Dialogue Macrogame Theory

This paper introduces Dialogue Macrogame Theory, a method for describing the organization of certain kinds of dialogues. Dialogue Macrogame Theory (DMT) is a successor to a theory sometimes called Dialogue Game Theory, developed in the 1970s and 1980s at USC-Information Sciences Institute (ISI). DMT is able to describe substantially more dialogues than its predecessor, and it identifies kinds of mechanisms not included in the predecessor. DMT is a step toward accounting for the coherence of entire dialogues.The major structures in DMT are based on intentions which are imputed to dialogue participants. The focus of this paper is on mechanisms. Dialogue Macrogames are defined. Another class of mechanisms, called Unilaterals, is also described.A DMT analysis is presented. The analyzed dialogue is an excerpt (41 turns) of actual dialogue from the Apollo 13 mission, from the emergency period after the explosion.DMT is then related to another dialogue analysis method (Carletta, Isard et al. 1997).DMT is an exercised framework, meaning that it has been applied to dialogues from a diversity of situations. These include various emergency communications, tutoring, administrative interactions, online human computer help, medical interviews, laboratory conversational tasks, courtroom questioning of witnesses and hostage negotiation. The paper reports work in progress, and also indicates likely courses of further development.

[1]  William C. Mann.  Models of intentions in language , 2003 .

[2]  Jean Carletta,et al.  HCRC dialogue structure coding manual , 1995 .

[3]  L. Wittgenstein.  Philosophical investigations = Philosophische Untersuchungen , 1958 .

[4]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[5]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[6]  Antinus Nijholt,et al.  Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue , 1998 .

[7]  Robert T. Craig.  Communication Theory as a Field , 1999 .

[8]  William C. Mann.  An Assessment of Reliability of Dialogue-Annotation Instructions. , 1977 .

[9]  James A. Levin,et al.  Dialogue-games: metacommunication structures for natural language interaction , 1983 .

[10]  Robert T. Craig,et al.  Conversational coherence : form, structure, and strategy , 1983 .

[11]  David R Traum,et al.  Towards a Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation , 1991 .

[12]  W. Mann.  Dialogue games: Conventions of human interaction , 1988 .

[13]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  The Reliability of a Dialogue Structure Coding Scheme , 1997, CL.

[14]  David R. Traum,et al.  20 Questions on Dialogue Act Taxonomies , 2000, J. Semant..

[15]  D. Rumelhart.  NOTES ON A SCHEMA FOR STORIES , 1975 .

[16]  Colin Matheson,et al.  Context-dependent interpretation and implicit dialogue acts , 2003 .

[17]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[18]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[19]  Raimo Tuomela,et al.  Cooperation - A Philosophical Study , 2000 .

[20]  Michael L. Geis,et al.  Syntax and Semantics. Volume 3 : Speech Acts , 1976 .

[21]  James A. Moore,et al.  Dialogue-Games: Metacommunication Structures for Natural Language Interaction , 1977, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Towards an Axiomatization of Dialogue Acts , 1998 .

[23]  William C. Mann,et al.  Observation Methods for Human Dialogue. , 1975 .

[24]  Lauri Carlson.  Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis , 1982 .

[25]  R. Gibbs.  Intentions in the Experience of Meaning , 1999 .