CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesSpeech and dialogue systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on Processing Contexts in Dynamic Syntax

Open access
Howes, Christine, Eshghi, Arash·2021·Journal of Logic, Language and Information
DOI 10.1007/s10849-020-09328-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Feedback such as backchannels and clarification requests often occurs subsententially, demonstrating the incremental nature of grounding in dialogue. However, although such feedback can occur at any point within an utterance, it typically does not do so, tending to occur at Feedback Relevance Spaces (FRSs). We present a corpus study of acknowledgements and clarification requests in British English, and describe how our low-level, semantic processing model in Dynamic Syntax accounts for this feedback. The model trivially accounts for the 85% of cases where feedback occurs at FRSs, but we also describe how it can be integrated or interpreted at non-FRSs using the predictive, incremental and interactive nature of the formalism. This model shows how feedback serves to continually realign processing contexts and thus manage the characteristic divergence and convergence that is key to moving dialogue forward.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10849-020-09328-1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 78 · Cited by 16

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195–225. · DOI
  2. Bavelas, J. B., De Jong, P., Korman, H., & Jordan, S. S. (2012). Beyond back-channels: A three-step model of grounding in face-to-face dialogue. In: Proceedings of Interdisciplinary Workshop on Feedback Behaviors in Dialog (pp. 5–6).
  3. Blackburn, P., & Meyer-Viol, W. (1994). Linguistics, logic and finite trees. Logic Journal of the Interest Group of Pure and Applied Logics, 2(1), 3–29.
  4. Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2019). Subversive completions: Turn-taking resources for commandeering the recipient’s action in progress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 144–158. · DOI
  5. Bouzouita, M. (2008). At the syntax-pragmatics interface: Clitics in the history of Spanish, In R. Cooper & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination (pp. 221–264). London: Language Variation, Change and Evolution, College Publications.
  6. Burnard, L. (2000). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (World ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.
  7. Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Marten, L. (2005). The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Elsevier.
  8. Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Purver, M. (2007). Context and well-formedness: The dynamics of ellipsis. Research on Language and Computation, 5(3), 333–358. · DOI
  9. Chatzikyriakidis, S., & Kempson, R. (2011). Standard Modern and Pontic Greek person restrictions: A feature-free dynamic account. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 11, 127–166. · DOI
  10. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  11. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Clark, H. H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 567–598. · DOI
  13. Cooper, R. (2005). Records and record types in semantic theory. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(2), 99–112. · DOI
  14. Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In R. Kempson, N. Asher, & T. Fernando (Eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 14, pp. 271–323). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North Holland. · DOI
  15. Cooper, R., & Ginzburg, J. (2015). Type Theory with Records for natural language semantics (Vol. 12, pp. 375–407). New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch12. · DOI
  16. de Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515–535. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Dobnik, S., Cooper, R., & Larsson, S. (2012). Modelling language, action, and perception in Type Theory with Records. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing (pp. 51–63).
  18. Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In K. Foppa & I. Markova (Eds.), Asymmetries in Dialogue (pp. 29–48). Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf.
  19. Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2), 283–292. · DOI
  20. Duncan, S. (1974). On the structure of speaker–auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society, 3(2), 161–180. · DOI
  21. Eshghi, A. (2009). Uncommon ground: The distribution of dialogue contexts. Ph.d thesis, Queen Mary University of London.
  22. Eshghi, A. (2015). DS-TTR: An incremental, semantic, contextual parser for dialogue. In Proceedings of the 19th SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (goDial) (pp. 172–173).
  23. Eshghi, A., & Healey, P. G. T. (2015). Collective contexts in conversation: Grounding by proxy. Cognitive Science, 40, 229–324.
  24. Eshghi, A., & Lemon, O. (2014). How domain-general can we be? Learning incremental dialogue systems without dialogue acts. In Proceedings of the 18th SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DialWatt) (pp. 53–61).
  25. Eshghi, A., Hough, J., Purver, M., Kempson, R., & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2012). Conversational interactions: Capturing dialogue dynamics. In S. Larsson & L. Borin (Eds.), From Quantification to Conversation: Festschrift for Robin Cooper on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Tributes (Vol. 19, pp. 325–349). London: College Publications.
  26. Eshghi, A., Hough, J., & Purver, M. (2013a). Incremental grammar induction from child-directed dialogue utterances. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL) (pp. 94–103). ACL.
  27. Eshghi, A., Purver, M., Hough, J., & Sato, Y. (2013b). Probabilistic grammar induction in an incremental semantic framework. In D. Duchier, Y. Parmentier (Eds.), Constraint Solving, and Language Processing. CSLP. (2012). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8114, pp. 92–107). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. · DOI
  28. 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) (pp. 261–271). London: ACL.
  29. Eshghi, A., Shalyminov, I., & Lemon, O. (2017). Bootstrapping incremental dialogue systems from minimal data: Linguistic knowledge or machine learning? In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 2220–2230).
  30. Fernández, R. (2006). Non-sentential utterances in dialogue: Classification, resolution and use. Ph.d. thesis, King’s College London, University of London.
  31. Fujimoto, D. T. (2007). Listener responses in interaction: A case for abandoning the term, backchannel. Journal of Osaka Jogakuin College, 37, 35–54.
  32. Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., & Sato, Y. (2009). Grammar resources for modelling dialogue dynamically. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3(4), 347–363. · DOI
  33. Gibson, E. A. F. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Ph.d. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA.
  34. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2004). Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 297–365. · DOI
  36. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  37. Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., Mills, G. J., Cann, R., Meyer-Viol, W., et al. (2011). Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1), 199–233. · DOI
  38. Gregoromichelaki, E., Howes, C., & Kempson, R. (2020). Actionism in syntax and semantics. In Dialogue and Perception-Extended Papers from DaP2018, CLASP Papers in Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 12–27). Gothenburg: GUPEA.
  39. Healey, P. G. T., & Mills, G. J. (2006). Participation, precedence and co-ordination in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1470–1475).
  40. Healey, P. G. T., Colman, M., & Thirlwell, M. (2005). Analysing multi-modal communication: Repair-based measures of human communicative co-ordination. In J. van Kuppevelt, L. Dybkjaer, & N. Bernsen (Eds.), Natural, Intelligent and Effective Interaction in Multimodal Dialogue Systems, Text, Speech and Language Technology (Vol. 30, pp. 113–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. · DOI
  41. 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.
  42. Healey, P. G. T., Mills, G. J., Eshghi, A., & Howes, C. (2018). Running repairs: Co-ordinating meaning in dialogue. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(2), 367–388. · DOI
  43. Heldner, M., Hjalmarsson, A., & Edlund, J. (2013). Backchannel relevance spaces. Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of XIth Conference, Tartu, 2012, 137–146.
  44. Hough, J. (2015). Modelling incremental self-repair processing in dialogue. Ph.d thesis, Queen Mary University of London.
  45. 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 (pp. 136–144).
  46. Howes, C. (2012). Coordination in dialogue: Using compound contributions to join a party. Ph.d. thesis, Queen Mary University of London.
  47. Howes, C., Eshghi, A. (2017). Feedback relevance spaces: The organisation of increments in conversation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2017). Association for Computational Linguisitics.
  48. Howes, C., Purver, M., Healey, P. G. T., Mills, G. J., & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2011). On incrementality in dialogue: Evidence from compound contributions. Dialogue and Discourse, 2(1), 279–311. · DOI
  49. Howes, C., Healey, P. G. T., & Purver, M. (2012a). Whose turn is it anyway? Same- and cross-person compound contributions in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan (pp. 1697–1702).
  50. Howes, C., Healey, P. G. T., Purver, M., & Eshghi, A. (2012b). Finishing each other’s ... responding to incomplete contributions in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan (pp. 479–484).
  51. Kalatzis, D., Eshghi, A., & Lemon, O. (2016). Bootstrapping incremental dialogue systems: Using linguistic knowledge to learn from minimal data. In Proceedings of the NIPS 2016 Workshop on Learning Methods for Dialogue, Barcelona.
  52. Kempson, R., & Kiaer, J. (2008). Japanese scrambling and the grammar-parser correspondence. In H. Hoshi (Ed.), Language, Mind and Brain: Perspectives from Linguistics and Cognitive Neuroscience. Kuroshio: Tokyo.
  53. Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.
  54. Kempson, R., Cann, R., Eshghi, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Purver, M. (2015). Ellipsis. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  55. Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Chatzikiriakidis, S. (2016). Language as mechanisms for interaction. Theoretical Linguistics, 42(3–4), 203–275.
  56. Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242–1254. · DOI
  57. Kjellmer, G. (2009). Where do we backchannel? On the use of mm, mhm, uh huh and such like. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 81–112. · DOI
  58. Larsson, S. (2015). Formal semantics for perceptual classification. Journal of Logic and Computation, 25(2), 335–369. · DOI
  59. Lawler, I., Hahn, F., & Rieser, H. (2017). Gesture meaning needs speech meaning to denote—A case of speech-gesture meaning interaction. Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Approaches to the Dynamics of Linguistic Interaction, ESSLLI, 2017, 42–46.
  60. Mills, G., Healey, P. G. T. (2006). Clarifying spatial descriptions: Local and global effects on semantic co-ordination. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SEMDIAL), Potsdam, Germany.
  61. Mills, G. J. (2007). Semantic co-ordination in dialogue: The role of direct interaction. Ph.d thesis, Queen Mary University of London.
  62. Park, H. W., Gelsomini, M., Lee, J. J., & Breazeal, C. (2017). Telling stories to robots: The effect of backchanneling on a child’s storytelling. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (pp. 100–108). ACM. · DOI
  63. Poppe, R., Truong, K. P., & Heylen, D. (2011). Backchannels: Quantity, type and timing matters. In International workshop on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 228–239). Springer. · DOI
  64. Purver, M. (2004). The theory and use of clarification requests in dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
  65. Purver, M., Cann, R., & Kempson, R. (2006). Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2–3), 289–326. · DOI
  66. Purver, M., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Healey, P. G. T. (2009). Split utterances in dialogue: A corpus study. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), London, UK (pp. 262–271). · DOI
  67. 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 14th SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 43–50).
  68. Purver, M., Eshghi, A., & Hough, J. (2011). Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS), Oxford, UK (pp. 365–369).
  69. Rühlemann, C. (2007). Conversation in Context: A Corpus-Driven Approach. London, New York: Continuum.
  70. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. · DOI · Paper page
  71. Sato, Y. (2011). Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in Dynamic Syntax. In E. Gregoromichelaki, R. Kempson, & C. Howes (Eds.), The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
  72. Schegloff, E. (1995). Parties and talking together: Two ways in which numbers are significant for talk-in-interaction (pp. 31–42). Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities.
  73. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. · DOI · Paper page
  74. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, 71, 93.
  75. Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 152–164. · DOI
  76. Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 567–578).
  77. Yu, Y., Eshghi, A., & Lemon, O. (2016). Training an adaptive dialogue policy for interactive learning of visually grounded word meanings. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL), Los Angeles (pp. 339–349). · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Howes, C., & Eshghi, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Heriot-Watt University (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Howes, Christine
  • Eshghi, Arash
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Logic, Language and Information
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-06
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
331-362
ISSN
  • 0925-8531 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-9583
DOI
10.1007/s10849-020-09328-1
OpenAlex
W3176680735
Cited by
16
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4
FWCI
12.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Logic Language and Information (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet (2016-0116, 2014-39)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
backchannels, clarification requests, acknowledgment, Dynamic Syntax, incremental processing, British English

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on Processing Contexts in Dynamic Syntax. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10849-020-09328-1
The paper
Howes, C., & Eshghi, A. (2021). Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on Processing Contexts in Dynamic Syntax. Journal of Logic, Language and Information. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-020-09328-1