On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback
Open accessAbstract
This paper is an exploration in the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback, i. e. linguistic mechanisms which enable the participants in spoken interaction to exchange information about basic communicative functions, such as contact, perception, understanding, and attitudinal reactions to the communicated content. Special attention is given to the type of reaction conveyed by feedback utterances, the communicative status of the information conveyed (i. e. the level of awareness and intentionality of the communicating sender), and the context sensitivity of feedback expressions. With regard to context sensitivty, which is one of the most characteristic features of feedback expressions, the discussion focuses on the way in which the type of speech act (mood), the factual polarity, and the information status of the preceding utterance influence the interpretation of feedback utterances. The different content dimensions are exemplified by data from recorded dialogues and by data given through linguistic intuition. Finally, two different ways of formalizing the analysis are examined, one using attribute-value matrices and one based on the theory of situation semantics.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
A general distinction can be made between negative and positive feedback, where negative feedback informs the speaker that the communicative act did not have the expected consequences, and positive feedback informs the speaker that it did.
“A general distinction can be made between negative and positive feedback (Allwood et al., 1992; Clark, 1996), where negative feedback informs the speaker that the communicative act did not have the expected consequences, and positive feedback informs the speaker that it did.”
From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Allwood et al., 1992
Section 2.2 describes feedback as information about the effects and consequences of communicative actions. Sections 3.2 and 4.2 describe feedback about contact, perception, understanding, and attitudes, including positive and negative values for some reactions. The paper does not state the claimed general distinction in which positive or negative feedback reports whether the communicative act had its expected consequences overall. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBoth Allwood et al. (1992) and Clark (1996) distinguish four levels of action in communication: contact, perception, understanding, and attitude/acceptance.
“Both Allwood et al. (1992) and Clark (1996) make a distinction between four levels of action that take place when a speaker is trying to communicate something to a listener, and feedback can be related to these different levels.”
From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Allwood et al., 1992
In the process of reaching mutual understanding, the exchange of feedback is vital.
“and in this process, the exchange of feedback is vital (Allwood et al., 1992).”
From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Allwood et al., 1992
A feedback signal can be unintentional but still carry information that is relevant to the context.
“A feedback signal can be unintentional but still carry information that is relevant to the context.”
From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Allwood et al., 1992
Properly classifying speech as dialogue acts also means identifying whether it is feedback or not, but annotating speech acts does not say what the feedback means, only that it is feedback.
“Thus, properly classifying speech as dialogue acts also means identifying whether it is feedback or not, but crucially, since grounding models like those by Allwood et al. (1992) or Clark (1996) are not part of the dialogue act tag standard, annotating speech acts does not say what the feedback means, only that it is feedback.”
From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Allwood et al., 1992
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine
Wiener, N. (2019) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11810.001.0001 · Cited by 5,045 · see citing works
Philosophical Writings of Peirce
Peirce, C. S., & Buchler, J. (1955) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,759 · see citing works
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1981) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2026578 · Cited by 2,357 · see citing works
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7 · Cited by 1,699 · see citing works
Information-based syntax and semantics
Pollard, C. J., & Sag, I. A. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,065 · see citing works
An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar
Shieber, S. M. (1986) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · Cited by 937 · see citing works
(1998) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv11cw36q.8 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Barwise, J. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Fries, C. C. (1952) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Israel, D. J., & Perry, J. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203055045-48 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Speech Management—on the Non-written Life of Speech
Allwood, J., Nivre, J., & Ahlsén, E. (1990) · Nordic Journal of Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0332586500002092 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Self-citationOn the Distinctions between Semantics and Pragmatics
Allwood, J. S. (1981) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8453-0_8 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Self-citationShifting situations and shaken attitudes
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. R. (1985) · Linguistics and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/bf00653379 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
ON THE ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
Allwood, J. S. (1978) · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationAhlsén, E. (1985) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationNivre, J. (1991) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [19]19. Allwood, J. 1990. Synopsis of a method for conceptual determination. Paper presented at the Twelfth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Reykjavik.
- [21]21. Anward, J. 1986. Emotive expressions. In Ö. Dahl (ed) Papers from the Ninth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. University of Stockholm, Dept of Linguistics.
- [27]27. Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [31]31. Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sentential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [33]33. Levinson, S. 1985. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [39]39. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- [40]40. Severinson-Eklundh, K. 1986. Dialogue Processed in Computer-mediated Communication, A study of letters in the COM-system, University of Linköping, Dept of Communication Studies.
- [41]41. Schegloff, E. 1982. Discourse as an Interactional Achievement. In D. Tannen (ed) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. (Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 1981). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Dialogue Systems: Recent Advances and New Frontiers
Chen, H., Liu, X., Yin, D., & Tang, J. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3166054.3166058 · Cited by 579 · see citing works
Building autonomous sensitive artificial listeners
Schroder, M., Bevacqua, E., Cowie, R., Eyben, F., Gunes, H., Heylen, D., ter Maat, M., McKeown, G., Pammi, S., Pantic, M., et al. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/t-affc.2011.34 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Modeling embodied feedback with virtual humans,
Kopp, S., Allwood, J., Grammer, K., Ahlsen, E., & Stocksmeier, T. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79037-2_2 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationPitch similarity in the vicinity of backchannels,
Heldner, M., Edlund, J., & Hirschberg, J. (2010) · Interspeech 2010 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2010-58 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
A Listening Agent Exhibiting Variable Behaviour
Bevacqua, E., Mancini, M., & Pelachaud, C. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85483-8_27 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Searching for prototypical facial feedback signals,
Heylen, D., Bevacqua, E., Tellier, M., & Pelachaud, C. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_14 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Allwood, J., Kopp, S., Grammer, K., Ahlsén, E., Oberzaucher, E., & Koppensteiner, M. (2007) · Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10579-007-9056-2 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationModeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review
Axelsson, A., Buschmeier, H., & Skantze, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2022.744574 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“…classifying speech as dialogue acts also means identifying whether it is feedback or not, but crucially, since grounding models like those by Allwood et al. (1992) or Clark (1996) are not part of the dialogue act tag standard, annotating speech acts does not say what the feedback means,…”
BackgroundInfluentialGenerating Robot/Agent backchannels during a storytelling experiment
Al Moubayed, S., Baklouti, M., Chetouani, M., Dutoit, T., Mahdhaoui, A., Martin, J.-C., Ondas, S., Pelachaud, C., Urbain, J., & Yilmaz, M. (2009) · 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · doi:10.1109/robot.2009.5152572 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
The ALICO corpus: analysing the active listener
Malisz, Z., Włodarczak, M., Buschmeier, H., Skubisz, J., Kopp, S., & Wagner, P. (2016) · Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10579-016-9355-6 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
The effects of prosodic features on the interpretation of clarification ellipses,
Edlund, J., House, D., & Skantze, G. (2005) · Interspeech 2005 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2005-43 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Iwasaki, M., Zhou, J., Ikeda, M., Koike, Y., Onishi, Y., Kawamura, T., & Nakanishi, H. (2019) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2019.00085 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Synthesis of prosodic attitudinal variants in German backchannel “ja”,
Stocksmeier, T., Kopp, S., & Gibbon, D. (2007) · Interspeech 2007 · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2007-232 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Modelling adaptive presentations in human-robot interaction using behaviour trees,
Axelsson, N., & Skantze, G. (2019) · Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-5940 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Multimodal User Feedback During Adaptive Robot-Human Presentations
Axelsson, A., & Skantze, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2021.741148 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Mining a multimodal corpus of doctor's training for virtual patient's feedbacks,
Porhet, C., Ochs, M., Saubesty, J., de Montcheuil, G., & Bertrand, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction · doi:10.1145/3136755.3136816 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
A Survey of Listener Behavior and Listener Models for Embodied Conversational Agents
Bevacqua, E. (2013) · Coverbal Synchrony in Human-Machine Interaction · doi:10.1201/b15477-11 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- ALLWOOD, J., NIVRE, J., & AHLSÉN, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Venue
- Journal of Semantics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-26
- ISSN
- 0167-5133 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4593
- OpenAlex
- W2164637623
- Cited by
- 442
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 52.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Semantics (publishedVersion)
- Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- linguistic feedback, pragmatics, semantics, spoken interaction, context sensitivity, information status, situation semantics
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
