Philip R. Cohen
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This paper presents empirical results comparing spoken and keyboard communication. It is shown that speakers attempt to achieve more detailed goals in giving instructions than do users of keyboards. One specific kind of fine-grained communicative act, a request that the hearer identify the referent of a noun phrase, is shown to dominate spoken instruction-giving discourse, but is nearly absent from keyboard discourse. Most important, these requests are only achieved "indirectly". -- through utterances whose surface forms do not explicitly convey the speakers' intent. A plan-based theory of communication is shown to uncover the speakers' intentions underlying many cases of indirect identification requests found in the corpus, once an action for referent identification has been posited. In so doing, the theory demonstrates how intent (or plan) recognition can be applied in reasoning about the use of a description. As a consequence of this approach, it is shown that the conditions on the planning of successful identification requests account for Searle's conditions on the act of referring. It is concluded that intent recognition will need to be a central focus for pragmatics/discourse components of future speech understanding systems, and that computational linguistics needs to develop formalisms for reasoning about speakers' use of descriptions.
- Allen, J. F. 1979 (January) A Plan-based Approach to Speech Act Recognition. Technical Report 131, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
- Allen, J. F. and Perrault, C. R. 1980 Analyzing Intention in Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence 15(3): 143--178.Google Scholar
- Appelt, D. 1981 (December) Planning Natural Language Utterances to Satisfy Multiple Goals. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Google Scholar
- Asher, S. R. 1979 Referential Communication. In Whitehurst, G. J. and Zimmerman, B. Z., Eds., The Functions of Language and Cognition. Academic Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
- Austin, J. L. 1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
- Brachman, R.; Bobrow, R.; Cohen, P.; Klovstad, J.; Webber, B. L.; and Woods, W. A. 1979 (August) Research in Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report 4274, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.Google Scholar
- Bruce, B. C. 1981 Natural Communication Between Person and Computer. In Lehnert, W. and Ringle, M., Eds., Strategies for Natural Language Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hills-dale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Bruce, B. C. 1983 Belief Systems and Language Understanding. In Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 19: Computers in Language Research 2. Walter de Gruyter and Co., New York, New York.Google Scholar
- Bruce, B. C. and Newman, D. 1978 Interacting Plans. Cognitive Science 2(3): 195--233.Google Scholar
- Bruce, B., and Schmidt, C. F. Episode Understanding and Belief Guided Parsing. Presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics Meeting at Amherst, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Burke, J. A. 1982 An Analysis of Intelligibility in a Practical Activity: The Role and Relationship of Discourse and Context. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Speech Communication, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
- Chafe, W. L. 1982 Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature. In Tannen, D., Ed., Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Chapanis, A.; Ochsman, R. B.; Parrish, R. N.; and Weeks, G. D. 1972 Studies in Interactive Communication: I. The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams during Cooperative Problem Solving. Human Factors 14: 487--509.Google Scholar
- Chapanis, A.; Parrish, R. N.; Ochsman, R. B.; and Weeks, G. D. 1977 Studies in Interactive Communication: II. The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Linguistic Performance of Teams during Cooperative Problem Solving. Human Factors 19(2): 101--125.Google Scholar
- Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. Referring as a Collaborative Process. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. R. On Knowing What to Say: Planning Speech Acts. Ph.D. Thesis and Technical Report No. 118, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto. Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. R. 1984 Referring as Requesting. Proceedings of COLING84, Stanford, California, 207--211. Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. 1980 (May) Speech Acts and the Recognition of Shared Plans. Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference, Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Victoria, B. C., 263--271.Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (in preparation) Speech Acts as Summaries of Shared Plans.Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. R. and Perrault, C. R. 1979 Elements of a Plan-based Theory of Speech Acts. Cognitive Science 3(3): 177--212.Google Scholar
- Dickson, W. P. 1981 Childrens's Oral Communication Skills. Academic Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
- Donnellan, K. 1960 Reference and definite description. The Philosophical Review 75: 281--304.Google Scholar
- Dore, J.; Gearhart, M.; and Newman, D. 1978 The Structure of Nursery School Conversation. In Nelson, K., Ed., Children's Language. Vol I. Gardner Press, New York, New York, 337--396.Google Scholar
- Evans, D. 1981 (December) Situations and Speech Acts: Toward a Formal Semantics of Discourse. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Fertig, S. Miscommunication in Discourse. Unpublished B. A. Thesis, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachuseets.Google Scholar
- Genesereth, M. R. 1978 (September) Automated Consultation for Complex Computer Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. 1957 Meaning. Philosophical Review 66: 377--388.Google Scholar
- Grosz, B. J. 1977 (July) The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding. Technical Report 151, Artificial Intelligence Center, SR1 International.Google Scholar
- Hayes, P. J. and Mouradian, G. V. 1981 Flexible Parsing. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 7(4): 232--242. Google Scholar
- Hindle, D. 1983 Deterministic Parsing of Syntactic Non-fluencies. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 123--128. Google Scholar
- Hintikka, J. 1969 Semantics for Propositional Attitudes. In Davis, J. W. et al., Eds., Philosophical Logic. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
- Hoeppner, W.; Morik, K.; and Marburger, H. 1984 (May) Talking It Over: The Natural Language Dialog System HAM-ANS. Technical report ANS-26, Research Unit for Information Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
- Horrigan, M. K. 1977 Modelling simple dialogues. Technical Report 108, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
- Krauss, R. M. and Weinheimer, S. 1966 Concurrent Feedback, Confirmation, and the Encoding of Referents in Verbal Communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 343--346.Google Scholar
- Kroch, A. S. and Hindle, D. 1982 On the Linguistic Character of Non-standard Input. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, 161--163. Google Scholar
- Kwasny, S. C. and Sondheimer, N. K. 1981 Relaxation Techniques for Parsing Ill-formed Input. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 7(2): 99--108. Google Scholar
- Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. 1977 Therapeutic Discourse. Academic Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
- Levin, J. A. and Moore, J. A. 1977 Dialogue Games: Metacommunication Structures for Natural Language Interaction. Cognitive Science 1(4): 395--420.Google Scholar
- Mann, W. C.; Carlisle, J. H.; Moore, J. A.; and Levin, J. A. 1977 (January) An Assessment of Reliability of Dialogue-annotation Instructions. Technical Report ISI/RR-77-54, Information Sciences Institute.Google Scholar
- Mann, W.; Moore, J.; and Levin, J. 1977 A Comprehension Model for Human Dialogue. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Moore, R. C. 1980 (October) Reasoning about Knowledge and Action. Technical Note 191, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
- Morgan, J. L. 1978 Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts. In Cole, P., Ed., Syntax and Semantics, Volume 9: Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, New York, 261--280.Google Scholar
- Ochs, E. 1979 Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givon, T., Ed., Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax, Academic Press, New York, New York, 51--80.Google Scholar
- Ochs, E.; Schieffelin, B. B.; and Pratt, M. L. 1979 Propositions Across Utterances and Speakers. In Ochs, E., and Schieffelin, B. B., Eds., Developmental Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
- Perrault, C. R. and Allen, J. F. 1980 A Plan-based Analysis of Indirect Speech Acts. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 6(3): 167--182. Google Scholar
- Perrault, C. R. and Cohen, P. R. 1981 It's for Your Own Good: A Note on Inaccurate Reference. In Joshi, A.; Sag, I.; and Webber, B., Eds., Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Reichman, R. 1981 Plain-speaking: A Theory and Grammar of Spontaneous Discourse. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Robinson, A. E.; Appelt, D. E.; Grosz, B. J.; Hendrix, G. G.; and Robinson, J. J. 1980 (March) Interpreting Natural-language Utterances in Dialogs about Tasks. Technical Note 210, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
- Rubin, A. D. 1980 A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences Between Oral and Written Language. In Spiro, R.; Bruce, B.; and Brewer, W., Eds., Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Lawrence Erlbaum Assocs., Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Russell, B. 1905 On denoting. Mind 14: 479--492.Google Scholar
- Sacerdoti, E. D. 1975 (August) A Structure for Plans and Behavior. Technical Note 109, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
- Schank, R. and Abelson, R. 1977 Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, C. F. 1975 Understanding Human Action. Proceedings of Conference on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google Scholar
- Schmidt, D. F.; Sridharan, N. S.; and Goodson, J. L. 1979 The Plan Recognition Problem: An Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Psychology. Artificial Intelligence 10: 45--83.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. R. 1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Shatz, M. and Gelman, R. 1973 The Development of Communication Skills: Modifications in the Speech of Young Children as a Function of Listener. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
- Sidner, C. L. 1979 (June) Towards a Computational Theory of Definite Anaphora Comprehension in English Discourse. Technical Report 537, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
- Sidner, C. L. 1983 The Pragmatics of Non-anaphoric Noun Phrases. In Research in Knowledge Representation for Natural Language Understanding: Annual Report, 9/1/82-8/31/83, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Sidner, C. L., Bates, M.; Bobrow, R. J.; Brachman, R. J.; Cohen, P. R.; Israel, D. J.; Webber, B. L.; and Woods, W. A. 1981 (November) Research in Knowledge Representation for Natural Language Understanding. Annual Report 4785, Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc.Google Scholar
- Sidner, C. and Israel, D. 1981 Recognizing Intended Meaning and Speaker's Plans. Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, B. C.Google Scholar
- Sinclair, J. McH. and Coulthard, R. M. 1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
- Stoll, F. C.; Hoecker, D. G.; Krueger, G. P.; and Chapanis, A. 1976 The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Structure of Language Used During Cooperative Problem Solving. The Journal of Psychology 94(1 ): 13--26.Google Scholar
- Thompson, B. 1980 Linguistic Analysis of Natural Language Communication with Computers. Proceedings of COLING-80, Tokyo, 190--201. Google Scholar
- Tierney, R. J.; LaZansky, J.; Raphael, T.; and Cohen, P. R. 1983 Author's Intentions and Readers' Interpretations. In Tierney, R. J.; Anders, P.; and Mitchell, J. N.; Eds.; Understanding Readers Understandings. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, N. J., 1983.Google Scholar
- Walker, D., Ed. 1978 Understanding Spoken Language. Elsevier North-Holland, New York New York. Google Scholar
- Webber, B. L. 1978 (May) A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. BBN Report 3761, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.Google Scholar
- Weischedel, R. M. and Black, J. E. 1980 Responding Intelligently to Unparsable Inputs. American Journal of Computational Linguistics 6(3): 97--109. Google Scholar
- Wilensky, R. 1978 Understanding Goal-based Stories. Research Report 140, Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
- Wilkes-Gibbs, D. How to Do Things with Reference: The Function of Goals in Determining Referential Choice. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
- Winograd, T. 1972 Understanding Natural Language. Academic Press, New York, New York. Google Scholar
- Woods, W.; Bates, M.; Brown, G.; Bruce, B.; Cook, C.; Klovstad, J.; Makhoul, J.; Nash-Webber, B.; Schwartz, R.; Wolf, J.; and Zue, V. 1976 Speech Understanding Systems - Final Technical Progress Report. Technical Report 3438, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The pragmatics of referring and the modality of communication
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Dependencies of discourse structure on the modality of communication: Oregon State University
With the genesis of speech understanding systems, computational linguistics research is becoming less wedded to teletype-based interaction. It would therefore be wise to look for systematic ways in which the discourse structure of voice interaction ...
A pragmatics-based approach to ellipsis resolution
Intersentential elliptical utterances occur frequently during information-seeking dialogs in task domains. This paper presents a pragmatics-based framework for interpreting such utterances. Discourse expectations and focusing heuristics are used to ...
Looking for Laughs: Gaze Interaction with Laughter Pragmatics and Coordination
ICMI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Multimodal InteractionLaughter and gaze have an important role in managing and coordi-nating social interactions. In the current work, using a multimodal corpus of dyadic taste-testing interactions, we explore whether laughs performing different pragmatic functions are ...
Comments