Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2014 / Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves

Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves

Paper · 2014 · Jonathan Ginzburg, Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen

Summary

Spoken conversation is full of self-corrections, hesitations and restarts, yet formal grammar has usually dismissed them as performance noise. Ginzburg, Fernández and Schlangen argue that disfluencies belong in grammar and semantics, and they model them in KoS, a dialogue theory built on Type Theory with Records. The core idea is that a disfluency is a small dialogue move inside a single utterance. It is governed by the same conversational rules that already handle Clarification Requests between speakers, so the only new assumption is incremental, word-by-word interpretation. The authors separate two kinds. In backward looking disfluencies, an alteration revisits a reparandum that was already spoken. In forward looking ones, completion is only delayed by a pause or a repetition. The account gives explicit roles to editing phrases and filled pauses. It also predicts self-addressed questions, where a speaker raises and answers the question of what they meant to say. Examples from Switchboard, BNC and TRAINS show that reparanda feed anaphora, implicature and negation. The work matters because it shows which context theories can handle disfluency at all, and it challenges the competence/performance split.

Key points

  • The structure of a disfluency follows Shriberg's labels: start, reparandum, moment of interruption, editing term, alteration, continuation. Of these, every disfluency must contain a moment of interruption and a continuation; the remaining parts are optional.
  • The typology covers false starts, repairs (appropriateness-repairs vs error-repairs, after Levelt) and reformulations, which the paper groups as backward looking. Hesitations and repetitions are grouped as forward looking (Levelt's covert repair).
  • Evidence that reparanda are not discarded:
    • anaphora: "Peter was, well, he was fired";
    • a contrast implicature in a Switchboard example;
    • "no" negating material from the reparandum (BNC file KB8);
    • a TRAINS dialogue where a fresh start still relies on a referent introduced earlier.
  • Self-addressed questions are licensed by the KoS rule QSPEC, which lets either participant take the turn once a question is maximal in QUD. This separates querying from turn-taking, unlike accounts derived from Speech Act Theory.
  • Frameworks that integrate metacommunicative interaction can in principle model disfluency: KoS and PTT do, and Dynamic Syntax at least addresses it. Standard DRT, SDRT, Roberts-style pragmatics and Inquisitive Semantics lack this integration, so the authors argue they cannot.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Treat a self-correction as a clarification request the speaker addresses to themselves, so one mechanism covers repair within an utterance, across turns and between speakers.
  • I2. Locate the reparandum using word identity and category identity, and add content-based matching on top.
  • I3. Keep entities introduced in a reparandum alive even after the wording is corrected, because later pronouns may point to them.
  • I4. Correcting an expression can trigger a contrast implicature: the replaced option is implied not to be the intended one.
  • I5. Separate the forward/backward distinction: pure delays and repetitions carry no change of content, while backward repairs replace or elaborate.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): speech-act handling in prag could reuse its clarification logic for "I mean"/"no" corrections instead of adding a separate repair module.
  • I2 (tree): a pre-parse repair detector could align a candidate alteration with earlier material by lemma, UPOS and semantic class, then attach it with the UD reparandum relation rather than guessing.
  • I3 (world): when an event or description is retracted, the world model should keep the discourse referent and replace only the predication, so "Our dog likes- he loves the beach" still resolves "he".
  • I4 (frames): the implicature component could record the abandoned alternative as explicitly excluded, which helps QA questions like "was it only her friends?"
  • I5 (learn): an evaluation set with paired fluent/disfluent versions of the same sentence could act as a negative control, since forward looking disfluencies should leave frames and answers unchanged.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of AmsterdamAmsterdam · Netherlands89 works · 81,337 citations🎓Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld · Germany19 works · 968 citations🎓Université Paris DiderotParis · France14 works · 2,164 citations🔬Approches Linguistiques Théoriques, Appliquées et Expérimentales : langues et cultures connectéesParis · France6 works · 260 citations

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 9,086 worksArtificial Intelligence · 8,889 worksArts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Dialogue systems · 401 works

Cite

Cite as Jonathan Ginzburg, Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen. 2014. Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.7.9

@article{ginzburg2014disfluencies,
  title = {{Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves}},
  author = {Jonathan Ginzburg, Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2014},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.7.9},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.9}
}

References

87 references, 6 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Allen, James F., Lenhart K. Schubert, George Ferguson, Peter Heeman, Chung Hee Hwang, Tsuneaki Kato, Marc Light, Nathaniel G. Martin, Bradford W. Miller, Massimo Poesio & David R. Traum. 1995. The trains project: A case study in building a conversational planning agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical AI 7 (5). 7–48. ↗
  2. Arnold, Jennifer E., Carla L. Hudson Kam & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2007. If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: The on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(5). 914–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.914. ↗
  3. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
  4. Bailey, Karl G. D. & Fernanda Ferreira. 2007. The processing of filled pause disfluencies in the visual world. In Roger P. G. van Gompel, Martin H. Fischer, Wayne S. Murray & Robin L. Hill (eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain, 485–500. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ↗
  5. Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  6. Besser, Jana & Jan Alexandersson. 2007. A comprehensive disfluency model for multi-party interaction. Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 182–189. http://sigdial.org/workshops/workshop8/Proceedings/ SIGdial31.pdf. ↗
  7. Brennan, Susan E. & Michael F. Schober. 2001. How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44(2). 274–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753. ↗
  8. Ginzburg, Fernández, & Schlangen Callaway, Charles. 2003. Do we need deep generation of disfluent dialogue? In Spring symposium on natural language generation in spoken and written dialogue, 6–11. Technical Report SS-03-06. Palo Alto, CA: The American Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Press. https://www.aaai.org/ Papers/Symposia/Spring/2003/SS-03-06/SS03-06-002.pdf. ↗
  9. Candea, Maria, Ioana Vasilescu & Martine Adda-Decker. 2005. Inter- and intra-language acoustic analysis of autonomous fillers. Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DISS) 4. 47–52. http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/ 00/32/19/14/PDF/candea-vasilescu-adda_diss05.pdf. ↗
  10. Charniak, Eugene & Mark Johnson. 2001. Edit detection and parsing for transcribed speech. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and Language Technologies. 1–9. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/N/N01/N01-1016.pdf. ↗
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ↗
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Language and mind. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich. find
  13. Clark, Alexander, Gianluca Giorgolo & Shalom Lappin. 2013. Statistical representation of grammaticality judgements: The limits of n-gram models. Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. 28–36. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W/W13/W13-2604.pdf. ↗
  14. Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
  15. Clark, Herbert. 2002. Speaking in time. Speech Communication 36(1). 5–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(01)00022-X. ↗
  16. Clark, Herbert & Jean FoxTree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition 84(1). 73–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3. Clark, Herbert. & Edward Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13(2). 259–294. ↗
  17. Cooper, Robin. 2005. Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Research on Language and Computation 3(2–3). 333–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11168-006-0002-z. ↗
  18. Cooper, Robin. 2012. Type theory and semantics in flux. In Ruth Kempson, Nicholas Asher & Tim Fernando (eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol. 14: Philosophy of Linguistics, 271–324. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ↗
  19. Cooper, Robin & Jonathan Ginzburg. 2014. Type theory with records for natural language semantics. In Chris Fox & Shalom Lappin (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, Second. To appear. Oxford: Blackwell. Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves Cooper, Robin & Massimo Poesio. 1994. Situation theory. In Fracas deliverable D8, 114–166. Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh: The Fracas Consortium. ↗
  20. Copestake, Ann. 2007. Semantic composition with (robust) minimal recursion semantics. Workshop on Deep Linguistic Processing 1. 73–80.
  21. Core, Mark G. 1999. Dialog parsing: From speech repairs to speech acts. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester PhD thesis. find
  22. Core, Mark G. & James F. Allen. 1997. Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation scheme. American Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fall Symposium 6. 28–35. find
  23. Core, Mark G. & Lenhart K. Schubert. 1999. A syntactic framework for speech repairs and other disruptions. ACL: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 413–420. find
  24. Cori, Marcel, Michel De Fornel & Jean-Marie Marandin. 1997. Parsing repairs. In Ruslan Mitkov & Nicolas Nicolov (eds.), Recent advances in natural language processing: selected papers from RANLP’95 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science), 47–58. John Benjamins. find
  25. De Fornel, Michel & Jean-Marie Marandin. 1996. L’analyse grammaticale des auto-réparations. Le Gré des Langues 10. 8–68. van Eijck, Jan & Hans Kamp. 1997. Representing discourse in context. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 179–237. Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50006-0. ↗
  26. Eklund, Robert. 2004. Disfluency in Swedish human-human and human-machine travel booking dialogues. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University PhD thesis. http://www.diva - portal . org / smash / get / diva2 : 20923/FULLTEXT01.pdf. ↗
  27. Farkas, Donka & Kim Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27(1). 81–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ ffp010. ↗
  28. Fay, David. 1980. Transformational errors. In Victoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand, 111–122. New York, NY: Academic Press. find
  29. Fernández, Raquel. 2006. Non-sentential utterances in dialogue: Classification, resolution and use. King’s College, London PhD thesis. http://www.illc.uva.nl/~raquel/papers/RaquelFernandez_PhD.pdf. ↗
  30. Fernando, Tim. 2007. Observing events and situations in time. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(5). 527–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9026-1. ↗
  31. Ginzburg, Fernández, & Schlangen Ferreira, Fernanda & Karl G. D. Bailey. 2004. Disfluencies and human language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 8(5). 231–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.011. ↗
  32. Ferreira, Fernanda, Ellen F. Lau & Karl G. D. Bailey. 2004. Disfluencies, language comprehension, and tree adjoining grammars. Cognitive Science 28(5). 721–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.10.006. ↗
  33. Finlayson, Ian R. & Martin Corley. 2012. Disfluency in dialogue: An intentional signal from the speaker? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 19(5). 921–928. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0279-x. ↗
  34. Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi & Rober Jasperson. 1996. Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13), chap. 4, 185–237. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004. ↗
  35. Fox, Barbara A., Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann. 2010. A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42(9). 2487–2505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010. 02.006. ↗
  36. Gardent, Claire & Michael Kohlhase. 1997. Computing parallelism in discourse. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2. 1016–1021. ↗
  37. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2010. Relevance for dialogue. SemDial: Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (PozDial). Paweł Łupkowski & Matthew Purver (eds.). 121–129. http://www.semdial2010.amu.edu.pl/ separate_papers/16_ginzburg.pdf. ↗
  38. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  39. Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations: the form, meaning and use of English interrogatives (CSLI Lecture Notes 123). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. find
  40. Godfrey, John J., Edward C. Holliman & Jane McDaniel. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1. 517–520. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1109/ICASSP.1992.225858. ↗
  41. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Floris Roelofsen. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric. 41–72. Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves Grover, Claire, Chris Brew, Suresh Manandhar & Marc Moens. 1994. Priority union and generalization in discourse grammar. Association for Computational Linguistics. 17–24. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P94/P94-1003.pdf. ↗
  42. Heeman, Peter A. & James F. Allen. 1999. Speech repairs, intonational phrases and discourse markers: modeling speakers’ utterances in spoken dialogue. Computational Linguistics 25(4). 527–571. find
  43. Hindle, Donald. 1983. Deterministic parsing of syntactic non-fluencies. Association for Computational Linguistics 21. 123–128. find
  44. Horne, Merle. 2012. Attitude reports in spontaneous dialogue: uncertainty, politeness and filled pauses. In Lars Borin & Staffan Larsson (eds.), From quantification to conversation: festschrift for Robin Cooper on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 297–308. This paper appeared in an online version of this collection in 2008. London: College Publications. find
  45. Hough, Julian & Matthew Purver. 2012. Processing self-repairs in an incremental type-theoretic dialogue system. SemDial: Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SeineDial) 16. Sarah Brown Schmidt, Jonathan Ginzburg & Staffan Larsson (eds.). 136–144. http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/ ~jhough/papers/HoughPurver12SemDial.pdf. ↗
  46. Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Alternative minimalist visions of language. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 41. 189–226. find
  47. Johnson, Mark & Eugene Charniak. 2004. A TAG-based noisy channel model of speech repairs. Association for Computational Linguistics 42. 33–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1218955.1218960. ↗
  48. Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. University of Edinburgh PhD thesis. ↗
  49. Kempson, Ruth, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Dov Gabbay. 2000. Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  50. Larsson, Staffan. 2002. Issue–based dialogue management. Gothenburg University PhD thesis. find
  51. Levelt, Willem J. M. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14(4). 41–104. ↗
  52. Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  53. Lickley, Robin J. 1994. Detecting disfluency in spontaneous speech. University of Edinburgh PhD thesis. find
  54. McKelvie, David. 1998. The Syntax of Disfluency in Spontaneous Spoken English. Tech. rep. RP-94. Human Communication Research Center, University of Edinburgh. find
  55. Ginzburg, Fernández, & Schlangen Miller, Tim & William Schuler. 2008. A unified syntactic model for parsing fluent and disfluent speech. Association for Computational Linguistics 46. 105–108. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1557690.1557718. ↗
  56. Milward, David. 1994. Dynamic dependency grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6). 561–605. ↗
  57. Milward, David & Robin Cooper. 1994. Incremental interpretation: Applications, theory, and relationship to dynamic semantics. Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING). 748–754. ↗
  58. Morrill, Glyn. 2000. Incremental processing and acceptability. Computational Linguistics 26(3). 319–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089120100561728. ↗
  59. Peldszus, Andreas, Okko Buß, Timo Baumann & David Schlangen. 2012. Joint satisfaction of syntactic and pragmatic constraints improves incremental spoken language understanding. Conference of the European Association for Computational Linguistics. 514–523. http://aclweb.org/anthology//E/ E12/E12-1052.pdf. ↗
  60. Peldszus, Andreas & David Schlangen. 2012. Incremental construction of robust but deep semantic representations for use in responsive dialogue systems. Workshop on Advances in Discourse Analysis and its Computational Aspects. 59–77. find
  61. Poesio, Massimo. 1995. A model of conversation processing based on micro conversational events. Annual Conference of the the Cognitive Science Society 17. 698–703. find
  62. Poesio, Massimo & Hannes Rieser. 2010. Completions, continuations, and alignment in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 1(1). 1–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.5087/dad.2010.001. ↗
  63. Poesio, Massimo & David Traum. 1997. Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence 13(3). 309–347. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/0824-7935.00042. ↗
  64. Purver, Matthew. 2001. SCoRE: A Tool for Searching the BNC. Tech. rep. TR-01-07. King’s College, London. find
  65. Purver, Matthew. 2004. The theory and use of clarification in dialogue. King’s College, London PhD thesis. http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~mpurver/ papers/purver04thesis.pdf. ↗
  66. Purver, Matthew, Arash Eshghi & Julian Hough. 2011. Incremental semantic construction in a dialogue system. 9. 365–369. http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~mpurver/papers/purver-et-al11iwcs.pdf. ↗
  67. Purver, Matthew, Jonathan Ginzburg & Patrick Healey. 2001. On the means for clarification in dialogue. In Jan van Kuppevelt & Ronnie Smith (eds.), Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue, 235–256. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. find
  68. Purver, Matthew, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Wilfried Meyer-Viol & Ronnie Cann. 2010. Splitting the ‘I’s and crossing the ‘you’s: context, speech acts and grammar. SemDial: Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (PozDial) 14. 43–50. http://www.semdial2010 . amu . edu . pl / separate _ papers/6.pdf. ↗
  69. Ranta, Aarne. 1994. Type theoretical grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  70. Rieser, Hannes & David Schlangen. 2011a. Introduction to the special issue on incremental processing in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 2(1). 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5087/dad.2011.101. ↗
  71. Rieser, Hannes & David Schlangen. 2011b. Special issue on incremental processing in dialogue. Dialogue and Discourse 2 (1). find
  72. Rieser, Verena & Joanna Moore. 2005. Implications for generating clarification requests in task-oriented dialogues. Association for Computational Linguistics 43. 239–246. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P05/P05-1030.pdf. ↗
  73. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Working Papers in Linguistics-Ohio State University Department of Linguistics. Reprinted in Semantics and Pragmatics, 2012, 91–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. ↗
  74. Rodriguez, Kepa & David Schlangen. 2004. Form, intonation and function of clarification requests in german task-oriented spoken dialogues. SemDial: Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Catalog). 101–108. http://www.upf.edu/dtf/personal/catalog04/papers/14-rodriguez-schlangen.pdf. ↗
  75. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25(1). 201–218. ↗
  76. Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382. ↗
  77. Schlangen, David, Timo Baumann & Michaela Atterer. 2009. Incremental reference resolution: the task, metrics for evaluation, and a bayesian filtering model that is sensitive to disfluencies. Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 30–37. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/ W09/W09-3905.pdf. ↗
  78. Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  79. Ginzburg, Fernández, & Schlangen Seidenberg, Mark. 1997. Language acquisition and use: learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science 275(5306). 1599–1603. ↗
  80. Shriberg, Elizabeth E. 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley PhD thesis. find
  81. Shriberg, Elizabeth E. 1996. Disfluencies in Switchboard. International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. 11–14. find
  82. Skantze, Gabriel & Anna Hjalmarsson. 2010. Towards incremental speech generation in dialogue systems. Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 1–8. http://aclweb.org/anthology//W/W10/W10-4301.pdf. ↗
  83. Stolcke, Andreas & Elizabeth E. Shriberg. 1996. Statistical language modeling for speech disfluencies. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. 405–409. find
  84. Van Wijk, Carel & Gerard Kempen. 1987. A dual system for producing self-repairs in spontaneous speech: evidence from experimentally elicited corrections. Cognitive Psychology 19(4). 403–440. ↗
  85. Wouk, Fay, Barbara A. Fox, Makoto Hayashi, Steven Fincke, Liang Tao, Marja Sorjonen, Minna Laakso & Wilfrido Flores-Hernandez. 2009. A cross-linguistic investigation of the site of initiation of same turn self repair. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 60– 103. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
  86. Yoshida, Etsuko & Robin J. Lickley. 2010. Disfluency patterns in dialogue processing. Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DISS) 5. 115–118. find
  87. Zhao, Yuan & Dan Jurafsky. 2005. A preliminary study of mandarin filled pauses. Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DISS) 4. 178–182. Jonathan Ginzburg CLILLAC-ARP (EA 3967) & Laboratoire Linguistique Formelle (LLF) (UMR 7110) & Laboratoire d’Excellence (LabEx)-Empirical Foundations of Linguistics (EFL) Université Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France yonatan.ginzburg@univ-paris-diderot.fr David Schlangen Faculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 10 01 31, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany david.schlangen@uni-bielefeld.de Raquel Fernández Institute for Logic, Language & Computation University of Amsterdam P.O. Box 94242, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands raquel.fernandez@uva.nl find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ginzburg-2014-disfluencies-as-intra-utterance-dialogue/