---
title: "Completions, Coordination, and Alignment in Dialogue (2010)"
description: "These completions show that interlocutors coordinate below the sentence level. 150 references, cited by 27 papers here."
authors: ["Massimo Poesio", "Hannes Rieses"]
year: 2010
venue: "Dialogue & Discourse"
source: "https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/10669"
doi: "10.5087/dad.2010.001"
licence: "Open access, © the authors (no per-article licence in the journal metadata)"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/poesio-2010-completions-coordination-alignment-dialogue/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/poesio-2010-completions-coordination-alignment-dialogue/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2010](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2010/) / Completions, Coordination, and Alignment in Dialogue

# Completions, Coordination, and Alignment in Dialogue

**Authors:** [Massimo Poesio](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/massimo-poesio/) and Hannes Rieses · **Year:** 2010 · **Venue:** [Dialogue & Discourse](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/dnd/) ([Dialogue & Discourse 2010](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/dnd/2010/)) · **Publisher:** [Linguistic Society of America](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/linguistic-society-of-america/) · **Licence:** Open access, © the authors (no per-article licence in the journal metadata)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2010.001) · [PDF](https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/dad/article/download/10669/9444) · [DOI 10.5087/dad.2010.001](https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2010.001) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2035500771)

**Citations:** 148 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [27](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/poesio-2010-completions-coordination-alignment-dialogue/cited-by/) in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
The paper asks how a formal theory of dialogue can explain collaborative completions, where a listener finishes an utterance the speaker has begun. These completions show that interlocutors coordinate below the sentence level. The authors use PTT, their dialogue interpretation framework. It combines Compositional DRT, Situation Semantics and LTAG, and adds incremental interpretation and an explicit model of grounding based on Traum's grounding acts. Their data are German task-oriented dialogues from the Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus, in which an Instructor guides a Constructor in assembling a Baufix airplane. The main claim is that completions need mostly independently motivated machinery: partial utterances already have interpretable syntactic and semantic structure that a second speaker can extend, and grounding acts record who accepted what. For the "macro" level, the authors give an intention-based explanation using shared plans in the style of Tuomela, then sketch an alternative based on Pickering and Garrod's alignment model. The paper matters because it ties fragment interpretation, turn-taking and grounding into one explicit account. It also contrasts this account with KoS, SDRT, Dynamic Syntax and Purver et al.

## Key points
- The Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus (BTPC) contains 22 filmed and transcribed Instructor–Constructor dialogues, totalling 3675 contributions with non-verbal events excluded. Recording conditions varied visibility (full screen, half-screen, face to face) and the instruction source (a building plan or a finished model).
- PTT merges Compositional DRT, Situation Semantics and LTAG. Grounding is modelled with Traum's grounding acts, which also avoid the infinite regress of acceptances in Clark and Schaefer's formulation.
- Discourse markers get lexical updates: "so" is treated as a turn-taking act and "ja" as an acknowledgment of a discourse unit (DU). The turn-taking acts are take-turn, keep-turn, release-turn and assign-turn. "okay" may yield keep-turn, accept or acknowledge.
- For the apposition "eine Schraube, eine orangene mit einem Schlitz", LTAG needs a second, appositive reading of "eine". Alternatively, a type-shifting operator NTNM turns an NP into a noun modifier.
- The authors give two macro-level accounts, one intention-based (shared plans) and one alignment-based (Pickering & Garrod). They also discuss KoS, SDRT, Dynamic Syntax and Purver et al. (2006).

## Interesting ideas
- Conversational events become discourse referents in the common ground, so a backward-looking reply like "okay" or "ja" can point to the earlier act it accepts.
- The lexicon works as a default theory: markers such as "so", "well" or "umm" trigger default dialogue-act updates that context can override, and several competing updates may coexist.
- An unfinished utterance already has a partial tree with open slots (LTAG-style substitution nodes), so a second speaker's fragment can attach to it and complete it.
- An appositive NP, such as one that names a screw and then specifies it as the orange, slotted kind, can be treated with a single type-shifting operator instead of duplicate determiner entries, which keeps the lexicon small.
- Grounding is a separate collateral layer: material can be presented without yet being accepted into shared knowledge.

## For Mova

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

- **I1** (frames): Register each speech act as an addressable node, so acknowledgments, acceptances and rejections link explicitly to the act they target.
- **I2** (frames): Give discourse markers default speech-act readings in prag that later evidence can override, and keep each override as a visible, explainable step.
- **I3** (tree): Parse dialogue fragments by attaching them to the open positions of the previous turn's UD tree instead of treating them as standalone broken sentences.
- **I4** (world): Merge appositive descriptions into a single entity with an identity condition, so its attributes (orange, has a slit) attach to one referent.
- **I5** (world): Mark facts in the text's world as presented versus grounded, so answers about what characters agreed on or know can distinguish the two.

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

## Institutions

- [University of Trento](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-trento/) — University, Trento, Italy · 62 works · 14,868 citations
- [Bielefeld University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/bielefeld-university/) — University, Bielefeld, Germany · 19 works · 968 citations

📚 Shelves (4): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,086 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 8,889 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works

🧭 Topics (1): [🗨️ Dialogue systems](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/dialogue-systems/) · 401 works

## Cite

Cite as: Massimo Poesio and Hannes Rieses. 2010. Completions, Coordination, and Alignment in Dialogue. Dialogue & Discourse.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{poesio2010completions,
  title = {{Completions, Coordination, and Alignment in Dialogue}},
  author = {Massimo Poesio and Hannes Rieses},
  booktitle = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
  year = {2010},
  doi = {10.5087/dad.2010.001},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2010.001}
}
```

- [← previous Estimating Linear Models for Compositional Distributional Semantics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/zanzotto-2010-estimating-linear-models-compositional-distributional/)
- [next → Learning to Translate with Source and Target Syntax](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/chiang-2010-learning-translate-source-target-syntax/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2010](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2010/)

## References

150 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Abeillé, A. and O. Rambow, (eds) (2000). Tree Adjoining Grammars. CSLI, Stanford, CA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Abeill%C3%A9%2C+A%2E+and+O%2E+Rambow%2C+%28eds%29+%282000%29%2E+Tree+Adjoining+Grammars%2E+CSLI%2C+Stanford%2C+CA%2E)
2. Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English. Longman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aijmer%2C+K%2E+%281996%29%2E+Conversational+Routines+in+English%2E+Longman%2E)
3. Allen, J. F., Schubert, L. K. , Heeman, P. , Hwang, C.-H., Light, M., Miller, B. , Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R. (1995). The TRAINS project: a case study in defining a conversational planning agent, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical AI. 7:7-48. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Allen%2C+J%2E+F%2E%2C+Schubert%2C+L%2E+K%2E+%2C+Heeman%2C+P%2E+%2C+Hwang%2C+C%2E%2DH%2E%2C+Light%2C+M%2E%2C+Miller%2C+B%2E+%2C+Poesio%2C+M%2E+and+Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%281995%29%2E+The+TRAINS+project%3A+a+case+study+in+defining+a+conversational+planning+agent%2C+Jou)
4. Allen, J. and Core, M. (1997). Draft of DAMSL: Dialog Act Markup in Several Layers. October 18. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Allen%2C+J%2E+and+Core%2C+M%2E+%281997%29%2E+Draft+of+DAMSL%3A+Dialog+Act+Markup+in+Several+Layers%2E+October+18%2E)
5. Allwood, J., Nivre, J. and Ahlsén, E. (1993). On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. Journal of Semantics, 9(1):1-26 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.1.1)
6. Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9)
7. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (2003). The Logic of Conversation. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Asher%2C+N%2E+and+Lascarides%2C+A%2E+%282003%29%2E+The+Logic+of+Conversation%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
8. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Austin%2C+J%2E+L%2E+%281962%29%2E+How+to+Do+Things+with+Words%2E+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
9. Bara, B. G. and Tirassa, M. (2000). Neuropragmatics: brain and communication. Brain and Language, 71(1):10-14. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2198)
10. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M. Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42 (1):1-22. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2667)
11. Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Barwise%2C+J%2E+%26+Perry%2C+J%2E+%281983%29%2E+Situations+and+Attitudes%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
12. Blackburn, S. and Meyer-Viol, W. (1994). Linguistic, logic and finite trees. Bulletin of Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic, 2(1): 3-29. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Blackburn%2C+S%2E+and+Meyer%2DViol%2C+W%2E+%281994%29%2E+Linguistic%2C+logic+and+finite+trees%2E+Bulletin+of+Interest+Group+in+Pure+and+Applied+Logic%2C+2%281%29%3A+3%2D29%2E)
13. Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J. & Cleland, A.A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2):13-25. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Branigan%2C+H%2EP%2E%2C+Pickering%2C+M%2EJ%2E+%26+Cleland%2C+A%2EA%2E+%282000%29%2E+Syntactic+coordination+in+dialogue%2E+Cognition%2C+75%282%29%3A13%2D25%2E)
14. Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., Stewart, A.J. & McLean, J.F. (2000). Syntactic priming in spoken production:Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28(8):1297-1302. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211830)
15. Bratman, M. (1992). Shared cooperative activity, The Philosophical Review 101(2):327-341. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bratman%2C+M%2E+%281992%29%2E+Shared+cooperative+activity%2C+The+Philosophical+Review+101%282%29%3A327%2D341%2E)
16. Bratman, M. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics 104(1):97-113. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bratman%2C+M%2E+%281993%29%2E+Shared+intention%2E+Ethics+104%281%29%3A97%2D113%2E)
17. Brennan, S. E. (2005). How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-action traditions, 95-129. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brennan%2C+S%2E+E%2E+%282005%29%2E+How+conversation+is+shaped+by+visual+and+spoken+evidence%2E+In+J%2E+Trueswell+%26+M%2E+Tanenhaus+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Approaches+to+studying+world%2Dsituated+language+use%3A+Bridging+the+language%2Das%2Dpro)
18. Brewka, G. (1989). Nonmonotonic reasoning: from theoretical foundation towards efficient computation. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brewka%2C+G%2E+%281989%29%2E+Nonmonotonic+reasoning%3A+from+theoretical+foundation+towards+efficient+computation%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Hamburg%2E)
19. Brewka, G. (1989). Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. Proc. Of IJCAI, pages 1043-1048. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brewka%2C+G%2E+%281989%29%2E+Preferred+subtheories%3A+an+extended+logical+framework+for+default+reasoning%2E+Proc%2E+Of+IJCAI%2C+pages+1043%2D1048%2E)
20. Brewka, G. (1990). Handling incomplete knowledge in Artificial Intelligence. In IS/KI, 11-29. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brewka%2C+G%2E+%281990%29%2E+Handling+incomplete+knowledge+in+Artificial+Intelligence%2E+In+IS%2FKI%2C+11%2D29%2E)
21. Bunt, H. (1995). Dialogue control functions and interaction design. In: R.J. Beun, M. Baker & M. Reiner (eds.) Dialogue in Instruction. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57827-4_14)
22. Cann, R., Kempson, R., Marten, L. (2005), The Dynamics of Language. Elsevier. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849508735)
23. Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J. C., Doherty-Sneddon, G. and Anderson, A. H. (1997). [The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/carletta-1997-reliability-dialogue-structure-coding-scheme/). Computational Linguistics, 23(1):13-32. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5555/972684.972686)
24. Carpenter, B. (1994). Quantification and scoping: a deductive account. In Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carpenter%2C+B%2E+%281994%29%2E+Quantification+and+scoping%3A+a+deductive+account%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+13th+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics%2E+CSLI%2E)
25. Chater, N.J., Pickering, M.J., & Milward, D. (1995). What is incremental interpretation? In D. Milward & P. Sturt (eds.), Edinburgh working papers in cognitive science 11: Incremental interpretation (pp. 1-22). Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. The Univ. of Chicago Press and CSLI . [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chater%2C+N%2EJ%2E%2C+Pickering%2C+M%2EJ%2E%2C+%26+Milward%2C+D%2E+%281995%29%2E+What+is+incremental+interpretation%3F+In+D%2E+Milward+%26+P%2E+Sturt+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Edinburgh+working+papers+in+cognitive+science+11%3A+Incremental+interpretation+%28)
26. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Clark%2C+H%2E+H%2E+%281996%29%2E+Using+Language%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
27. Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1990). Referring as a collaborative process. In Cohen, Ph. R., J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack, eds., Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, 1990: 461-493. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0025)
28. Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnik, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, APA Books, 127-149. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006)
29. Clark, H. H., and Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2 (1):19-41. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406350)
30. Clark, H. H., and Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13:259-294. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90008-6)
31. Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7)
32. Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (1990a). Persistence, intention, and commitment. In Cohen, P. et al. (eds.), Intentions in Communication, pages 34-69. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0005)
33. Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (1990b). Rational interaction as a basis for communication. In Cohen, P. et al. (eds.), Intentions in Communication, pages 221-225. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cohen%2C+P%2E+R%2E+and+Levesque%2C+H%2E+J%2E+%281990b%29%2E+Rational+interaction+as+a+basis+for+communication%2E+In+Cohen%2C+P%2E+et+al%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Intentions+in+Communication%2C+pages+221%2D225%2E)
34. Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M.E. (Eds.) (1990). Intentions in Communication, MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cohen%2C+P%2ER%2E%2C+Morgan%2C+J%2E%2C+and+Pollack%2C+M%2EE%2E+%28Eds%2E%29+%281990%29%2E+Intentions+in+Communication%2C+MIT+Press%2E)
35. Cole, P. (ed.) (1978). Syntax and Semantics, 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cole%2C+P%2E+%28ed%2E%29+%281978%29%2E+Syntax+and+Semantics%2C+9%3A+Pragmatics%2E+Academic+Press%2E)
36. Cooper, R. (1992). A working person's guide to Situation Theory 1992. In Topics in Semantic Interpretation, ed. by S. L. Hansen and F. Soerensen, Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, Denmark Cooper, R. and Poesio, M. (1994). Situation Theory. In The FRACAS Consortium (eds.), FRACAS Deliverable D8, Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cooper%2C+R%2E+%281992%29%2E+A+working+person%27s+guide+to+Situation+Theory+1992%2E+In+Topics+in+Semantic+Interpretation%2C+ed%2E+by+S%2E+L%2E+Hansen+and+F%2E+Soerensen%2C+Samfundslitteratur%2C+Frederiksberg%2C+Denmark+Cooper%2C+R%2E+)
37. Cooper, R. (1996). The role of situations in generalized quantifiers. In Lappin, S. (ed), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cooper%2C+R%2E+%281996%29%2E+The+role+of+situations+in+generalized+quantifiers%2E+In+Lappin%2C+S%2E+%28ed%29%2C+Handbook+of+Contemporary+Semantic+Theory%2C+Blackwell%2E)
38. Cooper, R., Ericsson, S., Larsson, S. and Lewin, I. (2003). An information state update approach to collaborative negotiation. In Kühnlein, P., Rieser, H. and Zeevat, H. (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the new Milennium, John Benjamins. Pages 271-287. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.114.16coo)
39. Cooper, R. (2005). Type Theory with Records. University of Gothenburg, Ms. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cooper%2C+R%2E+%282005%29%2E+Type+Theory+with+Records%2E+University+of+Gothenburg%2C+Ms%2E)
40. Coulthard, M. (1977). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Longman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Coulthard%2C+M%2E+%281977%29%2E+An+Introduction+to+Discourse+Analysis%2E+Longman%2E)
41. Dale, R. and Reiter, E. (1995) [Computational interpretations of the gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/dale-1995-computational-interpretations-gricean-maxims-generation/). Cognitive Science, 19(2):233-263. deMena Travis, L. (1992) Parameters of phrase structure and verb-second phenomena. In Freidin, R. (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. MIT Press. 339-365. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_3)
42. Fagin, R., Halpern J.Y., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M.Y. (1995). Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5803.001.0001)
43. Farkas, D. and de Swart, H. (2003). The Semantics of Incorporation. CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Farkas%2C+D%2E+and+de+Swart%2C+H%2E+%282003%29%2E+The+Semantics+of+Incorporation%2E+CSLI%2E)
44. Ferguson, G., Allen, J. F., and Miller, B. (1996). "TRAINS-95: Towards a mixed-initiative planning assistant," in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS-96), Edinburgh, Scotland, pages 70-77. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ferguson%2C+G%2E%2C+Allen%2C+J%2E+F%2E%2C+and+Miller%2C+B%2E+%281996%29%2E+%22TRAINS%2D95%3A+Towards+a+mixed%2Dinitiative+planning+assistant%2C%22+in+Proceedings+of+the+Third+Conference+on+Artificial+Intelligence+Planning+Systems+%28AIPS%2D)
45. Fernandez, R. (2006). Non sentential utterances in dialogue: classification, resolution and use. PhD dissertation, King’s College, London. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fernandez%2C+R%2E+%282006%29%2E+Non+sentential+utterances+in+dialogue%3A+classification%2C+resolution+and+use%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+King%E2%80%99s+College%2C+London%2E)
46. Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., and Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11:11-15. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158)
47. Ferreira, F., Lau, E. F., and Bailey, K. G. D. (2004). Disfluencies, parsing, and Tree-Adjoining Grammar. Cognitive Science, 28:721-749. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ferreira%2C+F%2E%2C+Lau%2C+E%2E+F%2E%2C+and+Bailey%2C+K%2E+G%2E+D%2E+%282004%29%2E+Disfluencies%2C+parsing%2C+and+Tree%2DAdjoining+Grammar%2E+Cognitive+Science%2C+28%3A721%2D749%2E)
48. Fletcher, C. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (eds), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 1 st edition, Academic Press. Pages 589-607. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fletcher%2C+C%2E+%281994%29%2E+Levels+of+representation+in+memory+for+discourse%2E+In+Gernsbacher%2C+M%2E+A%2E+%28eds%29%2C+Handbook+of+Psycholinguistics%2C+1+st+edition%2C+Academic+Press%2E+Pages+589%2D607%2E)
49. Frank, R. (2002). Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. The MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2002.28.4.583b)
50. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: a tutorial review. In: Coltheart, M. (ed.), The Psychology of Reading. Erlbaum. Pages 559-586. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frazier%2C+L%2E+%281987%29%2E+Sentence+processing%3A+a+tutorial+review%2E+In%3A+Coltheart%2C+M%2E+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+Psychology+of+Reading%2E+Erlbaum%2E+Pages+559%2D586%2E)
51. Gargett, A., Gregoromichelaki, E., Howes, Ch., Sato, Y. (2008). Dialogue-grammar correspondence in dynamic syntax. In Ginzburg, J., Healey, P., Sato, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12 th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (LONDIAL ’08). Pages 43-51. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gargett%2C+A%2E%2C+Gregoromichelaki%2C+E%2E%2C+Howes%2C+Ch%2E%2C+Sato%2C+Y%2E+%282008%29%2E+Dialogue%2Dgrammar+correspondence+in+dynamic+syntax%2E+In+Ginzburg%2C+J%2E%2C+Healey%2C+P%2E%2C+Sato%2C+Y%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+12+th+Workshop+on+th)
52. Garnham, A. (2001). Mental Models and the Interpretation of Anaphora, Psychology Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Garnham%2C+A%2E+%282001%29%2E+Mental+Models+and+the+Interpretation+of+Anaphora%2C+Psychology+Press%2E)
53. Garrod, S. and Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition 27: 181-218 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Garrod%2C+S%2E+and+Anderson%2C+A%2E+%281987%29%2E+Saying+what+you+mean+in+dialogue%3A+A+study+in+conceptual+and+semantic+coordination%2E+Cognition+27%3A+181%2D218)
54. Geurts, B. (1995). Presupposing. PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Geurts%2C+B%2E+%281995%29%2E+Presupposing%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Stuttgart%2E)
55. Ginzburg, J. (1997). On some semantic consequences of turn taking. In: P. Dekker et al (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium. [↗](https://doi.org/10.53437/e82c3k88)
56. Ginzburg, J. (2009). The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. King's College, London Ms. (Currently under review). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+J%2E+%282009%29%2E+The+Interactive+Stance%3A+Meaning+for+Conversation%2E+King%27s+College%2C+London+Ms%2E+%28Currently+under+review%29%2E)
57. Ginzburg, J. and Cooper, R. (2004). Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3):297-366. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+J%2E+and+Cooper%2C+R%2E+%282004%29%2E+Clarification%2C+ellipsis%2C+and+the+nature+of+contextual+updates%2E+Linguistics+and+Philosophy%2C+27%283%29%3A297%2D366%2E)
58. Ginzburg, J. and Fernandez, R. (2005). Scaling up to multilogue: some benchmarks and principles. Proc. Of the 43 rd Meeting of the ACL, Ann Harbor, Michigan. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+J%2E+and+Fernandez%2C+R%2E+%282005%29%2E+Scaling+up+to+multilogue%3A+some+benchmarks+and+principles%2E+Proc%2E+Of+the+43+rd+Meeting+of+the+ACL%2C+Ann+Harbor%2C+Michigan%2E)
59. Ginzburg, J. and, Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative Investigations. CSLI. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+J%2E+and%2C+Sag%2C+I%2E+%282000%29%2E+Interrogative+Investigations%2E+CSLI%2E)
60. Goldman, A. J. (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Prentice-Hall. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Goldman%2C+A%2E+J%2E+%281970%29%2E+A+Theory+of+Human+Action%2E+Prentice%2DHall%2E)
61. Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer's meaning and intention. Philosophical Review, 68:147-177. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/2184179)
62. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, pages 1-58. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003)
63. Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, pages 113-127. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_006)
64. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1991). Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39-100. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00628304)
65. Gross, D., Allen, J. F. and Traum, D. R. (1993). The TRAINS 91 Dialogues. University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science, TRAINS Technical Note 92-1. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gross%2C+D%2E%2C+Allen%2C+J%2E+F%2E+and+Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%281993%29%2E+The+TRAINS+91+Dialogues%2E+University+of+Rochester%2C+Department+of+Computer+Science%2C+TRAINS+Technical+Note+92%2D1%2E)
66. Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12:175-204 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grosz%2C+B%2E+J%2E+and+Sidner%2C+C%2E+L%2E+%281986%29%2E+Attention%2C+intention%2C+and+the+structure+of+discourse%2E+Computational+Linguistics+12%3A175%2D204)
67. Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. L. (1990). Plans for discourse. In Cohen, P. et al. eds., 417-445. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0022)
68. Grosz, B. J. and Kraus, S. (1996). Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence. 86:269-357. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(95)00103-4)
69. Heeman, P. and Allen, J. F. (1995). The TRAINS 93 Dialogues. University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science, TRAINS Technical Note 94-2. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21236/ada301012)
70. Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M., Martin, P., and Edwards, D. (1992). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 63 :69–142. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hobbs%2C+J%2E+R%2E%2C+Stickel%2C+M%2E%2C+Martin%2C+P%2E%2C+and+Edwards%2C+D%2E+%281992%29%2E+Interpretation+as+abduction%2E+Artificial+Intelligence+Journal%2C+63+%3A69%E2%80%93142%2E)
71. Homer, B. D. and Tamis Le Monda, C.S. (eds.) (2005). The development of social cognition and communication. Psychology Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Homer%2C+B%2E+D%2E+and+Tamis+Le+Monda%2C+C%2ES%2E+%28eds%2E%29+%282005%29%2E+The+development+of+social+cognition+and+communication%2E+Psychology+Press%2E)
72. Hwang, C.H. and Schubert, L. K. (1993) Meeting the interlocking needs of LF-computation, deindexing, and inference: An organic approach to general NLU. In Proc. 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hwang%2C+C%2EH%2E+and+Schubert%2C+L%2E+K%2E+%281993%29+Meeting+the+interlocking+needs+of+LF%2Dcomputation%2C+deindexing%2C+and+inference%3A+An+organic+approach+to+general+NLU%2E+In+Proc%2E+13th+Int%2E+Joint+Conf%2E+on+Artificial+Int)
73. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johnson%2DLaird%2C+P%2E+N%2E+%281983%29%2E+Mental+models%3A+Towards+a+cognitive+science+of+language%2C+inference%2C+and+consciousness%2E+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
74. Joshi, A. K. (2004). 2003 Rumelhart Prize Special Cognitive Science Issue Honoring Aravind K. Joshi, Cognitive Science, 28(5). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Joshi%2C+A%2E+K%2E+%282004%29%2E+2003+Rumelhart+Prize+Special+Cognitive+Science+Issue+Honoring+Aravind+K%2E+Joshi%2C+Cognitive+Science%2C+28%285%29%2E)
75. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80005-6)
76. Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2066-1)
77. Kautz, H. A. (1987). A Formal Theory of Plan Recognition. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kautz%2C+H%2E+A%2E+%281987%29%2E+A+Formal+Theory+of+Plan+Recognition%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Rochester%2E)
78. Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W. and Gabbay, D. (2001) Dynamic Syntax. Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kempson%2C+R%2E%2C+Meyer%2DViol%2C+W%2E+and+Gabbay%2C+D%2E+%282001%29+Dynamic+Syntax%2E+Blackwell%2E)
79. Kranstedt, A., Lücking, A., Pfeiffer, Th., Rieser, H., Wachsmuth, I. (2006). Deictic object reference in task-oriented dialogue. In: Rickheit, G. and Wachsmuth, I. (eds.), Situated Communication. Mouton de Gruyter. Pages 156-209. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197747.155)
80. Kroch, A. S. and Santorini, B. (1992). The derived constituent structure of the West Germanic verb-raising construction. In Freidin, R. (ed.), pages 269-339. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kroch%2C+A%2E+S%2E+and+Santorini%2C+B%2E+%281992%29%2E+The+derived+constituent+structure+of+the+West+Germanic+verb%2Draising+construction%2E+In+Freidin%2C+R%2E+%28ed%2E%29%2C+pages+269%2D339%2E)
81. Larsson, S. and Traum, D. R. (2000). Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI Dialogue Move Engine Toolkit. Natural Language Engineering, Special Issue on Best Practice in Spoken Language Dialogue Systems Engineering. 6:323-340. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s1351324900002539)
82. Lerner, G. H. (1987). Collaborative turn sequences: Sentence construction and social interaction. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine Levelt, J.M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lerner%2C+G%2E+H%2E+%281987%29%2E+Collaborative+turn+sequences%3A+Sentence+construction+and+social+interaction%2E+Ph%2E+D%2E+dissertation%2C+University+of+California%2C+Irvine+Levelt%2C+J%2EM%2E+%281989%29+Speaking%3A+From+Intention+to+)
83. Levin, J. A. and Moore, J. A. (1977). Dialogue games: meta-communication structures for natural language interaction. ISI/RR-77-53, Information Sciences Institute, USC. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21236/ada037110)
84. Levinson, S., C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levinson%2C+S%2E%2C+C%2E+%281983%29%2E+Pragmatics%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
85. Litman, D., J. and Allen, J. F., (1987). A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversation. Cognitive Science 11: 163-200. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Litman%2C+D%2E%2C+J%2E+and+Allen%2C+J%2E+F%2E%2C+%281987%29%2E+A+plan+recognition+model+for+subdialogues+in+conversation%2E+Cognitive+Science+11%3A+163%2D200%2E)
86. Litman, D. J. and Allen, J. F., (1990). Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans. In Cohen, P. et al. (eds.), pages 365-389. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0019)
87. Mann, W. C. (1988). Dialogue games: conventions of human interaction. Argumentation 2 : 511-532 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00128990)
88. Matheson, C., Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R. (2000). Modeling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proc. Of the NAACL. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Matheson%2C+C%2E%2C+Poesio%2C+M%2E+and+Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%282000%29%2E+Modeling+grounding+and+discourse+obligations+using+update+rules%2E+In+Proc%2E+Of+the+NAACL%2E)
89. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: what gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McNeill%2C+D%2E+%281992%29%2E+Hand+and+Mind%3A+what+gestures+reveal+about+thought%2E+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
90. Morton J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review. 76: 165–178 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027366)
91. Muskens, R. (1995). Tense and the logic of change. In U. Egli, E.P. Pause, C. Schwarze, A. von Stechow, and G. Wienold, editors, Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language. Pages 147-183. John Benjamins. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.114.08mus)
92. Muskens, R. (1996). Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19:143-186 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00635836)
93. Muskens, R. (2001). Talking about trees and truth-conditions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(4):417-455. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1017912606063)
94. Neumann, G. (1998). Interleaving natural language parsing and generation through uniform processing. Artificial Intelligence. 99:121-163. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00072-6)
95. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, Vol. 19. MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Parsons%2C+T%2E+%281990%29%2E+Events+in+the+Semantics+of+English%3A+A+Study+in+Subatomic+Semantics%2E+Current+Studies+in+Linguistics+Series%2C+Vol%2E+19%2E+MIT+Press%2E)
96. Pereira, F. (1990). Categorial semantics and scoping. Computational Linguistics 16(1):1-10. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5555/89086.89088)
97. Perrault, C. R. (1990). An application of default logic to speech-act theory. In Cohen, P. et al (eds.), Intentions in Communication. Pages 161–187. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0011)
98. Perrault, C. R. and Allen, J. F. (1980). [A plan-based analysis of indirect speech act](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/perrault-1980-plan-based-analysis-indirect-speech/)s. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 6 (3-4): 167-182. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5555/972537.972540)
99. Pickering, M. J. and Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27:169-226. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x04000056)
100. Platzack, C. (1986). COMP, INFL, and Germanic Word Order. In Hellan, L. and Koch Christensen (eds.) Topics in Scandinavian Syntax. D. Reidel. Pages 185-235. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4572-2_9)
101. Poesio, M. (1993). Definite descriptions and the dynamics of mental states. In Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium on Reasoning About Mental States. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+%281993%29%2E+Definite+descriptions+and+the+dynamics+of+mental+states%2E+In+Proc%2E+AAAI+Spring+Symposium+on+Reasoning+About+Mental+States%2E)
102. Poesio, M. (1994). Discourse Interpretation and the Scope of Operators. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+%281994%29%2E+Discourse+Interpretation+and+the+Scope+of+Operators%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Rochester%2E)
103. Poesio, M. (1995). A model of conversation processing based on micro conversational events. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+%281995%29%2E+A+model+of+conversation+processing+based+on+micro+conversational+events%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+17th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Cognitive+Science+Society%2E)
104. Poesio, M. (1996). Underspecification and the semantics / pragmatics interface, In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Cognitive Science of Natural Language Processing. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+%281996%29%2E+Underspecification+and+the+semantics+%2F+pragmatics+interface%2C+In+Proceedings+of+the+Workshop+on+the+Cognitive+Science+of+Natural+Language+Processing%2E)
105. Poesio, M. (2001). What psycholinguistics tells us about the semantics / pragmatics interface: the case of pronouns, In Proc. Amsterdam Colloquium. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+%282001%29%2E+What+psycholinguistics+tells+us+about+the+semantics+%2F+pragmatics+interface%3A+the+case+of+pronouns%2C+In+Proc%2E+Amsterdam+Colloquium%2E)
106. Poesio, M. and Muskens, R. (1997). The dynamics of discourse situations. Proc. Of the 11 th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 247-252. [↗](https://doi.org/10.53437/v74kz504)
107. Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R. (1997). Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13(3) :1-45. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/0824-7935.00042)
108. Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R. (1998). Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. In Proc. Of TWENDIAL, pages 1-7. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+and+Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%281998%29%2E+Towards+an+axiomatization+of+dialogue+acts%2E+In+Proc%2E+Of+TWENDIAL%2C+pages+1%2D7%2E)
109. Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R., eds., (2000). Proceedings of GÖTALOG 2000. Fourth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Göteburg Univ. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+and+Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E%2C+eds%2E%2C+%282000%29%2E+Proceedings+of+G%C3%96TALOG+2000%2E+Fourth+Workshop+on+the+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+of+Dialogue%2C+G%C3%B6teburg+Univ%2E)
110. Pollack, M. (1986), Inferring Domain Plans in Question-Answering. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pollack%2C+M%2E+%281986%29%2C+Inferring+Domain+Plans+in+Question%2DAnswering%2E+PhD+Dissertation%2C+University+of+Pennsylvania%2E)
111. Poncin, K. and Rieser, H. (2006). Multi-speaker utterances and co-ordination in task-oriented dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 38:718-744. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.013)
112. Portner, Paul (2007). Imperatives and Modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15(4):351-383 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9022-y)
113. Purver, M., Cann, R. and Kempson, R. (2006), Grammars as parsers: meeting the dialogue challenge. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2-3):289-326. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-006-9007-x)
114. Purver, M. and Kempson, R. (2004). Incremental parsing, or incremental grammar? In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Incremental Parsing, pages 74-81, Barcelona, July 2004. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Purver%2C+M%2E+and+Kempson%2C+R%2E+%282004%29%2E+Incremental+parsing%2C+or+incremental+grammar%3F+In+Proceedings+of+the+ACL+Workshop+on+Incremental+Parsing%2C+pages+74%2D81%2C+Barcelona%2C+July+2004%2E)
115. Purver, M. and Ginzburg, J. (2004) Clarifying noun phrase semantics. Journal of Semantics 21(3):283-339. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.3.283)
116. Purver, M. (2004). The theory and use of clarification in dialogue. PhD dissertation, King’s College, London. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Purver%2C+M%2E+%282004%29%2E+The+theory+and+use+of+clarification+in+dialogue%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+King%E2%80%99s+College%2C+London%2E)
117. Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4)
118. Rickheit, G. & Wachsmuth, I. (2008). Alignment in communication - Collaborative Research Center 673 at Bielefeld University. Künstliche Intelligenz, Heft 2-2008, pages 62-65 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rickheit%2C+G%2E+%26+Wachsmuth%2C+I%2E+%282008%29%2E+Alignment+in+communication+%2D+Collaborative+Research+Center+673+at+Bielefeld+University%2E+K%C3%BCnstliche+Intelligenz%2C+Heft+2%2D2008%2C+pages+62%2D65)
119. Rieser, H. (2004). Pointing in dialogue. In Ginzburg, J. and Vallduvi, E. (eds.) Catalog ’04 . Proceedings of the Eigth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Department of Translation and Philology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rieser%2C+H%2E+%282004%29%2E+Pointing+in+dialogue%2E+In+Ginzburg%2C+J%2E+and+Vallduvi%2C+E%2E+%28eds%2E%29+Catalog+%E2%80%9904+%2E+Proceedings+of+the+Eigth+Workshop+on+the+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+of+Dialogue%2E+Department+of+Translation+)
120. Rieser, H. (2008). Aligned iconic gesture in different strata of mm-route-description dialogue. In: Proceedings of LONDIAL, pages 167-174 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rieser%2C+H%2E+%282008%29%2E+Aligned+iconic+gesture+in+different+strata+of+mm%2Droute%2Ddescription+dialogue%2E+In%3A+Proceedings+of+LONDIAL%2C+pages+167%2D174)
121. Rieser, H., Kopp, S. and Wachsmuth, I. (2007). Speech-gesture alignment. In: ISGS Abstracts, Integrating Gestures. Northwestern University, Evanston,Chicago, pages 25-27 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rieser%2C+H%2E%2C+Kopp%2C+S%2E+and+Wachsmuth%2C+I%2E+%282007%29%2E+Speech%2Dgesture+alignment%2E+In%3A+ISGS+Abstracts%2C+Integrating+Gestures%2E+Northwestern+University%2C+Evanston%2CChicago%2C+pages+25%2D27)
122. Rieser, H. and Skuplik, K. (2000). Multi-speaker utterances and coordination in task-oriented dialogue. In Poesio, M. and Traum, D. R. (eds.), Proceedings of GOTALOG, pages 143-151. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rieser%2C+H%2E+and+Skuplik%2C+K%2E+%282000%29%2E+Multi%2Dspeaker+utterances+and+coordination+in+task%2Doriented+dialogue%2E+In+Poesio%2C+M%2E+and+Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+GOTALOG%2C+pages+143%2D151%2E)
123. Sacks, Harvey (1967). The search for help: no one to turn to, In E. S. Shneidman (ed.), Essays in Self-Destruction, Science House. Pages 21-27. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sacks%2C+Harvey+%281967%29%2E+The+search+for+help%3A+no+one+to+turn+to%2C+In+E%2E+S%2E+Shneidman+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Essays+in+Self%2DDestruction%2C+Science+House%2E+Pages+21%2D27%2E)
124. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4):696-735. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/412243)
125. Sadek, M.D. (1992). A study in the logic of intention. In: B. Nebel, Ch. Rich, W. Swartout (eds.): Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Proceedings of the Third International Conference. Morgan & Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, pages 462-475 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sadek%2C+M%2ED%2E+%281992%29%2E+A+study+in+the+logic+of+intention%2E+In%3A+B%2E+Nebel%2C+Ch%2E+Rich%2C+W%2E+Swartout+%28eds%2E%29%3A+Principles+of+Knowledge+Representation+and+Reasoning%2E+Proceedings+of+the+Third+International+Conferen)
126. Sadek, D. (1994). Communication theory = rationality principles + communicative act models. In Proc. Of the AAAI 94 Workshop on Planning for Interagent Communication. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sadek%2C+D%2E+%281994%29%2E+Communication+theory+%3D+rationality+principles+%2B+communicative+act+models%2E+In+Proc%2E+Of+the+AAAI+94+Workshop+on+Planning+for+Interagent+Communication%2E)
127. Sanford, A.J. and Garrod, S. (1981). Understanding Written Language. John Wiley. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sanford%2C+A%2EJ%2E+and+Garrod%2C+S%2E+%281981%29%2E+Understanding+Written+Language%2E+John+Wiley%2E)
128. Schabes, Y., Abeillé, A., & Joshi, A.K. (1988). New parsing strategies for tree adjoining grammars. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference in Computational Linguistics, pages 578– 583. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schabes%2C+Y%2E%2C+Abeill%C3%A9%2C+A%2E%2C+%26+Joshi%2C+A%2EK%2E+%281988%29%2E+New+parsing+strategies+for+tree+adjoining+grammars%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+12th+International+Conference+in+Computational+Linguistics%2C+pages+578%E2%80%93+583%2E)
129. Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2):361-382. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041)
130. Schlangen, D. and A. Lascarides (2003). The interpretation of non-sentential utterances in dialogue, in Proceedings of the 4th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Sapporo, Japan. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schlangen%2C+D%2E+and+A%2E+Lascarides+%282003%29%2E+The+interpretation+of+non%2Dsentential+utterances+in+dialogue%2C+in+Proceedings+of+the+4th+SIGdial+Workshop+on+Discourse+and+Dialogue%2C+Sapporo%2C+Japan%2E)
131. Searle, J. R. (1969). [Speech Acts](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/searle-1969-speech-acts/). Cambridge University Press.
132. Searle, J. R. and D. Vanderveken (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Searle%2C+J%2E+R%2E+and+D%2E+Vanderveken+%281985%29%2E+Foundations+of+Illocutionary+Logic%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
133. Schabes Y. (1990). Computational and Mathematical Properties of Lexicalized Grammars, PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schabes+Y%2E+%281990%29%2E+Computational+and+Mathematical+Properties+of+Lexicalized+Grammars%2C+PhD+Dissertation%2C+Univ%2E+of+Pennsylvania%2C+Philadelphia%2E)
134. Skuplik, K. (1999). Satzkooperationen. Definition und empirische Untersuchung. Bielefeld Univ., Report 1999/03 of SFB 360. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Skuplik%2C+K%2E+%281999%29%2E+Satzkooperationen%2E+Definition+und+empirische+Untersuchung%2E+Bielefeld+Univ%2E%2C+Report+1999%2F03+of+SFB+360%2E)
135. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics 9 (1978): 315-332. (Reprinted in Steven Davis, Pragmatics: A reader, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.) [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stalnaker%2C+R%2E+%281978%29%2E+Assertion%2E+In+Syntax+and+Semantics+9+%281978%29%3A+315%2D332%2E+%28Reprinted+in+Steven+Davis%2C+Pragmatics%3A+A+reader%2C+New+York+and+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2C+1991%2E%29)
136. Stone, M. (2004) Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of language. Cognitive Science 28(5):781-809. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.001)
137. Sturt, P. and Crocker, M. (1996). Monotonic syntactic processing: A cross-linguistic study of attachment and reanalysis. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(5): 449–494. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387123)
138. Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18:645-659. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90355-4)
139. Tanenhaus M.K., Leiman, J.L., and Seidenberg, M.S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18:427-440. Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Eberhard, K.M. & Sedivy, J.E. (l995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268:1632-1634. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90237-8)
140. Traum, D. R. (1994). A Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation, Ph.D. dissertation, Computer Science Dept., U. Rochester. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%281994%29%2E+A+Computational+Theory+of+Grounding+in+Natural+Language+Conversation%2C+Ph%2ED%2E+dissertation%2C+Computer+Science+Dept%2E%2C+U%2E+Rochester%2E)
141. Traum, D. R. (1999). 20 Questions on Dialogue Act Taxonomies. In Proceedings of AMSTELOGUE.. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.1.7)
142. Traum, D. R. , and Hinkelman, E. A. (1992): Conversation Acts in Task-Oriented Spoken Dialogue. Computational Intelligence 8: 575-599 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1992.tb00380.x)
143. Traum, D. R. (1999). Computational Models of Grounding in Collaborative Systems. In Working notes of AAAI Fall Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication, pages 124-131. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+%281999%29%2E+Computational+Models+of+Grounding+in+Collaborative+Systems%2E+In+Working+notes+of+AAAI+Fall+Symposium+on+Psychological+Models+of+Communication%2C+pages+124%2D131%2E)
144. Traum, D. R. and Nakatani, C. H. (1999). A Two-level Approach to Coding Dialogue for Discourse Structure: Activities of the 1998 Working Group on Higher-level Structures, in Proceedings of the ACL'99 Workshop Towards Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging, pages 101-108. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Traum%2C+D%2E+R%2E+and+Nakatani%2C+C%2E+H%2E+%281999%29%2E+A+Two%2Dlevel+Approach+to+Coding+Dialogue+for+Discourse+Structure%3A+Activities+of+the+1998+Working+Group+on+Higher%2Dlevel+Structures%2C+in+Proceedings+of+the+ACL%2799+)
145. Traum, D. R. and Larsson, D. (2003): The Information State Approach to Dialogue Management. In Smith and Kuppevelt (eds.): Current and New Directions in Discourse & Dialogue, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pages 325-353 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_15)
146. Tuomela, R. (2000). Cooperation. Kluwer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tuomela%2C+R%2E+%282000%29%2E+Cooperation%2E+Kluwer%2E)
147. Walker, M. (1993). Informational redundancy and resource bounds in dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Walker%2C+M%2E+%281993%29%2E+Informational+redundancy+and+resource+bounds+in+dialogue%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Pennsylvania%2E)
148. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Collaborative processes of language use in conversations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilkes%2DGibbs%2C+D%2E+%281986%29%2E+Collaborative+processes+of+language+use+in+conversations%2E+Unpublished+doctoral+dissertation%2C+Stanford+University%2C+CA%2E)
149. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1995). Coherence in collaboration: Some examples from conversation. In: Gernsbacher, M. A. and Anderson, A. (eds.): Coherence in spontaneous text. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pages 239-267 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilkes%2DGibbs%2C+D%2E+%281995%29%2E+Coherence+in+collaboration%3A+Some+examples+from+conversation%2E+In%3A+Gernsbacher%2C+M%2E+A%2E+and+Anderson%2C+A%2E+%28eds%2E%29%3A+Coherence+in+spontaneous+text%2E+Amsterdam%3A+Benjamins%2C+pages+239%2D267)
150. Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K. and Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol Sci 358:593–602. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1238)

*Updated 24 October 2026*