Completability vs (In)completeness. Gregoromichelaki, E., Mills, G., Howes, C., Eshghi, A., Chatzikyriakidis, S., Purver, M., Kempson, R., Cann, R., & Healey, P. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 2020. doi abstract bibtex © 2020 The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen. In everyday conversation, no notion of “complete sentence” is required for syntactic licensing. However, so-called “fragmentary”, “incomplete”, and abandoned utterances are problematic for standard formalisms. When contextualised, such data show that (a) non-sentential utterances are adequate to underpin agent coordination, while (b) all linguistic dependencies can be systematically distributed across participants and turns. Standard models have problems accounting for such data because their notions of ‘constituency’ and ‘syntactic domain’ are independent of performance considerations. Concomitantly, we argue that no notion of “full proposition” or encoded speech act is necessary for successful interaction: strings, contents, and joint actions emerge in conversation without any single participant having envisaged in advance the outcome of their own or their interlocutors’ actions. Nonetheless, morphosyntactic and semantic licensing mechanisms need to apply incrementally and subsententially. We argue that, while a representational level of abstract syntax, divorced from conceptual structure and physical action, impedes natural accounts of subsentential coordination phenomena, a view of grammar as a “skill” employing domain-general mechanisms, rather than fixed form-meaning mappings, is needed instead. We provide a sketch of a predictive and incremental architecture (Dynamic Syntax) within which underspecification and time-relative update of meanings and utterances constitute the sole concept of “syntax”.
@article{
title = {Completability vs (In)completeness},
type = {article},
year = {2020},
keywords = {Dynamic syntax,English,Modern Greek,ellipsis,fragments,incrementality,joint action,repair,split utterances},
id = {cf0d5b6c-caf8-333c-8459-253f38e91700},
created = {2020-10-31T23:59:00.000Z},
file_attached = {false},
profile_id = {d7d2e6da-aa5b-3ab3-b3f2-a5350adf574a},
last_modified = {2024-01-15T20:03:34.740Z},
read = {false},
starred = {false},
authored = {true},
confirmed = {false},
hidden = {false},
private_publication = {false},
abstract = {© 2020 The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen. In everyday conversation, no notion of “complete sentence” is required for syntactic licensing. However, so-called “fragmentary”, “incomplete”, and abandoned utterances are problematic for standard formalisms. When contextualised, such data show that (a) non-sentential utterances are adequate to underpin agent coordination, while (b) all linguistic dependencies can be systematically distributed across participants and turns. Standard models have problems accounting for such data because their notions of ‘constituency’ and ‘syntactic domain’ are independent of performance considerations. Concomitantly, we argue that no notion of “full proposition” or encoded speech act is necessary for successful interaction: strings, contents, and joint actions emerge in conversation without any single participant having envisaged in advance the outcome of their own or their interlocutors’ actions. Nonetheless, morphosyntactic and semantic licensing mechanisms need to apply incrementally and subsententially. We argue that, while a representational level of abstract syntax, divorced from conceptual structure and physical action, impedes natural accounts of subsentential coordination phenomena, a view of grammar as a “skill” employing domain-general mechanisms, rather than fixed form-meaning mappings, is needed instead. We provide a sketch of a predictive and incremental architecture (Dynamic Syntax) within which underspecification and time-relative update of meanings and utterances constitute the sole concept of “syntax”.},
bibtype = {article},
author = {Gregoromichelaki, E. and Mills, G.J. and Howes, C. and Eshghi, Arash and Chatzikyriakidis, S. and Purver, M. and Kempson, R. and Cann, R. and Healey, P.G.T.},
doi = {10.1080/03740463.2020.1795549},
journal = {Acta Linguistica Hafniensia}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"2xiZgNGouphuHfFWz","bibbaseid":"gregoromichelaki-mills-howes-eshghi-chatzikyriakidis-purver-kempson-cann-etal-completabilityvsincompleteness-2020","author_short":["Gregoromichelaki, E.","Mills, G.","Howes, C.","Eshghi, A.","Chatzikyriakidis, S.","Purver, M.","Kempson, R.","Cann, R.","Healey, P."],"bibdata":{"title":"Completability vs (In)completeness","type":"article","year":"2020","keywords":"Dynamic syntax,English,Modern Greek,ellipsis,fragments,incrementality,joint action,repair,split utterances","id":"cf0d5b6c-caf8-333c-8459-253f38e91700","created":"2020-10-31T23:59:00.000Z","file_attached":false,"profile_id":"d7d2e6da-aa5b-3ab3-b3f2-a5350adf574a","last_modified":"2024-01-15T20:03:34.740Z","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":"true","confirmed":false,"hidden":false,"private_publication":false,"abstract":"© 2020 The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen. In everyday conversation, no notion of “complete sentence” is required for syntactic licensing. However, so-called “fragmentary”, “incomplete”, and abandoned utterances are problematic for standard formalisms. When contextualised, such data show that (a) non-sentential utterances are adequate to underpin agent coordination, while (b) all linguistic dependencies can be systematically distributed across participants and turns. Standard models have problems accounting for such data because their notions of ‘constituency’ and ‘syntactic domain’ are independent of performance considerations. Concomitantly, we argue that no notion of “full proposition” or encoded speech act is necessary for successful interaction: strings, contents, and joint actions emerge in conversation without any single participant having envisaged in advance the outcome of their own or their interlocutors’ actions. Nonetheless, morphosyntactic and semantic licensing mechanisms need to apply incrementally and subsententially. We argue that, while a representational level of abstract syntax, divorced from conceptual structure and physical action, impedes natural accounts of subsentential coordination phenomena, a view of grammar as a “skill” employing domain-general mechanisms, rather than fixed form-meaning mappings, is needed instead. We provide a sketch of a predictive and incremental architecture (Dynamic Syntax) within which underspecification and time-relative update of meanings and utterances constitute the sole concept of “syntax”.","bibtype":"article","author":"Gregoromichelaki, E. and Mills, G.J. and Howes, C. and Eshghi, Arash and Chatzikyriakidis, S. and Purver, M. and Kempson, R. and Cann, R. and Healey, P.G.T.","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2020.1795549","journal":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","bibtex":"@article{\n title = {Completability vs (In)completeness},\n type = {article},\n year = {2020},\n keywords = {Dynamic syntax,English,Modern Greek,ellipsis,fragments,incrementality,joint action,repair,split utterances},\n id = {cf0d5b6c-caf8-333c-8459-253f38e91700},\n created = {2020-10-31T23:59:00.000Z},\n file_attached = {false},\n profile_id = {d7d2e6da-aa5b-3ab3-b3f2-a5350adf574a},\n last_modified = {2024-01-15T20:03:34.740Z},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {true},\n confirmed = {false},\n hidden = {false},\n private_publication = {false},\n abstract = {© 2020 The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen. In everyday conversation, no notion of “complete sentence” is required for syntactic licensing. However, so-called “fragmentary”, “incomplete”, and abandoned utterances are problematic for standard formalisms. When contextualised, such data show that (a) non-sentential utterances are adequate to underpin agent coordination, while (b) all linguistic dependencies can be systematically distributed across participants and turns. Standard models have problems accounting for such data because their notions of ‘constituency’ and ‘syntactic domain’ are independent of performance considerations. Concomitantly, we argue that no notion of “full proposition” or encoded speech act is necessary for successful interaction: strings, contents, and joint actions emerge in conversation without any single participant having envisaged in advance the outcome of their own or their interlocutors’ actions. Nonetheless, morphosyntactic and semantic licensing mechanisms need to apply incrementally and subsententially. We argue that, while a representational level of abstract syntax, divorced from conceptual structure and physical action, impedes natural accounts of subsentential coordination phenomena, a view of grammar as a “skill” employing domain-general mechanisms, rather than fixed form-meaning mappings, is needed instead. We provide a sketch of a predictive and incremental architecture (Dynamic Syntax) within which underspecification and time-relative update of meanings and utterances constitute the sole concept of “syntax”.},\n bibtype = {article},\n author = {Gregoromichelaki, E. and Mills, G.J. and Howes, C. and Eshghi, Arash and Chatzikyriakidis, S. and Purver, M. and Kempson, R. and Cann, R. and Healey, P.G.T.},\n doi = {10.1080/03740463.2020.1795549},\n journal = {Acta Linguistica Hafniensia}\n}","author_short":["Gregoromichelaki, E.","Mills, G.","Howes, C.","Eshghi, A.","Chatzikyriakidis, S.","Purver, M.","Kempson, R.","Cann, R.","Healey, P."],"biburl":"https://bibbase.org/service/mendeley/d7d2e6da-aa5b-3ab3-b3f2-a5350adf574a","bibbaseid":"gregoromichelaki-mills-howes-eshghi-chatzikyriakidis-purver-kempson-cann-etal-completabilityvsincompleteness-2020","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Dynamic syntax","English","Modern Greek","ellipsis","fragments","incrementality","joint action","repair","split utterances"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/service/mendeley/d7d2e6da-aa5b-3ab3-b3f2-a5350adf574a","dataSources":["ya2CyA73rpZseyrZ8","TcQYToyGTfqDApS68","BEu9hLf9unY5A9Pwe","gQ3XnmcCc7p5JYvBa","pB6WyiWKHxyFpemKA","2252seNhipfTmjEBQ"],"keywords":["dynamic syntax","english","modern greek","ellipsis","fragments","incrementality","joint action","repair","split utterances"],"search_terms":["completability","completeness","gregoromichelaki","mills","howes","eshghi","chatzikyriakidis","purver","kempson","cann","healey"],"title":"Completability vs (In)completeness","year":2020}