Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Different Previous Approaches
Rational Behaviour of Dialog Participants
Conclusions
Future Research
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Natural Language Processing

Modelling Users, Intentions, and Structure in Spoken Dialog

Profile image of Guenther GoerzGuenther Goerz

1998, Arxiv preprint cs/9809022

Abstract

We outline how utterances in dialogs can be interpreted using a partial first order logic. We exploit the capability of this logic to talk about the truth status of formulae to define a notion of coherence between utterances and explain how this coherence relation can ...

Related papers

Information States, Obligations and Intentional Structure in Dialogue Modelling
Colin Matheson

We argue that in order to capture uncooperative behaviour in dialogue it is necessary to model the way the intentions of the participants are related to each other. We show how this intentional structure can be determined in an approach which uses DISCOURSE OBLIGATIONS as basic structural means. Given the assumption of correspondence between dialogue structure and intentional structure, we can demonstrate that from our point of view CONVERSATIONAL GAMES can be seen as macro-structures which are decomposable into smaller functional units where the coherence between the latter is explained in terms of obligations. We further suggest that an obligation-driven approach to dialogue provides a more satisfying account for conversational cooperation than current intention-based models.

View PDFchevron_right
Establishing coherence in dialogue: sequentiality, intentions and negotiation
Eleni Gregoromichelaki

Proceedings of the 14th …, 2010

Dialogue, the primary site of language use, is fundamentally part, and constitutive of everyday social settings. Interaction situated in these set-tings is underpinned by constraints on expected and permissible contributions which provide the foundation of interlocutors' meaningful ...

View PDFchevron_right
Logics for Dialogue
Alain Lecomte

2007

This paper is essentially a survey of some logical approaches to dialogue. We start with Dialogical Logic, which was initiated by Lorenzen and has mainly been explored as a new foundation for logics. It continues with Hintikka's Game Theoretical Semantics, which has been more developed in contact with Natural Language. For instance, we show how to deal with generalized quantifiers by using games, after ideas taken from Ahti Pietarinen. The two perspectives, if different in their objectives, could be mixed for applicative purposes like the treatment of argumentative dialogues: this requires that they be recast in a neutral form, which consists in Dialogue Games in Extensive form. Nevertheless, to stay at one level of elementary language games is not sufficient: in every day life, games are combined. At this point, it seems that the Game-Theoretic interpretation of Linear Logic provides us with the appropriate tool for combining elementary games of various kinds.

View PDFchevron_right
Framework for a model of dialogue
Giacomo Ferrari

1988

View PDFchevron_right
1 Logics for Dialogue
Alain Lecomte

2016

This paper is essentially a survey of some logical approaches to dialogue. We start with Dialogical Logic, which was initiated by Lorenzen and has mainly been explored as a new foundation for logics. It continues with Hintikka’s Game Theoretical Semantics, which has been more developed in contact with Natural Language. For instance, we show how to deal with generalized quantifiers by using games, after ideas taken from Ahti Pietarinen. The two perspectives, if different in their objectives, could be mixed for applicative purposes like the treatment of argumentative dialogues: this requires that they be recast in a neutral form, which consists in Dialogue Games in Extensive form. Nevertheless, to stay at one level of elementary language games is not sufficient: in every day life, games are combined. At this point, it seems that the Game-Theoretic interpretation of Linear Logic provides us with the appropriate tool for combining elementary games of various kinds. 1

View PDFchevron_right
The structure of dialog
Allwood Jens

1999

The purpose of this paper is to provide a kind of tutorial concerning some of the phenomena which contribute to the structure of dialog. It, therefore, gives an overview rather than a detailed account of these phenomena. It must also be said that the overview is given from a linguistic pragmatic perspective, namely, that of" activity based communication analysis" and summarizes some of the more detailed accounts published elsewhere, cf. for example Allwood, 1995.

View PDFchevron_right
On the Means for Clarification in Dialogue
Matthew Purver

The ability to request clarification of utterances is a vital part of the communicative process. In this paper we discuss the range of possible forms for clarification requests, together with the range of readings they can convey. We present the results of corpus analysis which show a correlation between certain forms and possible readings, together with some indication of maximum likely distance between request and the utterance being clarified. We then explain the implications of these results for a possible HPSG analysis of clarification requests and for an ongoing implementation of a clarification-capable dialogue system. 1

View PDFchevron_right
The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics
Brahim Chaib-draa

2003

Abstract Different approaches have investigated the syntax and semantic of agent communication. However, all these approaches (including: agent communication languages, conversation policies and dialogue games) have not indicated how agents should dynamically use communications.

View PDFchevron_right

References (50)

  1. N. Abdallah, The Logic of Partial Information, Springer, New York 1995
  2. N. Asher, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1993
  3. N. Asher, A. Lascarides, Dicourse Relations and Defeasible Knowledge, in: Proceedings of the 29nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 91), pp. 55-63, Berkeley 1994
  4. N. Asher, A. Lascarides, Intentions and Information in Discourse, in: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 94), pp. 35-41, Las Cruces 1994
  5. N. Asher, A. Lascarides, Questions in Dialogue, to appear in Linguistics and Philosophy
  6. N. Asher, A. Lascarides, J. Oberlander, Inferring Discourse Relations in Context, in: Pro- ceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 92), pp. 1-8, Delaware 1992
  7. N. Asher, M. Singh, A Logic of Intentions and Beliefs, in: Journal of Philosophical Logic, (22):5, pp. 513-544
  8. J. Bateman, K. Ronhuis, Coherence relations: Analysis and specification, Technical Report R 1.1.2: a, b, The DANDELION Consortium, Darmstadt 1994
  9. J. van Benthem, A manual of intensional logic, CSLI lecture notes, 2 1988
  10. J. Bos et al., Compositional Semantics in Verbmobil, Verbmobil-Report 135, 1996
  11. A. Brietzmann, G. Görz, Pragmatics in Speech Understanding Revisited, in: Proceedings of COL- ING 82, pp. 49-54, Prag 1982
  12. H. Bunt, Dynamic Interpretation and Dialogue Theory, in: M. Taylor, D. Bouwhuis, F. Neel (Ed.), The structure of multi-modal dialogue, vol. 2, John Benjamins, Amsterdam 1997
  13. J. Chu-Carroll, S. Carberry, A Plan-Based Model for Response Generation in Collaborative Task- Oriented Dialogues, in: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '94), Seattle 1994
  14. H. Coelho, A Formalism for the Structured Analysis of Dialogues, in: Proceedings of COLING 82, pp. 61-70, Prag 1982
  15. P. Cohen, H. Levesque, Performatives in a Rationally Based Speech Act Theory, in: Proceedings of the 28nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 90), Pittsburgh 1990
  16. D. Cristea, B.L. Webber, Expectations in Incremental Discourse Processing, Technical Report, University A.I. Cuza, Iasi (Romania) 1997
  17. G. Diewald, Telefondialog: Beschreibungsversuche zwischen Gesprächsanalyse und Textlinguistik, Zulas- sungsarbeit, Universität Erlangen 1987 (in German)
  18. Discourse Ressource Initiative, Standards for Dialogue Coding in Natural Language Processing, Re- port No. 167, Dagstuhl-Seminar
  19. K. Eberle, Zu einer Semantik für Dialogverstehen und Übersetzung, Verbmobil-Report 83, 1995
  20. W. Eckert, H. Niemann Semantic Analysis in a Robust Spoken Dialog System, in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing, Yokohama, 1994, pp. 107-110
  21. U. Engel, Deutsche Grammatik, Groos, Heidelberg 1988 (in German)
  22. D. Gabbay, U. Reyle, Direct Deductive Computation on Discourse Representation Structures, Linguistics and Philosophy, August 1992
  23. C. Gardent, Multiple Discourse Dependencies, ILLC report LP-94-18, Amsterdam 1994
  24. C. Gardent, Discourse TAG, CLAUS-Report 89, Saarbrücken 1997
  25. H.P. Grice, Logic and Conversation, in: P. Code, J. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, New York, Academic Press, S. 41-58
  26. J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, PhD thesis, Centrale Interfaculteit, Amsterdam 1984
  27. D. Gross, J. F. Allen and D. R. Traum, The TRAINS 91 Dialogues, TRAINS Technical Note 92-1, Computer Science Dept., University of Rochester, June 1993.
  28. B. Grosz, C. Sidner, Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse, Computational Linguis- tics, 12, pp. 175-204, 1986
  29. Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe: From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1993
  30. L. Kartunnen, Syntax and Semantics of Questions, in: Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 1977
  31. A. Knott, A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations, PhD thesis, Uni- versity of Edinburgh 1996
  32. S. Kuschert, Higher Order Dynamics: Relating Operational and Denotational Semantics for λ-DRT, CLAUS-Report 84, Saarbrücken 1996
  33. J. Kowtko, et al., Conversational games within dialogue, in: Proceedings of the DANDI Workshop on Discourse Coherence, 1991.
  34. L. Lambert, Recognizing Complex Discourse Acts: A Trepartite Plan-Based Model of Dialogue, PhD thesis, University of Delaware 1993
  35. K. Lochbaum, Using Collaborative Plans to Model the Intentional Structure of Discourse, Harvard University, PhD Thesis, 1994.
  36. J. Martin, English text: systems and structure, Benjamins, Amsterdam 1992
  37. J.-U. Moeller, DIA-MOLE: An Unsupervised Learning Approach to Adaptive Dialogue Models for Spo- ken Dialogue Systems, in: Proceedings of EUROSPEECH 97, Rhodes, pp. 2271-2274
  38. R. Young, J. Moore, DPOCL: a principled approach to discourse planning, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport 1994
  39. B. Ludwig, G. Görz, H. Niemann, Combining Expression And Content in Domains for Dialog Managers, in: Proceedings of DL 98, ITC-irst Technical Report 9805-03, Trento 1998
  40. M. Poesio, Discourse Interpretation and the Scope of Operators, Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Dept., University of Rochester 1994
  41. L. Polanyi, The Lingustic Structure of Discourse, CSLI Technical Report 96-200, CSLI Publications, Stanford 1996
  42. S. Pulman, Conversational Games, Belief Revision and Bayesian Networks, in: Proceedings of 7th Com- putational Linguistic in the Netherlands meeting, 1996
  43. Norbert Reitinger, Elisabeth Maier, Utilizing Statistical Dialogue Act Processing in VERBMO- BIL, Verbmobil-Report 80, 1995
  44. D. Sadek, R. De Mori, Dialogue Systems, in: R. De Mori (Ed.), Spoken Dialogues with Com- puters, Academic Press 1997 (to appear)
  45. J. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press 1969
  46. B.L. Webber, Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis, in: Language and Cognitive Process, 6:(2), pp. 107-135, 1991
  47. D. Traum, E. Hinkelman, Conversation Acts in Task-Oriented Spoken Dialog, in: Computational Intelligence, 8(3):575-599, 1992
  48. D. Traum, A Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation, Ph.D. Thesis, Computer Science Dept., University of Rochester 1994
  49. D. Traum, J. Allen, Discouse Obligations in Dialogue Processing, in: Preceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 94), pp. 1-8, Las Cruces 1994
  50. D. Traum et al., Knowledge Representation in the TRAINS-93 Conversation System, Technical Report 663, University of Rochester, 1996

Related papers

A Model of Natural Language Dialogue
John S Gravett

1993

In this thesis I have a threefold purpose. Firstly, I will attempt to argue that the individual utterances agents make in natural language dialogue stem from specific beliefs, goals, and plans and that these interlock with those of other agents in the production of dialogue. I suggest that agents utilise syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and contextual knowledge in this process. Furthermore, that these elements contribute to the utterances speakers make and hearers interpret in the pursuit of their individual goals, and cannot be treated separately. I will suggest that utterances, being intentional behaviour, are sub-components of plans to achieve specific communicative purposes. Following from this, I will present a descriptive model showing how the beliefs and goals of agents contribute to the composing of a logical form for an utterance prior to its syntactic representation. It is suggested that the logical form of an utterance, is composed of elements relating to the agent's be...

View PDFchevron_right
Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-theoretic Investigation
kaka paul

Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2007

This paper presents a novel proof-theoretic account of dialogue coherence. It focuses on an abstract class of cooperative information-oriented dialogues and describes how their structure can be accounted for in terms of a multi-agent hybrid inference system that combines natural deduction with information transfer and observation. We show how certain dialogue structures arise out of the interplay between the inferential roles of logical connectives (i.e., sentence semantics), a rule for transferring information between agents, and a rule for information flow between agents and their environment. The order of explanation is opposite in direction to that adopted in game-theoretic semantics, where sentence semantics (or a notion of valid inference) is derived from winning dialogue strategies. That approach and the current one may, however, be reconcilable, since we focus on cooperative dialogue, whereas the game-theoretic tradition concentrates on adversarial dialogue.

View PDFchevron_right
Coherence Models for Dialogue
Giuseppe Riccardi

2018

Coherence across multiple turns is a major challenge for stateof-the-art dialogue models. Arguably the most successful approach to automatically learning text coherence is the entity grid, which relies on modelling patterns of distribution of entities across multiple sentences of a text. Originally applied to the evaluation of automatic summaries and the news genre, among its many extensions, this model has also been successfully used to assess dialogue coherence. Nevertheless, both the original grid and its extensions do not model intents, a crucial aspect that has been studied widely in the literature in connection to dialogue structure. We propose to augment the original grid document representation for dialogue with the intentional structure of the conversation. Our models outperform the original grid representation on both text discrimination and insertion, the two main standard tasks for coherence assessment across three different dialogue datasets, confirming that intents play a key role in modelling dialogue coherence.

View PDFchevron_right
Coherence In Spoken Discourse
Heike Tappe

Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of …, 1998

This paper explores the possibilities and limits of a discourse grammar applied to spontaneous speech. Most discourse grammars (e.g. SDRT, Asher, 1993; RST, Mann & Thompson, 1988) tend to be descriptive theories of written discourse which presuppose a coherent structure. This structure is the outcome of a goal directed planning process on the part of the producer. In order to obtain a better understanding of the planning process we analyse spoken discourse elicited in an experimental setting. Subjects describe the pixel-per-pixel development of sketchmaps on a computer screen. This forces the speakers to conceptualise the perceived state of affairs, plan their discourse, and produce a description of the drawing at the same time. Thus we find evidence for the planning process in the recorded data and can show that the discourse structures are less globally coherent than those underlying written text. In our paper we discuss to what extent a flexible discourse grammar based on a Tree Description Grammar (TDG) (Schilder, 1997) can handle such data.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards Modelling Coherence in Spoken Discourse
Yaman Kumar

ArXiv, 2021

While there has been significant progress towards modelling coherence in written discourse, the work in modelling spoken discourse coherence has been quite limited. Unlike the coherence in text, coherence in spoken discourse is also dependent on the prosodic and acoustic patterns in speech. In this paper, we model coherence in spoken discourse with audio-based coherence models. We perform experiments with four coherence-related tasks with spoken discourses. In our experiments, we evaluate machine-generated speech against the speech delivered by expert human speakers. We also compare the spoken discourses generated by human language learners of varying language proficiency levels. Our results show that incorporating the audio modality along with the text benefits the coherence models in performing downstream coherence related tasks with spoken discourses.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Natural Language Processing
  • First Order Logic
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved