren, I.
(Eds.), Fragesatze und Fragen. Niemayer, Tubingen.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmati s. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sag, I. (1997). English relative lause onstru tions. Journal of Linguisti s, 33, 431{484.