ArticlePDF Available

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

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Journal of Logic, Language and Information (2021) 30:331–362
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-020-09328-1
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on
Processing Contexts in Dynamic Syntax
Christine Howes1·Arash Eshghi2
Accepted: 24 December 2020 / Published online: 28 June 2021
© The Author(s) 2021
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.
Keywords Backchannels ·Clarification requests ·Dynamic syntax ·Interaction
1 Introduction
As shown in Example 1,1even in broadly monological contexts (e.g. lectures, sto-
rytelling; Rühlemann 2007), dialogue is co-constructed by multiple interlocutors.
Listeners provide frequent feedback to demonstrate whether or not they have grounded
the conversation thus far (Clark 1996), i.e. whether something said can be taken to be
understood. To achieve this grounding, we produce relevantnext turns, or backchannels
1Examples are all taken from the British National Corpus (BNC: Burnard 2000).
BChristine Howes
christine.howes@gu.se
Arash Eshghi
a.eshghi@hw.ac.uk
1Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg,
Gothenburg, Sweden
2School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
332 C. Howes et al.
(e.g. ‘mm’, as in Example 1:211, or ‘yeah’ Example 1:194) including non-linguistic
cues (e.g. nods).2Other responses, such as clarification requests3(e.g. Example 1:203)
indicate processing difficulties or lack of coordination and signal a need for repair
(Purver 2004; Bavelas et al. 2012).
Example 1 BNC file KB2:191–2134
J 191 Oh we’ve had er, there was this wait Chris rung us up, she’s coming over in April
A 192 Oh is she?
J 193 She’s coming over before David
A 194 Yeah
J 195 Have a few weeks [well]
A 196 [Yeah]
J 197 She’s having [seven weeks]
A 198 [Oh yeah is she?]
J 199 Ain’t she?
200 And then David’s coming over and having three weeks, so she’ll be over seven weeks
A 201 Oh that’ll be lovely that
J 202 So I said to him
A 203 with the kids?
J 204 Yeah, I said yeah, I mean it is, I said, you come tomorrow if you like bedrooms are ready,
but you see she’ll be staying at her mum’s some time
A 205 Yeah
J 206 She’ll be staying here and at her mum’s [but er]
A 207 [Yeah]
J 208 [her mum or er]
A 209 [Ooh that’ll be nice]
J 210 Her mum really she’s got a lot on, she’ll have a lot on cos she’s got to prepare for that
wedding, you know what you’re like when you, [you’ve got]
A 211 [Mm]
J 212 You know if you want, want to be doing things
[don’t you get out of house and that]
A 213 [Yeah, pre preparing for a wedding, yeah] pauseaye
2Although we believe that our analysis should also apply to non-verbal feedback, in this paper, due to
the nature of the materials available in the BNC we focus on verbal feedback. As pointed out to us by
Mark Dingemanse, one of our reviewers, this may not be straightforward due to differences in the temporal
properties of non-verbal feedback, however this does not necessarily mean that continuous feedback (such
as an increasingly puzzled expression) does not relate to the utterance in progress at an FRS. See also
Lawler et al. (2017) for a related treatment of gestures which are ‘asynchronous’ to the speech with which
they co-refer.
3These are essentially the same as what have been called next turn repair initiators (NTRIs) in the Conver-
sation Analysis literature (Schegloff et al. 1977, and others following), but here we follow Purver (2004)
in calling them clarification requests throughout in keeping with the more computationally oriented spirit
of this paper.
4Overlapping talk is shown in aligned square brackets.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 333
As they do not convey any propositional truth conditional content, backchannels are
not usually accounted for by traditional linguistic theories, in which they are considered
semantically ‘empty’. They are thus generally considered part of the ‘performance’
as opposed to one’s (core) linguistic ‘competence’ (Chomsky 1965), and therefore
outside the remit of the grammar.
Similarly, clarification requests (CRs)—along with a swathe of other highly contex-
tual dialogue phenomena—have been systematically left aside as outside the scope of
core grammar, and until relatively recently ignored as performance phenomena (see
Purver 2004; Fernández 2006; Gargett et al. 2009; Ginzburg 2012; Kempson et al.
2015,2016, for attempts to integrate them).
These trends notwithstanding, an incremental, dynamic, action-based grammar
framework such as Dynamic Syntax (DS: Kempson et al. 2001; Cann et al. 2005;
Kempson et al. 2016) allows us to to provide a unitary account of such so-called “per-
formance errors” within the grammar itself, which highlights the primacy of language
use in interaction as opposed to an abstract linguistic code (Kempson et al. 2016). This
shift of emphasis allows DS to offer parsimonious explanations of otherwise puzzling
syntactic phenomena (e.g. clitics; Bouzouita 2008; Chatzikyriakidis and Kempson
2011), as well as accounting for interactive dialogue phenomena (which do not typi-
cally occur in written language) such as self-repair (Hough and Purver 2012; Hough
2015) and split utterances (Purver et al. 2010; Kempson et al. 2016;Howes2012).
In this paper, we present a corpus study of backchannels and clarification requests
in British English dialogue5that shows that 85% of this feedback occurs at places
that the DS model of dialogue predicts they ought to be licensed—so-called Feedback
Relevance Spaces ( FRS; Howes and Eshghi 2017). We further examine those cases
that do not apparently occur at an FRS, dividing these into late and early cases. We
then describe how, due to the interactive, predictive and incremental nature of the DS
formalism, the model can account for this feedback.
2 Background
2.1 Repair Avoidance
Backchannels are usually considered to be “positive” feedback, signalling understand-
ing, with clarification requests taken as “negative” feedback indicating a problem of
misunderstanding or misalignment. However, these descriptions mask some paral-
lelisms between different types of feedback, and may miss important insights about
the role of feedback.
According to (Schegloff 1982, p. 88), the parallelism between backchannels and
clarification requests (and where they may occur, see Sect. 2.2) is not incidental:
“…‘uh huh’, nods, and the like, in passing the opportunity to do a full turn at talk, can
be seen to be passing an opportunity to initiate repair on the immediately preceding
talk”.
5We hope that our claims in this paper generalise across languages and language families, but this is a
question for future work.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
334 C. Howes et al.
This inversion of the usual assumptions around how understanding is reached in
dialogue, such that the possibility of misunderstanding is ever present (rather than
assuming that the default case is perfectly understood conversational exchanges) pri-
oritises the management of potential misunderstanding in dialogue, with backchannels
acquiring their myriad functions as a direct consequence, depending on the action in
progress when the backchannel is produced. For example, if the speaker is telling a
story and the hearer indicates no need for repair, the backchannel may function as
acontinuer; if giving directions, a backchannel may acknowledge identification of a
landmark; and if offering an opinion, a backchannel may indicate agreement.
“Note that, if tokens such as ‘uh huh’ operate to pass an opportunity to initiate
repair, the basis seems clear for the ordinary inference that the talk into which they
are interpolated is being understood, and for the treatment in the literature that they
signal understanding. It is not that there is a direct semantic convention in which ‘uh
huh’ equals a claim or signal of understanding. It is rather that devices are available
for the repair of problems of understanding the prior talk, and the passing up of those
opportunities, which ‘uh huh’ can do, is taken as betokening the absence of such
problems” (Schegloff 1982).
This position—supported by experimental evidence (Mills 2007; Mills and Healey
2006; Healey et al. 2018; Howes et al. 2012b)—means that rather than treating
backchannels both as multiply ambiguous (as reported in the literature—see Fuji-
moto (2007) for a review), and as completely the opposite to clarification requests,
we can hope to unify them. Specifically, what unifies these interaction devices as
feedback is that they are all procedural mechanisms for managing the divergence and
convergence that is characteristic of dialogue.
On this view, clarification requests are the canonical signal of the divergence of indi-
vidual takes on the dialogue (characterised as misunderstanding), with backchannels
a weak signal indicating no obvious problems, and assumed convergence. Different
backchannels, especially those which express the listener’s stance may be taken to be
stronger evidence for convergence, in line with findings that listeners’ choice of generic
(e.g. ‘mm’) or specific (‘crikey!’) backchannels shapes the speaker’s narrative (Bavelas
et al. 2000; Tolins and Fox Tree 2014). Relevant next turns and compound contribu-
tions (dialogue contributions that continue or complete an earlier contribution which
includes so-called joint or split utterances;Howes2012) offer an especially strong
signal of convergence with even ‘subversive’ or ‘hostile’ continuations (Bolden et al.
2019; Gregoromichelaki et al. 2011) indicating convergence in parsing terms, while
exploiting the mechanisms offered by the grammar to signal divergence in meaning.
In Dynamic Syntax terms, as we shall see below (Sect. 3.4), these procedural
devices all serve to identify divergence and manage the subsequent realignment of
semantic processing pathways. It is in such unified, procedural terms that Eshghi et al.
(2015) characterise clarification requests and backchannels, with Howes and Eshghi
(2017) extending this model to capture their positional distribution or placement. In the
present paper, we focus on an empirical investigation of the placement of backchannels
and clarification requests; and for the reasons outlined above (and those discussed in
Fujimoto 2007), we will refer to these collectively as feedback unless we want to
emphasise their differences.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 335
2.2 Feedback Relevance Spaces
As seen in Example 1:196, backchannels do not just occur at the ends of sentences
or turns, but can be produced before a complete sentence has been uttered by one’s
interlocutor, and the same can be true for other feedback such as clarification requests
(as in Example 2). Tracking understanding, via grounding or repair initiation, thus
occurs incrementally, before a complete proposition has been produced or processed.
Example 2 BNC file G4K:84–86
J 84 If you press N
S85N?
J 86 N for name, it’ll let you type in the docu- document name.
However, despite evidence that speaker switch can occur at any point in a turn, even
within syntactic constituents (Purver et al. 2009; Howes et al. 2011), feedback does
not appear to be appropriate just anywhere. Studies using different paradigms such as
avatar studies (Poppe et al. 2011) or audio of dialogues with backchannels moved from
their actual position (Kawahara et al. 2016) suggests that randomly placed backchan-
nels disrupt the flow of dialogue, are rated as less natural and decrease rapport. Even
young children are alert to this—they assess a robot which produces backchannels
randomly as a less attentive listener (Park et al. 2017). There is also experimental
evidence that mid-sentence CRs (as in Example 2) are more disruptive if they are
produced mid-constituent rather than between constituents—leading to more frequent
restarts of the interrupted sentence (Eshghi et al. 2010; Healey et al. 2011). This evi-
dence strongly suggests that there are places within and between turns where feedback
is relevant.
These Feedback Relevance Spaces (FRSs; Howes and Eshghi 2017) are analogous
to, but more common than, transition relevance places (TRPs)—places where the turn
may shift between speakers (Sacks et al. 1974) and are an extension of Backchannel
Relevance Spaces (Heldner et al. 2013). Heldner et al. (2013) annotated and compared
actual backchannels in Swedish spontaneous dialogue with potential backchannels
using subjects acting as third-party listeners. They found lots of individual varia-
tion in where subjects chose to place backchannels, and “…on average 3.5 times
more backchannel relevance spaces than actual backchannels” indicating that feed-
back is optional at these points. However, there is no information on what unites these
Backchannel Relevant Spaces (e.g. in terms of parts of speech etc—see Sect. 2.3
below), which is necessary if our goal is to explain them (Eshghi et al. 2015;Howes
and Eshghi 2017).
We should emphasise that the concept of FRSs is, like TRPs, intended as modelling
constraints on the distributions of the phenomena in question—respectively feedback
and speaker transitions—rather than determining them fully. The actual distributions
of backchannels and CRs depend on many factors including dialogue genre, topic and
task each demanding different levels of mutual understanding from the participants and
even the specific feedback tokens appropriate at each FRS. For clarification requests,
open-class CRs (Drew 1991) such as ‘huh?’ or ‘what?’ are likely to occur after a turn
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
336 C. Howes et al.
is complete, whilst other restricted forms of repair initiation, such as reprise fragments
(‘Bill?’) or sluices (‘who?’) (Purver 2004) can occur mid-turn, e.g. after a noun phrase,
as in Example 2. Similarly, for backchannels, ‘mhm’ is more appropriate than ‘okay’
before the speaker’s turn is complete (Bangerter and Clark 2003). We do not make
such fine-grained distinctions in this paper.
Thus, the claim that CRs and backchannels occur at FRSs does not imply that they
are the same or that they will follow the same distributional patterns (in fact they do
not as we shall see in Sect. 5). The claim is rather that they are subject to the same
processing mechanisms and thus do not flout the constraints inherent therein, which,
as we argue below, originate in the grammar6—see Sect. 3.
2.3 Corpus Studies
As we are interested in the precise placement of feedback (and whether the model
presented in Howes and Eshghi (2017) and outlined in Sect. 3.4 can account for
it) there are a number of relevant corpus studies, which we outline below, before
presenting our own from the British National Corpus (BNC) and how it compares to
the studies discussed here.
One of the earliest quantificational studies of feedback is that described in Duncan
(1972,1974). Although based on a limited corpus of two dyadic dialogues (with
one person appearing in both dialogues), this study presents a detailed multimodal
annotation of backchannel responses. Of 71 total backchannels, 69 contained both
vocal and visual elements and 31 contained more than one vocal element (e.g. “yeah
yeah”), but this study does not distinguish between different vocalisations (‘mhm’,
‘yeah’, ‘right’, etc) and includes both clarification requests and sentence completions
as backchannel responses (as discussed previously, we consider all these to be types
of feedback—although this does not mean they will occur in the same contexts).
Importantly for our proposed model, 27% of mhms (vocal backchannels) and 33% of
nods were what Duncan (1974) terms ‘early’, or “prior to the end of the unit”. For us
here, it is what happens after this early feedback that would count as evidence for, or
against our model.
More recently, Kjellmer (2009) investigated 6 common backchannel tokens, by
sampling 1000 cases of each from the COBUILD corpus, discarding those he did not
consider to be backchannels (e.g. which were not standalone, and/or which led to the
producer of the backchannel taking the subsequent turn). Importantly for our analysis
Kjellmer was primarily interested in the 42% of his sample that were ‘turn-internal’
backchannels—“cases where the speaker continues his/her turn across the backchan-
nel”. Of these, 71% occur at what, based on the syntax, he terms low interference
places: “The places where the insertion of backchannels can be expected to occasion
little interference, or none at all, i.e. places where a thought unit has been presented
and where it is natural to pause,” (e.g. between clauses) which could be analogous to
the notion of FRSs as presented above. A further 10% occur at places “where a mod-
erate degree of interference is possible [which] are also places where pauses naturally
occur” and 16% at places where there is a “high degree of potential interference”.
6We thank one of our reviewers, Mark Dingemanse, for helping us clarify this point.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 337
These cases are particularly interesting for us, as they might be considered to be those
which do not fit our model of FRSs (Howes and Eshghi 2017), but as we shall see,
some of the features of DS allow us to explain these cases in a way that formalises the
intuitions in Kjellmer (2009) about examples in which the backchannel occurs early
due to the predictability of what follows—see Sect.6.2. Note also that this proportion
is in line with the ‘early’ numbers from Duncan (1974), as described above.
These findings have parallels with corpus studies of compound contributions in
which the majority (63%) of same-speaker compound contributions are separated
only by a backchannel, with 29% of same-speaker ones occurring after the first part
of the turn did not end in a complete way (Howes et al. 2012a). However, both
Kjellmer (2009) and Duncan (1974) have a more nuanced notion of a turn (using e.g.
prosody/intonation), rather than potential turn completeness as based on transcriptions
alone.
Neither Duncan nor Kjellmer, however, considers overlap, but there is evidence that
a high proportion of backchannels do occur in overlap. Rühlemann (2007), for exam-
ple, located standalone occurrences of the the two most common feedback indicators
‘yeah’ and ‘mm’ in the spoken BNC, finding that 17% and 10% of these occur in over-
lap respectively. Rühlemann (2007) takes this as evidence of backchannels supportive
nature (in line with the ‘continuer’ function of Schegloff 1982) “backchannelling
can be characterized essentially as ‘non-turn-claiming talk’ ” (which characterisa-
tion goes back to Yngve (1970)—the originator of the term backchannel) but raises
the question as to whether the overlapping backchannels are more likely to be those
which do not occur at FRSs (those which are ‘early’ or ‘high-interference’ in Dun-
can’s and Kjellmer’s terminology). Note that due to the methodology of selecting all
standalone occurrences of ‘yeah’ and ‘mm’, this study will miss cases which are not
standalone (e.g. “yeah yeah”), and will include cases which are not usually considered
to be backchannels (though see Fujimoto 2007), such as affirmative answers to yes/no
questions, which may be less likely to occur in overlap, so these proportions are likely
to be underestimates (as Rühlemann acknowledges).
Other corpus studies that cover aspects of feedback include Fernández (2006),
whose annotations of non-sentential utterances (NSUs) in a subcorpus of the BNC
include the classes ‘acknowledgements’ (5% of all utterances), and ‘clarification ellip-
sis’ (1%). However, as her focus is on NSUs, Fernández (2006) excludes cases in
overlap, which as we have seen (Rühlemann 2007) means many genuine feedback
utterances will be missed. For clarification requests, the numbers reported in Fernán-
dez (2006) are also an underestimate, as she is not concerned with sentential cases (e.g.
“what do you mean?”). In another BNC study, Purver (2004) found that clarification
requests made up just under 3% of utterances.
2.4 Dynamic Syntax Model of FRSs
According to the model presented in Howes and Eshghi (2017), FRSs can be defined
as points during processing where a semantic sub-tree has just been completed. In
practice this means that all TRPs and clause boundaries are FRSs, for example, but
FRSs also occur after e.g. a complete noun phrase has been processed. Feedback
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
338 C. Howes et al.
should not, however, normally be licensed e.g. within a noun or prepositional phrase,
such as after a determiner but before the noun has been encountered. Feedback is
therefore licensed only after a complete semantic unit of information has been parsed.
Before presenting the model from Howes and Eshghi (2017) in detail in Sect. 3.4,
we first outline the formal tools of Dynamic Syntax (Kempson et al. 2001,2016) and
Type Theory with Records (Cooper and Ginzburg 2015; Cooper 2012,2005) on which
the model is based.
3 Dynamic Syntax
Dynamic Syntax (DS, Kempson et al. 2016; Cann et al. 2005; Kempson et al. 2001)
is an action-based grammar framework that directly captures the time-linear, incre-
mental nature of the dual processes of linguistic comprehension and production, on a
word by word or token by token basis.7It models the linear construction of semantic
representations (i.e. interpretations) as progressively more linguistic input is parsed or
generated. DS is idiosyncratic in that it does not assume, or recognise, an independent
level of syntactic representation over words: syntax on this view is sets of constraints on
the incremental processing of semantic information in potentially multiple modalities
(e.g. language and vision).
The output of parsing any given string of words, or non-verbal tokens, is thus a
semantic tree representing its predicate-argument structure. DS trees are always binary
branching, with argument nodes conventionally on the right and functor nodes to the
left; tree nodes correspond to terms in the lambda calculus, decorated with labels
expressing their semantic type (e.g. Ty(e)) and logical formulae—here as record
types of Type Theory with Records (TTR, see Sect. 3.2 below); and beta-reduction
determines the type and formula at a mother node from those at its daughters (Fig. 2).
These trees can be partial, containing unsatisfied requirements potentially for any
element (e.g. ?Ty(e), a requirement for future development to Ty(e)), and contain a
pointer,, labelling the node currently under development.
Grammaticality is defined as parsability in a context: the successful incremental
word-by-word construction of a tree with no outstanding requirements (a complete
tree) using all information given by the words in a string. We can also distinguish
potential grammaticality (a successful sequence of steps up to a given point, although
the tree is not complete and may have outstanding requirements) from ungrammati-
cality (no possible sequence of steps up to a given point) (Cann et al. 2007).
3.1 Actions in DS
The parsing process, which is what constitutes ‘syntax’ in DS, is defined in terms
of conditional actions: procedural specifications for monotonic semantic tree update.
Computational actions are general structure-building principles; and lexical actions
are language-specific actions corresponding to and triggered by specific lexical tokens.
7The DS parser implementation, DyLan (Eshghi 2015; Eshghi et al. 2011) is available at: https://bitbucket.
org/dylandialoguesystem/dsttr/.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 339
Fig. 1 Lexical action for the word ‘John’
All actions take the form of ‘macros’ to provide update operations on semantic trees,
instantiated as IF…THEN…ELSE rules which yield semantically transparent struc-
tures when applied (see e.g. Figs. 1and 6).
Computational Actions form a small, fixed set of macros. Some encode the prop-
erties of the lambda calculus and the logical tree formalism (the logic of finite trees;
LOFT: Blackburn and Meyer-Viol 1994)e.g.Thinning, which removes satisfied
requirements; and Elimination, which performs beta-reduction of a node’s daugh-
ters, and annotates the mother node with the resulting formula. Other computational
actions reflect the fundamental predictivity and dynamics of DS, e.g. Completion,
which moves the pointer up and out of a sub-tree once all requirements therein are sat-
isfied; and Anticipation which moves the pointer from a mother node to a daughter
node with any unfulfilled requirements. While the former set of actions are inferential,
thus not adding any new information to the trees, the latter set introduce alternative
parse paths, thus capturing structural ambiguity: Completion for example, precludes
any further development of the current sub-tree because it moves the pointer up and out
of it. In general, computational actions can apply optionally whenever their precon-
ditions are met, but are not triggered by lexical input. The successful parse of a word
w1thus amounts to finding a sequence of computational actions (possibly empty) that
leads to a tree which satisfies the preconditions of the lexical action for w1. The parse
search process/history can be represented as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), with
(partial) semantic trees as nodes, and actions as edges, i.e. transitions between trees.
Lexical actions are associated with word forms in a DS lexicon. Like computational
actions, these are tree-update macros composed of sequences of atomic actions which
are basic tree-building operations such as make,put and go.Make creates a new
(daughter) node, go moves the pointer, and put decorates the pointed node with a
node label. Figure 1shows an example for a proper noun, John. The action checks
whether the pointed node (marked as ) has a requirement for type e; if so, it decorates
it with type e(thus satisfying the requirement), the semantics for John (see Sect. 3.2
for details) and the bottom restriction ↓(meaning that the node cannot have any
daughters). Otherwise (if there is no requirement ?Ty(e)), the action aborts, meaning
that the word ‘John’ cannot be parsed in the context of the current tree.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
340 C. Howes et al.
Fig. 2 Incremental parsing in DS-TTR: “John arrives”
Figure 2shows “John arrives”, parsed incrementally, starting with an empty tree,
with only the root node’s daughters created, and ending with a complete tree. The
intermediate steps show the effects of Completion, which moves the pointer up and
out of a complete node—this process is central in our explanation of FRSs; and of
Anticipation, which moves the pointer down from the root to its functor daughter.
3.2 Type Theory with Records (TTR)
Recent efforts have incorporated TTR (Cooper 2012,2005) as the semantic formalism
in which meaning representations are couched in DS (Eshghi et al. 2012; Purver et al.
2011,2010)—it is within the DS-TTR fusion that we express our model.
TTR is an extension of standard type theory, and has been shown to be useful in
contextual and semantic modelling in dialogue (see e.g. Ginzburg 2012; Fernández
2006; Purver et al. 2010, among many others), as well as the integration of perceptual
and linguistic semantics (Larsson 2015; Dobnik et al. 2012;Yuetal.2016). With
its rich notions of underspecification and subtyping, TTR has proved crucial for DS
research in the incremental specification of content (Purver et al. 2011; Hough 2015);
specification of a richer notion of dialogue context (Purver et al. 2010); models of
DS grammar learning (Eshghi et al. 2013a,2012); and models for learning dialogue
systems from data (Eshghi et al. 2017; Kalatzis et al. 2016; Eshghi and Lemon 2014).
In TTR, logical forms are specified as record types, which are sequences of fields
of the form [l:T]containing a label land a type T. Record types can be witnessed
(i.e. judged true) by records of that type, where a record is a sequence of label-value
pairs [l=v]. We say that [l=v]is of type [l:T]just in case vis of type T.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 341
Fig. 3 Example TTR record
types
Fields can be manifest, i.e. given a singleton type e.g. [l:Ta]where Tais the type
of which only ais a member; here, we write this as [l=a:T]. Fields can also be
dependent on fields preceding them (i.e. higher) in the record type (see Fig. 3).
The standard subtype relation can be defined for record types: R1R2if for
all fields [l:T2]in R2,R1contains [l:T1]where T1T2.InFig.3,R1R2
if T2T2, and both R1and R2are subtypes of R3. This subtyping relation allows
semantic information to be incrementally specified, i.e. record types can be indefinitely
extended with more information and/or constraints.
3.3 Dynamic Syntax and Dialogue Modelling
Given the inherent properties of the DS formalism, it has lent itself particularly well
to dialogue modelling and analysis, and this has been a focus of research in the past
decade or so (see Purver et al. 2006;Gargettetal.2009; Gregoromichelaki et al. 2011;
Howes 2012; Eshghi et al. 2015; Kempson et al. 2016, among many others). In DS,
dialogue is modelled as the interactive and incremental construction of contextual
and semantic representations (Eshghi et al. 2015). The contextual representations
afforded by DS are of the fine-grained semantic content that is jointly constructed by
interlocutors (see below for details), as a result of processing questions and answers,
mid-utterance self-corrections (Hough and Purver 2012), various types of cross-turn
context-dependency and ellipsis (Kempson et al. 2015); and split utterances (Howes
et al. 2011;Howes2012; Kempson et al. 2016).
3.4 Processing Feedback in Dynamic Syntax
In DS, context, required for processing various forms of context-dependency—
including pronouns, VP-ellipsis, self-repair and short answers—is the parse search
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). Edges correspond to DS actions—both Computational
and Lexical actions—and nodes correspond to semantic trees after the application of
each action (Sato 2011; Eshghi et al. 2012; Kempson et al. 2015)—see Fig. 4. Here, we
take a coarser-grained view of the DAG with edges corresponding to words (sequences
of computational actions followed by a single lexical action) rather than single actions,
and dropping abandoned parse paths (see Hough 2015, for details)—Fig. 5shows an
example.
As Eshghi et al. (2015) show, grounding (the integration into the context of feed-
back) in a dyadic dialogue can be captured using the context DAG, augmented with
two coordination pointers:theself-pointer,; and the other-pointer,, marking the
points up to which the dialogue participants have each grounded the material. We dub
this augmented context DAG, the Interaction Control State (henceforth ICS).
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
342 C. Howes et al.
Fig. 4 DS parsing as a directed acyclic graph (DAG): actions (edges) are transitions between partial trees
(nodes)
Fig. 5 Backchannels as movement of coordination pointers on interaction control states (ICS); from A’s
perspective
Any utterance causes ICS pointer movement, and interlocutors each have their own
ICS which, as we will see below, can diverge at times, and re-converge as a result
of clarification interaction and repair processes more generally. The self-pointer, ,
on participant A’s ICS tracks the point to which A has given evidence for reaching.
The other-pointer, , tracks where the other participant, B, has given evidence for
reaching. For example, an utterance produced by A will move A’s self-pointer on their
own ICS to the rightmost node of their ICS; on B’s ICS, it is the other-pointer that
moves to the same location. On this model, the intersection of the path back to the
ICS root from the self- and other-pointers is taken to be grounded, with the effect that
parse or production search within this grounded pathway is precluded, thus removing
the computational cost associated with finding alternative interpretation pathways, as
well as formally explaining how conversations move forward.
This model has been shown to account for backchannels, clarification interaction
and other corrections (Eshghi et al. 2015). CRs cause branching on the ICS, where the
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 343
current path is abandoned and another branch constructed—a subsequent response
to the CR plus the acknowledgement of this response eventually realigns the two
coordination pointers, and the interlocutors’ individual ICSs as a consequence—for
reasons of space, here we suppress the details of how CRs are processed and integrated
in the model, see Eshghi et al. (2015), Section 3.2, for a detailed exposition. By contrast,
backchannels and utterance continuations do not create new branches, but move the
other-pointer forward on the current path.
Figure 5is a step by step illustration of how A’s ICS develops as the dialogue pro-
ceeds, and as B’s backchannel, ‘mhm’ is processed. After producing the first utterance,
A’s self-pointer, ,isons2, the right-most node of her ICS so far. B’s backchannel
“passes the opportunity to repair” (Schegloff 1982), thus moving A’s other-pointer, ,
to the same node and so grounding “the doctor”. A’s subsequent continuation creates
new edges, and moves her self-pointer to the new right-most node. At this point, A’s
new utterance needs further feedback from B to be grounded: divergence of pointer
positions thus represents ‘forward momentum’ in conversation (elsewhere called dis-
cursive potential; Ginzburg 2012).
This puts structural, surface forms of context-dependency at the centre of the
explanation of participant coordination and feedback in dialogue: various forms of
context-dependent expression, from the weakest—backchannels, which have little or
no semantic content, to the strongest—utterance continuations, all serve to narrow
down the otherwise mushrooming space of interpretation pathways. Their pervasive-
ness is therefore not coincidental, but strategic, and serves to make interpretation in
dialogue locally computationally tractable.
This account gives formal rigour to the view expressed above under which lan-
guage provides a set of interactional mechanisms—such as ellipsis, repair, and,
indeed, backchannels—for dealing with the persistent potential for miscommunica-
tion (Healey et al. 2018; Kempson et al. 2016). So backchannels on this view really
are “betokening the absence of such [communication] problems” (Schegloff 1982).
3.5 Modelling Feedback Relevance Spaces
Following Howes and Eshghi (2017), we take feedback to be normally licensed when
a complete semantic unit has been fully processed and compiled, i.e. that a complete
(sub-)tree has been constructed with no more tree compilation actions (namely Thin-
ning and Elimination, see Sect. 3.1) possible. Conceptually, these (sub-)trees are
semantic, as it is the process of incrementally building up interpretations which is the
core of language use and the driver of the DS grammar-as-parser approach. It is at
these points that there may be enough information for the hearer to know whether
or not repair is required, though the need for repair may also only become apparent
further downstream (I may, for example successfully parse a name at the start of an
utterance, but be thinking of the wrong individual, which only becomes apparent later
in the utterance when I try to integrate the information—if ever).8
8Note that other factors of the interaction process can also play a role here—for example, you may not
understand a word or two, but wait for more input because you believe the overall gist may become apparent
from the later context, or you may ignore an obvious miscommunication as not interactionally relevant (so-
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
344 C. Howes et al.
Fig. 6 Lexical entry for a backchannel
Clarification requests are modelled in DS using the existing, independently moti-
vated mechanism of Link-Adjunction, which also accounts for both non-restrictive
and restrictive readings of relative clauses (Cann et al. 2005). This creates a Linked
tree off the root node of the sub-tree with a requirement for a copy of the semantics of
the node that the Linked tree is developed from. Without requiring any additions to
the grammar (c.f. Ginzburg and Cooper 2004; Purver 2004), this analysis includes CR
fragments such as as reprises (e.g. ‘Bill?’) and sluicing (e.g. ‘who?’), which are also
treated as adjuncts.9This mechanism involves backwards search for the trouble source,
thus moving the DS tree pointer out of the current tree and to the antecedent sub-tree
on the context DAG. This backward search is normally precluded or at least predicted
to be more computationally expensive if the current sub-tree under development is
incomplete, in line with experimental findings that mid-constituent (non-FRS) reprise
fragment CRs are more disruptive than between-constituent (FRS) ones (Healey et al.
2011; Eshghi et al. 2010).
Given that we take backchannels to be passing up an opportunity for repair, it follows
that they are also licensed when a complete semantic sub-tree has been compiled.
Figure 6shows the lexical entry for backchannels.
The action in Fig. 6is successful only if we are on a complete node (with no
outstanding requirements) whose sister node if any—referenced via the ↑
10and
↑
01modalities—is not also complete. This ensures that all possible sequences of
tree compilation actions (namely Thinning and Elimination, see Sect. 3.1) and any
subsequent Completion actions are carried out before the backchannel can be parsed.
The effect on the parse DAG (see e.g. Fig. 4) is that all (otherwise available) branches
other than the one ending in a maximally complete tree are pruned. In addition, since
the action pushes the pointer up and out of the complete sub-tree, any adjunct on or
further qualification of the complete semantic unit via Link-Adjunction is precluded.
Backchannels, especially those at FRSs that are not also TRPs (such as those which
ground a noun phrase subject) are thus a strong signal that there is no need for repair,
which, in pruning the parse DAG mean that any subsequent repair of a previously
grounded element should be disruptive. Variants of this mechanism have been tested
in the DS parser implementation (Eshghi et al. 2011; Eshghi 2015).
called accepted misconstruals in Clark 1997). We leave aside such considerations here, as they are outside
the remit of the DS model.
9For reasons of space we do not include the analysis here, but see Gargett et al. (2009) and Eshghi et al.
(2015).
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 345
Together, the above DS-internal dynamics allow us to provide a parsimonious expla-
nation of why feedback ought to occur at FRSs, i.e. immediately after a complete
semantic unit of information, using nothing beyond the already existing mechanisms
of DS.
4Hypotheses
Given the model in Howes and Eshghi (2017), presented above, we make the following
predictions:
1. Feedback should ordinarily occur at FRSs—that is, after a complete semantic unit
of information according to the DS model.
2. Early feedback indicates that the speaker’s truncated semantic unit was locally
predictable enough to be already understood without having been fully articulated.
This means that there should be no need for the speaker to complete their utterance,
and we expect a greater proportion of abandoned utterances after early feedback.
3. Late feedback addresses an earlier semantic unit, and is thus more disruptive due
to the backward and forward search required on the part of the speaker to integrate
them, and resume their utterance. Self-repair is known to provide “a measure of
the difficulty of producing a contribution” (Healey et al. 2005, p.125 ) and pilot
experiments on CRs suggest extra effort should lead to more utterance initial self-
repair following an interruption (Eshghi et al. 2010; Healey et al. 2011).
4. Acknowledgements are less disruptive than CRs, as they do not require any specific
response from the speaker. They are therefore more likely to occur in overlap, and
more likely to occur at non-FRSs than CRs.
5 Corpus Analysis
5.1 Materials
For this study we used 20 dialogues (made up of 4938 utterances) from the sub-corpus
of the BNC that had already been annotated for Compound Contributions (Purver
et al. 2009; Howes et al. 2012a) and non-sentential utterances (Fernández 2006). In
particular, we make use of the end-complete tags from Purver et al. (2009) which
indicates whether turns could be considered to be finished in a complete way or not.
We term those utterances which do not end in a complete way and do not have a later
continuation (according to the pre-existing annotations) ‘abandoned utterances’. We
also use the notion of ‘repairs’ from Purver et al. (2009), which we term ‘restarts’. For
our purposes, an utterance following a piece of feedback contains a restart if it begins
with an utterance initial self-repair in the form of a repeated or paraphrased word or
phrase (as in Example 6).
Our main annotation task was to annotate each utterance that was an acknowl-
edgement or a CR (enabling us to include examples discounted by Fernández (2006)
as discussed above). For end-complete tags, Purver et al. (2009) reported inter-
annotator agreement using Cohen’s Kappa of between 0.73 and 1 for three dialogues
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
346 C. Howes et al.
Table 1 Annotation tags
Tag Value Explanation
End-complete y/n For all utterances: does this utterance end in such a way
as to yield a complete proposition or speech act?
Ack/clarify Ack/CR/(blank) For all utterances: does this sentence consist of a
backchannel (e.g. ‘yeah’, ‘mhm’, ‘right’) or a repeated
word or phrase acknowledging the proposition or speech
act of a previous utterance? If not, does this utterance con-
sist of a clarification request, clarifying the proposition
or speech act of a previous utterance?
annotated by three linguistically knowledgeable annotators. For acknowledgements
and CRs, 9 naive coders (Masters students, for course credit) each annotated a dia-
logue which were then all annotated by one of the authors. Interrater reliability was
moderate to high for all 9 dialogues κ=0.64 0.93 (average 0.78). The annotations
and instructions given to the annotators are publicly available at https://osf.io/8fjbh/.
5.2 Method
The high-level annotation task is as described in Table 1(with end-complete
tags already annotated, as above). Following this initial pass, we further examine
those cases which occur after a non end-complete utterance or in overlap with an
end-complete utterance to assess whether these in fact occur at what our DS model
predicts to be an FRS, or if not whether they can be classified as appearing just after
an FRS (‘late’) or before an FRS (‘early’). Following Duncan (1974), we took there
to be an intuitive notion of whether feedback occurred early or late. Of course, each
piece of feedback that does not occur at an FRS could be related to the preceding
(complete) semantic unit, or to the current (incomplete) semantic unit in progress.10
In practice, we categorised feedback as late only if it was obviously taken as relating
to the preceding semantic unit (see examples, below). All other cases, including some
ambiguous cases that may have related to a prior semantic unit and thus properly been
counted as late, we categorised as early, meaning that the proportions we report as
late are likely to be an underestimate. Inter-rater reliability between the authors for the
three way coding (at_FRS,early or late) of a sample of 96 cases which were
not automatically coded as at an FRS (see footnote 10)wasκ=0.71.
5.3 Results
13.3% of utterances in our sample were acknowledgements (more than double that
found by Fernández (2006), though as discussed above she did not include many cases
for methodological reasons), and 2.3% were CRs (slightly lower than Purver (2004),
10 Note that the 539 cases which occurred after a end-complete tag, and contained no overlap were auto-
matically annotated as occurring at an FRS, leaving only 231 cases to be manually annotated as occurring
at an FRS or early or late.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 347
Table 2 Summary data
Total After non After Occurring in No
End-complete End-complete Overlap Overlap
# %#% # % #% # %
Acknowledgements 655 13 112 17 543 83 174 27 481 73
CRs 115 210 9105 91 14 12 101 88
Total 770 16 122 16 648 84 188 24 582 76
(Other utterances) 4168 84 228 53940 95 687 16 3481 84
Total utterances 4938 350 74588 93 875 18 4063 82
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
348 C. Howes et al.
but this could be accounted for the fact that he found a higher proportion of CRs
in the demographic—non-context specific—dialogues which constituted 90% of his
sample, but represents only 5% of our sample). In all the statistical results reported
below, particularly with regards to CRs, we must be cautious in our interpretations
due to the small number of cases involved.
5.4 Positioning of Feedback
In support of hypothesis 1, 543 acknowledgements (83%) and 105 CRs (91%) occurred
after utterances which could be considered end-complete. This means that the utterance
ends in such a way as to yield a complete proposition or speech act, and so feedback
in these cases occurs at turn or clause boundaries (though see below regarding cases
which appear in overlap with an end-complete turn). As these are all potentially TRPs,
they also correspond to places that are FRSs according to the model in Howes and
Eshghi (2017).11
In terms of overlap, a greater proportion of acknowledgements (174/655: 27%) than
CRs (14/115: 12%) occur in overlap with another speaker’s talk (χ2
1=10.978,p=
0.001), supporting hypothesis 4. As expected, the proportion of acknowledgements in
our study is greater than that in Rühlemann (2007). Acknowledgements are also sig-
nificantly more likely than CRs to occur after a non end-complete utterance (112/655
= 17% vs 10/115 = 9%: χ2
1=5.181,p=0.02).
Of those 112 acknowledgements which did not occur after a potentially end-
complete utterance a higher proportion than expected by chance occur in overlap
(77: 69%; χ2
1=123.442,p<0.001) which is not the case for CRs (2: 20%), also
offering support for hypothesis 4.
Closer examination of the feedback that occurs mid-utterance (i.e. after a non end-
complete utterance or in overlap with an end-complete utterance, Table 3), shows that
many of these do occur at what our model predicts to be an FRS (ack: 109/209, 52%;
CR: 6/22, 27%) and which correspond to Kjellmer’s (2009) “low-interference places”,
see e.g. Examples 23. This is especially the case when we consider those cases with
some degree of overlap (Example4)—due to the transcription conventions of the BNC,
overlapping talk may be shown interleaved with the preceding utterance, but note that
examples such as this one could equally be transcribed in a way that makes it obvious
that they do occur at FRSs (see the alternate transcription in Example 5).
When we manually annotate the cases described in footnote 10, 115 (of 231)
instances were assessed as occurring at FRSs. The difference between the total propor-
tion of acknowledgements and CRs that occur at non-FRSs (100/655, 15%; 16/115,
14%) is therefore not significant (see summary in Table 4), contra hypothesis 4.
11 Note that as possible end-completeness was annotated purely based on the transcriptions this will
inevitably include some feedback which would be considered mid-turn by Duncan (1974) and Kjellmer
(2009).
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 349
Table 3 Positioning of mid utterance feedback
After non end-complete utterance Overlapping end-complete utterance
Total Early At FRS Late Total Early At FRS Late
# #%#% #% # #%#% #%
Acknowledgements 112 46 41 52 46 14 13 97 35 36 57 59 55
CRs 10 3 30 220 550 12 4 33 433 433
Total 122 49 40 54 44 19 16 109 40 37 61 56 87
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
350 C. Howes et al.
Table 4 Summary: positioning
of feedback Total Early At FRS Late
##%#%#%
Acknowledgements 655 81 12 555 85 19 3
CRs 115 7 699 86 98
Total 770 88 11 654 85 28 4
Example 3 BNC file HDK:162–164—within-turn acknowledgement at an FRS
I 162 No, I, I wondered because er it was quite an honour to have your name
A 163 Yes.
I 164 put on the honour board.
Example 4 BNC file J8D:51–54—within-turn acknowledgement at an FRS, in overlap
A 51 As if we haven’t got enough on our plate!
52 [The thing]
U53[Mm]
A 54 that is stupid Terry is key stage four!
Example 5 BNC file J8D:51–54 (alternate transcription of Example 4)
A 51 As if we haven’t got enough on our plate!
U53[Mm]
A 54 [The thing] that is stupid Terry is key stage four!
5.5 Late Feedback
As shown in Table 4, of the 100 acknowledgements that do not occur at an FRS, 19
(19%) are categorised as late, as are 9 of the 16 CRs (56%, a significantly higher
proportion χ2
1=10.452,p=0.001). In the case of both acknowledgements and
CRs, these occur soon after an FRS—often after a conjunction (‘and’, ‘or’, or ‘but’ in
11 of the 28 ‘late’ cases—8/19 Acks (42%); 3/9 CRs (33%)) or new clause beginning
(e.g. ‘as’, ‘if’, ‘that’ or ‘so’, or a subject noun phrase in 11 cases 7/19 Acks (36%);
4/9 CRs (44%)), and the feedback is clearly interpreted as applying to the preceding
(end-complete) segment, as shown in Examples 6and 7.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 351
Example 6 BNC file G4W:144–146—late acknowledgement, after a conjunction
D 144 I’m not saying that the same person thought of these two things at once, but
U 145 Okay.
D 146 these are these are things which were all said.
Example 7 BNC file G4W:136–139—late CR, after a relative clause marker
D 136 Er women were also said to be polite, diffident, verbose and deferential, which
U 137 What all of those?
D 138 Mhm.
U 139 unclearpolite and deferential.
In support of hypothesis 3, restarts (utterance initial self-repairs), as seen in Exam-
ple 6, are more common following late feedback than feedback at an FRS (7/28 =
25% vs 66/654 = 10% χ2
1=6.244,p=0.012). There is also a trend such that
there are more restarts following late rather than early feedback, but this does not
reach significance due to the low numbers of instances (7/28 = 25% vs 10/88 = 11%
χ2
1=3.158,p=0.076). Note that even in the late cases, there is no utterance initial
self-repair in the majority of cases.
In support of hypothesis 4, there also seems to be more disruption caused by late CRs
than late acknowledgements. Although there is no statistical difference between the
amount that have utterance initial repair (3/9 (33%) of the late CR cases and 4/19 (21%)
of the late acknowledgement cases), there is a difference in the number of utterances
which get abandoned (i.e. the interrupted utterance in progress never gets continued)12
after the interlocutor produces a late CR compared to a late Acknowledgement (6/9
= 67% vs 1/19 = 5% χ2
1=12.280,p<0.001). It is telling that all the 3 cases of
late CRs which did not get abandoned, such as Example 8, included overlap with
the CR.
Example 8 BNC file HDD:436–439—late CR
K 436 That’s no good because the mass is on Thursday.
437 It’s [Thursday]
U 438 [Which Thursday]? whispered
K 439 this Thursday coming.
12 This is based on the continues annotation tag from Purver et al. (2009).
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
352 C. Howes et al.
5.6 Early Feedback
More interesting are the 81 acknowledgements and 7 CRs that were categorised as
early. In these cases, it appears that the feedback is placed within the semantic unit to
which it relates, meaning that the listener has made some prediction about the upcom-
ing linguistic material, and is able to produce feedback before the input is complete.
This matches observations from both Duncan and Kjellmer: “…an early back channel
may not be merely misplaced, but rather it may carry significant information for the
interaction …[and] may indicate, not only that the auditor is following the speaker’s
message, but also that the auditor is actually ahead of it” (Duncan 1974); “the point at
which the backchannel is inserted may suggest when the listener has formed an idea
of what the speaker is conveying or going to convey […] the information-content of
an utterance is often conveyed to the listener before it has been expressed in toto”(
Kjellmer 2009, italics original).
This holds of both early backchannels and early CRs: in contexts where upcoming
material is highly predictable, early CRs are likely to be formulated as a compound
contribution (Howes et al. 2012b), directly continuing the truncated utterance, and,
as opposed to early backchannels, actually articulating the predicted material as a
clarification question. We discuss these observations in detail below.
Examination of the data shows that early feedback often occurs at points at which
the remainder of the semantic information unit is already predictable, with the context
of the utterance constraining how it is likely to progress. In Example 9, the source of
this predictivity is the extremely local context of a specific compound noun phrase
“North York Moors”, which is familiar enough to the interlocutors that the listener can
understand what is being talked about (and therefore produce an acknowledgement)
before the complete noun phrase has been uttered. In Example 10, the source of the
predictability is also the local context, but in this case it is due to the repetition of the
form of the lexical items.
Example 9 BNC file G3Y:180–184—predictive acknowledgement
M 180 I can’t stand the seaside.
181 Couldn’t we go to the North York [Moors]
L 182 [Mm.]
M 183 instead.
184 Right so instantaneous unclear.
Example 10 BNC file G3Y:69–71—predictive acknowledgement
M 69 And erm you work out whether your preference is very strongly this way or a bit this way
or a bit that [way].
L70 [Mm].
M 71 And just put a mark on the line to indicate the strength of the preference.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 353
In contrast, in Examples 11 and 12 the source of the predictability of the utterance
in progress at the point at which the feedback is provided is more general; the inter-
locutors are both aware of the shared conversational history, and they are talking about
something that they have already been talking about.13
Example 11 BNC file KBG:35–38—predictive acknowledgement
C 35 No, you were right what you said though about
S36Mm.
C 37 Matthew.
S 38 Yeah I just pauseit just seems to me such a complete pauseand utter waste of of,
his time …
Example 12 BNC file KBG:150–152—predictive acknowledgement, overlap
S 150 Mind you, there’s been a great pause on it while you went to see to the [baby].
C 151 [Mm].
152 So then they’re all the details, and there’s examples and
These factors can overlap, with the utterance continuation constrained both by the
lexical items, and the broader context of the topic being discussed, as in Example 13.
Example 13 BNC file G3Y:307–312—predictive acknowledgement
M 307 And the thinking people prefer to use impersonal objective material.
L 308 Mm.
M 309 Whereas the feeling people prefer subjective personal
L 310 [Mm].
M 311 [material].
312 So you’ve go got a situation where if somebody wants to change something they’re actually,
you know …
Interestingly, this predictability of upcoming content means that the utterance in
progress when the early backchannel occurs can in fact be abandoned, with the assump-
tion that both participants know roughly what would have been said. Utterances can
therefore be interpreted as if they were complete—even if they are never fully articu-
lated, as in Example 14 (in which M is getting L to fill out a personality test—in this
example, M is checking whether L has decided where to rate herself along the second
scale) and Example 15. In Example 14 the source of the predictability may also come
from another modality, for example, L might have demonstrated her understanding
13 Note that Example 11 could have been a late acknowledgement that ought to haveoccurred after ‘though’
but before ‘about’, however the next turn suggests that it was taken as acknowledging ‘Matthew’.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
354 C. Howes et al.
of M’s incomplete question by marking her answer on paper.14 For DS, these exam-
ples mean that incomplete syntactic strings can, in particular interactional contexts,
result in complete semantic interpretations. We discuss how this might be modelled
in Sect. 6.2. In our data, although numbers are too small for tests of statistical signif-
icance, a higher proportion of utterances are abandoned (i.e. never completed) after
early than late acknowledgements (11/81: 14% vs 1/19: 5%) in line with hypothesis 2.
In contrast, utterances in progress are less likely to be abandoned after an early rather
than a late CR (1/7: 14% vs 6/9: 67%). This seems to be because of the work required
in order to address a CR, as shown in Example 7, which is not present in the case of
an acknowledgement.
Example 14 BNC file G3Y:286–288—predictive acknowledgement, utterance never
completed
M 286 Do you do you have a
L 287 Yeah.
M 288 Okay, right.
Example 15 BNC file JN7:66–70—predictive acknowledgement, utterance never
completed
S 66 Yeah pauseWell it’s it’s it’s a it’s a bit of a weighty subject that.
67 I think we ought to er
B 68 Yeah okay
S 69 Why don’t you and I talk about it separately then
B 70 Yeah alright
Early CRs on the other hand are often formulated as continuations of the prior
utterance (4/7 = 57%), as in Examples 16 and 17, and in fact this strategy has been
shown experimentally to be more likely in contexts where the upcoming part of speech
is highly predictable (Howes et al. 2012b). This is in line with our observation above
that early backchannels appear to be placed within a highly predictable semantic unit,
and treat the interrupted sentence as if already complete. The difference with CRs
is that the predicted material is actually articulated. We will discuss this and the
similarities to non-clarificatory compound contributions (Purver et al. 2011;Howes
2012; Kempson et al. 2016, a.o.) in terms of the DS model in Sect.6.2.
14 Such examples show that models of language use need to be integrated as part of a general model of
action/perception and that natural language syntax has to be definable as constraints over the process of
real-time, semantic growth—see Kempson et al. (2016) and Gregoromichelaki et al. (2020) for discussion
of these fundamental requirements.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 355
Example 16 BNC file G4X:185–191—predictive CR
S 185 But it’s it’s such a broad issue, that any opportunity we do get, to have a a broader discussion,
for more individuals to contribute their or have their say, you know again on a workshop or
something, I would very much support that.
C 186 We had actually got that in for that September
A 187 Mm, unclear
C 188 on, we got a date for that on the C Os [day]
S 189 [Workshop?]
C 190 Yeah.
S 191 Oh good
Example 17 BNC file K69:109–112—predictive CR
J 109 How does it generate?
M 110 It’s generated with a handle and
J 111 Wound round?
M 112 Yes, wind them round and this should, should generate a charge …
6 Accounting for the Data in the Model
In the rest of this paper, we focus on how feedback in the form of acknowledgements
and clarification requests are processed and integrated, and how the model can account
for their temporal distribution and licensing.
In light of our corpus study, we can see how the model accounts for the 85% of
cases where feedback occurs at FRSs. We now look in more detail at what the model
predicts should happen for late and early feedback, how these can be interpreted, and
how well these predictions are borne out by the corpus data.
6.1 Late Feedback
In our model, there are two possibilities for when feedback is produced at a point where
it is not licensed. The first is that the listener is lagging behind the speaker and has
produced the feedback late. This may reflect the time taken for the listener to integrate
the information into their interpretation—‘correct’ placement of feedback at FRSs will
require some element of prediction, analogously to how turn-taking occurs with such
precise timing indicating that people predict upcoming TRPs (de Ruiter et al. 2006,
a.o.). In this case, feedback can be interpreted as grounding the most recent increment
(informational unit).
For backchannels this means backtracking on the Interaction Control State (ICS,
see Sect. 3.4) to the first, most local point at which the backchannel is parsable,
or equivalently, where Completion just occurred: this process involves backwards
search, and is thus computationally expensive. The model therefore predicts that it
should cause some disruption for the speaker who integrates the feedback. This is
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
356 C. Howes et al.
consistent with our corpus results above (Sect. 5.5): restarts in the speaker’s utterance
are significantly more likely to occur after late feedback than they are after feedback
at an FRS. Interestingly, despite this need to backtrack, there is often no visible sign
of any disruption following a late backchannel. This may be because such disruption
is at the level of timing in the form of e.g. short pauses, or elongations, which are
not recorded in the transcripts. It may also be due to the way we have defined late
feedback, which means that it is often only one word which needs to be retained in
memory while the pruning backchannel operation is undertaken. In terms of the ICS,
the backchannel action does not open up any new paths, so it is relatively simple to
forward-track to the right-most point of the single open ICS parse path.
In contrast, late clarification requests, which require a response, are more disrup-
tive. In these cases, the need to backtrack to the trouble-source antecedent of the CR
often leads to the ICS path under development being abandoned. This is unsurprising
in terms of the DS model as the parser has to both backtrack and create a new DAG
path to resolve the CR (for details, see Eshghi et al. (2015), Fig. 6). This means that
the interrupted (non-grounded part of the) utterance is both more distant in time and in
terms of ICS pointer position, which may also reflect well-studied short-term memory
limitations (Gibson 1991). Furthermore, the return to the point of interruption involves,
unlike for backchannels, forward search, thus rendering it even more computationally
expensive.
6.2 Early Feedback
The second, perhaps more interesting, case is where feedback is produced early. In
this case, feedback seemingly precedes the completion of a semantic unit, which is
not licensed by the grammar model.
Our proposal here is that the producer of an early feedback token has anticipated
the content of the speaker’s utterance before it is complete. We argue that this is poten-
tially a computationally inexpensive process due to: (1) predictivity of the grammar
system itself in providing the hearer with specific local requirements to be satisfied,
e.g. a ?Ty(cn)which predicts a noun; (2) the parity of parsing and production mech-
anisms; and (3) contextual predictability, e.g. due to prior common ground among the
interlocutors, with the incremental content so far having been enough for the hearer to
predict the rest. The proposal is thus that the hearer has covertly projected content on
the type incomplete node, even before the speaker has uttered the next word, and thus
that the hearer’s Interaction Control State (see Sect. 3.4 and Fig. 5) is such that they
can produce the backchannel or clarification request early. The result is a realignment
of the interactants’ Interaction Control States albeit covertly.
In the case of clarification requests, this prediction means that the CR is often formu-
lated as a direct continuation of the utterance in progress, as shown in Example 18—i.e.
while it has the function of a CR, it takes the structural form of a compound contribu-
tion (Purver et al. 2009;Howes2012), with questioning intonation. In Purver’s 2004
terminology, these are gap fillers which are different from other types of CRs in that
they do “not clarify a part of the original utterance as actually presented, but instead a
part that was originally intended by the speaker but not produced” (Purver 2004,p.68).
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 357
Example 18 BNC file KB2:5155–5159—Candidate clarification request predicted
from context
A 5155 I says, ooh this gravy’s lovely!
J 5156 Yeah!
A 5157 He says er, yeah he said I did some onion, and then, I got some of them, you know
J 5158 Granules?
A 5159 yeah, put some of that in
J 5160 Mm.
As shown in DS accounts of cross-person completions (Purver et al. 2010; Eshghi
et al. 2012; Kempson et al. 2016), a listener may switch to being a speaker at any point
in the interpretation of an utterance, provided that they have a more advanced goal
tree in mind. This is precisely the mechanism being exploited in the early CR case,
with the questioning intonation taken to indicate lack of confidence in the proposed
continuation.
For early backchannels, we propose that the same predictive mechanisms are
exploited, except that the predicted content is directly projected on the listener’s as yet
incomplete tree node while parsing, and that this is done covertly before the speaker has
finished speaking; thus licensing the listener’s early backchannel. In Example 19:211,
for example, J’s continuation is so predictable (it is a repetition of prior material; “got
a lot on”) that A does not have to wait for it in order to interpret the complete utterance
(including the unuttered material that A has predicted will come next) but can instead
rerun the actions she has already used, or project the requisite content on the as yet
incomplete node directly.
Example 19 BNC file KB2:210–213 reuse of prior actions
J 210 her mum really she’s got a lot on, she’ll have a lot on cos she’s got to prepare for that
wedding, you know what you’re like when you, [you’ve got]
A 211 [Mm]
J 212 you know if you want, want to be doing things
[don’t you get out of house and that]
A 213 [Yeah, pre- preparing for a wedding, yeah]
The difference with backchannels is that the hearer, instead of producing the actual
completion of the speaker’s incomplete turn, signals that there is no need for the speaker
to carry on (14% of cases, see above), although of course, they may do so. Furthermore,
projecting predicted content is a less computationally expensive process than realising
the projected content with words because the latter involves lexical search.
This means that if you have a high degree of confidence that your projected con-
tinuation is correct, then an early backchannel is a good strategy. If, however, your
projected continuation is more tentative, then producing the lexical items as a CR,
to be confirmed or disconfirmed by your interlocutor is a better strategy to prevent
possible misunderstandings further down the line, despite the locally higher cost.
This analysis is further supported by a text chat experiment in which turns were
artificially truncated (Howes et al. 2012b). Some incomplete turns were responded
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
358 C. Howes et al.
to as if they were complete, provided that the continuation was highly predictable.
In addition, producing candidate completions as clarification requests was a fairly
common strategy—particularly when the part of speech of the upcoming material was
predictable, and the context sufficiently constrained.
7 Conclusions and Future Directions
We have presented a corpus study of feedback in British English dialogue and shown
how it can be accounted for using Dynamic Syntax, which unifies the dialogue phenom-
ena of backchannels, clarification requests and completions in terms of their potential
for participant coordination in interaction. All these phenomena can occur subsen-
tentially, and serve as interactional mechanisms for the management of interlocutors’
characteristic communicative divergence and convergence in dialogue. They achieve
this essentially by local pruning of the search space of potential interpretation path-
ways, thus making this seemingly intractable space of possibilities tractable at a given
point in an exchange.
Given the high occurrence of feedback at FRSs, our corpus study suggests that FRSs
are interactionally relevant parts of a utterance, analogous to TRPs, and that these are
based on low-level semantic criteria. Further, we provide an explanation of how, when
feedback such as backchannels occurs at points other than FRSs it gets interpreted as
if it had done so. This can be because the feedback is late and grounding the previous
informational unit, or in specific interactional contexts because the feedback is early
and the (rest of the) informational unit is predictable.
In this paper, our explanations of feedback at non-FRSs using the DS model have
focused more on backchannels than CRs. This is partly due to the distributions of the
types of feedback; there are simply not enough cases of early and late CRs to draw any
strong conclusions. We are therefore running some more precisely controlled text chat
experiments involving interruptive clarification requests, following the methodology
of Healey et al. (2018).
The corpus study in this paper has focused on British English data. It is well-known
that different languages have different frequencies and distributions of backchannels
(see e.g. Kita and Ide 2007, on Japanese), for example, but it is not known whether
these occur at more of the available FRSs or are influenced by other factors. What-
ever the case may be, we would expect feedback positioning to interact directly with
the grammar of the language. For example, the DS grammar of head final pro-drop
languages such as Japanese (Kempson and Kiaer 2008) imposes different constraints
on the unfolding utterance interpretation, in turn affecting FRSs. While we hope that
the notion of FRSs is cross-linguistically applicable, this is, of course, an empirical
question.
It also remains to be seen whether the model presented here or an extension of it
can account for patterns of grounding and feedback in multi-person dialogue where
participant role (Goffman 1981) has been shown to affect levels of semantic coordi-
nation and understanding (see Healey and Mills 2006; Eshghi 2009, a.o.), including
situations in which more than one participant can form higher order units (dubbed
parties by Schegloff 1995), in turn affecting feedback and grounding patterns (Eshghi
and Healey 2015;Howes2012).
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 359
As noted, this work has implications for the production and interpretation of feed-
back in artificial agents and interactive robots, specifically those intended to have
human-like behaviours, e.g. companion robots for the elderly. Our study suggests
that dialogue systems should produce or parse feedback not just based on unanalysed
features such as prosody (which may result in accurate placement, but have no func-
tional role in the dialogue system in terms of coordination), but because they have
successfully compiled a semantic unit.
Acknowledgements This work has emerged from several ongoing discussions among ourselves and some
of our dear friends and colleagues, to whom we are very grateful: Patrick G. T. Healey, Ruth Kempson,
Matthew Purver, Julian Hough and Eleni Gregoromichelaki. The specific views expressed here, as well
as any errors or infelicities are however our own. Howes was supported by two grants from the Swedish
Research Council (VR); 2016-0116—Incremental Reasoning in Dialogue (IncReD) and 2014-39 for the
establishment of the Centre for Linguistic Theory and Studies in Probability (CLASP) at the University of
Gothenburg.
Funding Open Access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence,
and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If
material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science,27(2),
195–225.
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., Johnson, T., et al. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,79(6), 941–952.
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).
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.
Bolden, G. B., Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2019). Subversive completions: Turn-taking resources for com-
mandeering the recipient’s action in progress. Research on Language and Social Interaction,52(2),
144–158.
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.
Burnard, L. (2000). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (World ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Computing Services.
Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Marten, L. (2005). The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Elsevier.
Cann, R., Kempson, R., & Purver, M. (2007). Context and well-formedness: The dynamics of ellipsis.
Research on Language and Computation,5(3), 333–358.
Chatzikyriakidis, S., & Kempson, R. (2011). Standard Modern and Pontic Greek person restrictions: A
feature-free dynamic account. Journal of Greek Linguistics,11, 127–166.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes,23(3), 567–598.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
360 C. Howes et al.
Cooper, R. (2005). Records and record types in semantic theory. Journal of Logic and Computation,15(2),
99–112.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In K. Foppa & I. Markova
(Eds.), Asymmetries in Dialogue (pp. 29–48). Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf.
Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,23(2), 283–292.
Duncan, S. (1974). On the structure of speaker–auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in
Society,3(2), 161–180.
Eshghi, A. (2009). Uncommon ground: The distribution of dialogue contexts. Ph.d thesis, Queen Mary
University of London.
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).
Eshghi, A., & Healey, P. G. T. (2015). Collective contexts in conversation: Grounding by proxy. Cognitive
Science,40, 229–324.
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).
Eshghi, A., Healey, P. G. T., Purver, M., Howes, C., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2010). Incre-
mental turn processing in dialogue. In Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, York,
UK.
Eshghi, A., Purver, M., & Hough, J. (2011). DyLan: Parser for Dynamic Syntax. Technical report, Queen
Mary University of London, EECSRR-11-05
Eshghi, A., Hough, J., Purver, M., Kempson, R., & Gregoromichelaki, E. (2012). Conversational inter-
actions: 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.
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.
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 Process-
ing. CSLP. (2012). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8114, pp. 92–107). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
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.
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).
Fernández, R. (2006). Non-sentential utterances in dialogue: Classification, resolution and use. Ph.d. thesis,
King’s College London, University of London.
Fujimoto, D. T. (2007). Listener responses in interaction: A case for abandoning the term, backchannel.
Journal of Osaka Jogakuin College,37, 35–54.
Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Kempson, R., Purver, M., & Sato, Y. (2009). Grammar resources for
modelling dialogue dynamically. Cognitive Neurodynamics,3(4), 347–363.
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.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on... 361
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2004). Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates in dialogue.
Linguistics and Philosophy,27(3), 297–365.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
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.
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.
Healey, P. G. T., & Mills, G. J. (2006). Participation, precedence and co-ordination in dialogue. In Proceed-
ings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1470–1475).
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.
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.
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.
Heldner, M., Hjalmarsson, A., & Edlund, J. (2013). Backchannel relevance spaces. Nordic Prosody: Pro-
ceedings of XIth Conference, Tartu,2012, 137–146.
Hough, J. (2015). Modelling incremental self-repair processing in dialogue. Ph.d thesis, Queen Mary Uni-
versity of London.
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).
Howes, C. (2012). Coordination in dialogue: Using compound contributions to join a party. Ph.d. thesis,
Queen Mary University of London.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Kawahara, T., Yamaguchi, T., Inoue, K., Takanashi, K., & Ward, N. (2016). Prediction and generation of
backchannel form for attentive listening systems. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH (pp. 2890–2894).
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.
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understand-
ing. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., & Chatzikiriakidis, S. (2016). Language as mechanisms for
interaction. Theoretical Linguistics,42(3–4), 203–275.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
362 C. Howes et al.
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.
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.
Larsson, S. (2015). Formal semantics for perceptual classification. Journal of Logic and Computation,
25(2), 335–369.
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.
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.
Mills, G. J. (2007). Semantic co-ordination in dialogue: The role of direct interaction. Ph.d thesis, Queen
Mary University of London.
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.
Poppe, R., Truong, K. P., & Heylen, D. (2011). Backchannels: Quantity, type and timing matters. In Inter-
national workshop on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 228–239). Springer.
Purver, M. (2004). The theory and use of clarification requests in dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, University of
London.
Purver, M., Cann, R., & Kempson, R. (2006). Grammars as parsers: Meeting the dialogue challenge.
Research on Language and Computation,4(2–3), 289–326.
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).
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).
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).
Rühlemann, C. (2007). Conversation in Context: A Corpus-Driven Approach. London, New York: Contin-
uum.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking
for conversation. Language,50(4), 696–735.
Sato, Y. (2011). Local ambiguity, search strategies and parsing in Dynamic Syntax. In E. Gregoromichelaki,
R. Kempson, & C. Howes (Eds.), The Dynamics of LexicalInterfaces. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
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.
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of
repair in conversation. Language,53(2), 361–382.
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.
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Prag-
matics,70, 152–164.
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).
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).
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... Since backchannel feedback is typically not considered to constitute a turn, it does not follow regular turntaking patterns. However, the timing of such feedback is still coordinated, and should ideally be produced in stretches of time called backchannel relevance spaces (Heldner et al., 2013;Howes and Eshghi, 2021). In general, speakers coordinate their turntaking using turn-yielding and turn-holding cues in different modalities (e.g., falling vs. rising pitch; Skantze, 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Intelligent agents interacting with humans through conversation (such as a robot, embodied conversational agent, or chatbot) need to receive feedback from the human to make sure that its communicative acts have the intended consequences. At the same time, the human interacting with the agent will also seek feedback, in order to ensure that her communicative acts have the intended consequences. In this review article, we give an overview of past and current research on how intelligent agents should be able to both give meaningful feedback toward humans, as well as understanding feedback given by the users. The review covers feedback across different modalities (e.g., speech, head gestures, gaze, and facial expression), different forms of feedback (e.g., backchannels, clarification requests), and models for allowing the agent to assess the user's level of understanding and adapt its behavior accordingly. Finally, we analyse some shortcomings of current approaches to modeling feedback, and identify important directions for future research.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores the practice of "subversive completions," whereby one speaker produces a grammatically fitted completion of another speaker's unfolding turn, so as to subvert the action of the unfolding turn and the ongoing sequence. We show that subversive completions may derail or exaggerate the action in progress, typically for comedic or teasing effect. We also introduce three related turn-taking practices that can be used to accomplish subversion and discuss the implications of these practices for our understanding of intersubjectivity. Data are in American English, British English, and Russian.
Article
Full-text available
People give feedback in conversation: both positive signals of understanding, such as nods, and negative signals of misunderstanding, such as frowns. How do signals of understanding and misunderstanding affect the coordination of language use in conversation? Using a chat tool and a maze-based reference task, we test two experimental manipulations that selectively interfere with feedback in live conversation: (a) "Attenuation" that replaces positive signals of understanding such as "right" or "okay" with weaker, more provisional signals such as "errr" or "umm" and (2) "Amplification" that replaces relatively specific signals of misunderstanding from clarification requests such as "on the left?" with generic signals of trouble such as "huh?" or "eh?". The results show that Amplification promotes rapid convergence on more systematic, abstract ways of describing maze locations while Attenuation has no significant effect. We interpret this as evidence that "running repairs"-the processes of dealing with misunderstandings on the fly-are key drivers of semantic coordination in dialogue. This suggests a new direction for experimental work on conversation and a productive way to connect the empirical accounts of Conversation Analysis with the representational and processing concerns of Formal Semantics and Psycholinguistics.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Feedback such as backchannels and clarification requests can occur 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 provide a low-level, semantic processing model of where feedback ought to be licensed. The model can account for cases where feedback occurs at FRSs, and 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.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We deal with a yet untreated issue in debates about linguistic interaction, namely a particular multi-modal dimension of meaning-dependence. We argue that the shape interpretation of speech-accompanying iconic gestures is dependent on its co-occurrent speech. Since there is no prototypical solution for mod-eling such a dependence, we offer an approach to compute a gesture's meaning as a function of its speech context.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
While there has been a growing body of work in child-robot interaction, we still have very little knowledge regarding young children's speaking and listening dynamics and how a robot companion should decode these behaviors and encode its own in a way children can understand. In developing a backchannel prediction model based on observed nonverbal behaviors of 4-6 year-old children, we investigate the effects of an attentive listening robot on a child's storytelling. We provide an extensive analysis of young children's nonverbal behavior with respect to how they encode and decode listener responses and speaker cues. Through a collected video corpus of peer-to-peer storytelling interactions, we identify attention-related listener behaviors as well as speaker cues that prompt opportunities for listener backchannels. Based on our findings, we developed a backchannel opportunity prediction (BOP) model that detects four main speaker cue events based on prosodic features in a child's speech. This rule-based model is capable of accurately predicting backchanneling opportunities in our corpora. We further evaluate this model in a human-subjects experiment where children told stories to an audience of two robots, each with a different backchanneling strategy. We find that our BOP model produces contingent backchannel responses that conveys an increased perception of an attentive listener, and children prefer telling stories to the BOP model robot.
Article
Full-text available
We present a method for inducing new dialogue systems from very small amounts of unannotated dialogue data, showing how word-level exploration using Reinforcement Learning (RL), combined with an incremental and semantic grammar - Dynamic Syntax (DS) - allows systems to discover, generate, and understand many new dialogue variants. The method avoids the use of expensive and time-consuming dialogue act annotations, and supports more natural (incremental) dialogues than turn-based systems. Here, language generation and dialogue management are treated as a joint decision/optimisation problem, and the MDP model for RL is constructed automatically. With an implemented system, we show that this method enables a wide range of dialogue variations to be automatically captured, even when the system is trained from only a single dialogue. The variants include question-answer pairs, over- and under-answering, self- and other-corrections, clarification interaction, split-utterances, and ellipsis. This generalisation property results from the structural knowledge and constraints present within the DS grammar, and highlights some limitations of recent systems built using machine learning techniques only.