@article {7335, title = {Characterizing the response space of questions: data and theory}, journal = {Dialogue \& Discourse}, volume = {13}, year = {2022}, pages = {79{\textendash}132}, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Zulipiye Yusupujiang and Li, Chuyuan and Ren, Kexin and Kucharska, Aleksandra and Lupkowski, Pawel} } @article {7334, title = {A longitudinal characterization of typical laughter development in Mother{\textendash}child interaction from 12 to 36 months: Formal features and reciprocal responsiveness}, journal = {Journal of Nonverbal Behavior}, volume = {46}, year = {2022}, pages = {327{\textendash}362}, author = {Chiara Mazzocconi and Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7337, title = {Quantifiers as (quasi)-referential pluralities}, journal = {The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic}, volume = {28}, year = {2022}, pages = {275-276}, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7344, title = {Wh-Questions are understood before polar-questions: Evidence from English, German, and Chinese}, journal = {Journal of Child Language}, volume = {48}, year = {2021}, pages = {157{\textendash}183}, author = {Moradlou, Sara and Zheng, Xiaobei and Ye Tian and Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7338, title = {Dialogue management with linear logic: the role of metavariables in questions and clarifications}, journal = {Traitement Automatique des Langues (TAL)}, volume = {61}, year = {2020}, pages = {43{\textendash}67}, author = {Vladislav Maraev and Jean-Philippe Bernardy and Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7343, title = {Laughter as language}, journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics}, volume = {5}, year = {2020}, pages = {1{\textendash}51 year=2020}, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Chiara Mazzocconi and Ye Tian} } @article {7345, title = {What{\textquoteright}s your laughter doing there? A taxonomy of the pragmatic functions of laughter}, journal = {IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing}, year = {2020}, author = {Chiara Mazzocconi and Ye Tian and Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7357, title = {Divergently seeking clarification: The emergence of clarification interaction}, journal = {Topics in cognitive science}, volume = {10}, year = {2018}, pages = {335{\textendash}366}, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Kolliakou, Dimitra} } @article {7364, title = {Query responses}, journal = {Journal of Language Modelling}, volume = {4}, year = {2017}, pages = {245{\textendash}292}, abstract = {

In this article we consider the phenomenon of answering a query with a query. Although such answers are common, no large scale, corpus-based characterization exists, with the exception of clarification requests. After briefly reviewing different theoretical approaches on this subject, we present a corpus study of query responses in the British National Corpus and develop a taxonomy for query responses. We point at a variety of response categories that have not been formalized in previous dialogue work, particularly those relevant to adversarial interaction. We show that different response categories have significantly different rates of subsequent answer provision. We provide a formal analysis of the response categories in the framework of KoS.

}, author = {Pawe{\l} {\L}upkowski and Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7365, title = {Self Addressed Questions and Filled Pauses: A Cross-linguistic Investigation}, journal = {Journal of psycholinguistic research}, volume = {46}, year = {2017}, pages = {905{\textendash}922}, author = {Ye Tian and Maruyama, Takehiko and Jonathan Ginzburg} } @article {7366, title = {Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction}, journal = {Frontiers in Psychology}, volume = {7}, year = {2016}, pages = {1938}, abstract = {

Much of contemporary mainstream formal grammar theory is unable to provide analyses for language as it occurs in actual spoken interaction. Its analyses are developed for a cleaned up version of language which omits the disfluencies, non-sentential utterances, gestures, and many other phenomena that are ubiquitous in spoken language. Using evidence from linguistics, conversation analysis, multimodal communication, psychology, language acquisition, and neuroscience, we show these aspects of language use are rule governed in much the same way as phenomena captured by conventional grammars. Furthermore, we argue that over the past few years the theoretical tools required to provide a precise characterizations of such phenomena have begun to emerge in theoretical and computational linguistics; hence, there is no reason for treating them as second class citizens other than pre-theoretical assumptions about what should fall under the purview of grammar. Finally, we suggest that grammar formalisms covering such phenomena would provide a better foundation not just for linguistic analysis of face-to-face interaction, but also for sister disciplines, such as research on spoken dialogue systems and /or psychological work on language acquisition.

}, issn = {1664-1078}, doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01938}, url = {http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01938}, author = {Jonathan Ginzburg and Poesio, Massimo} } @article {5826, title = {Self Addressed Questions and Filled Pauses: A cross-linguistic investigation}, journal = {Journal of Psycholinguistic Research}, year = {2016}, month = {12/2016}, pages = {1-18}, abstract = {

There is an ongoing debate whether phenomena of disfluency (such as filled pauses) are produced communicatively. Clark and Fox Tree (Cognition 84(1):73\–111, 2002) propose that filled pauses are words, and that different forms signal different lengths of delay. This paper evaluates this Filler-As-Words hypothesis by analyzing the distribution of self-addressed-questions or SAQs (such as \“what\’s the word\”) in relation to filled pauses. We found that SAQs address different problems in different languages (most frequently about memory-retrieval in English and Chinese, and about appropriateness in Japanese). In relation to filled pauses, British but not American English uses \“um\” to signal a more severe problem than \“uh\”. Chinese uses different filled pauses to signal the syntactic category of the problem constituent. Japanese uses different filled pauses to signal levels of interaction with the interlocuter. Overall, our data supports the Filler-As-Words hypothesis that filled pauses are used communicatively. However, the dimensions of its meanings vary across languages and dialects.

}, keywords = {Cross-linguistic analysis, Disfluency, Filled pauses, Self addressed questions}, issn = {1573-6555}, doi = {10.1007/s10936-016-9468-5}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10936-016-9468-5}, author = {Ye Tian and Maruyama, Takehiko and Jonathan Ginzburg} }