Mixed Initiative in Dialogue: An Investigation into Discourse Segmentation

Conversation between two people is usually of MIXED-INITIATIVE, with CONTROL over the conversation being transferred from one person to another. We apply a set of rules for the transfer of control to 4 sets of dialogues consisting of a total of 1862 turns. The application of the control rules lets us derive domain-independent discourse structures. The derived structures indicate that initiative plays a role in the structuring of discourse. In order to explore the relationship of control and initiative to discourse processes like centering, we analyze the distribution of four different classes of anaphora for two data sets. This distribution indicates that some control segments are hierarchically related to others. The analysis suggests that discourse participants often mutually agree to a change of topic. We also compared initiative in Task Oriented and Advice Giving dialogues and found that both allocation of control and the manner in which control is transferred is radically different for the two dialogue types. These differences can be explained in terms of collaborative planning principles.

[1]  Karen Spärck Jones,et al.  Readings in natural language processing , 1986 .

[2]  L SidnerCandace,et al.  Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse , 1986 .

[3]  Siegfried Treu.  Proceedings of the ACM/SIGGRAPH Workshop on User-oriented Design of Interactive Graphics Systems , 1976 .

[4]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[5]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse , 1979 .

[6]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  On Acting Together , 1990, AAAI.

[7]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Cues and control in Expert-Client Dialogues , 1988, ACL.

[8]  Sharon L. Oviatt,et al.  The Effects of Interaction on Spoken Discourse , 1989, ACL.

[9]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Evaluating Discourse Processing Algorithms , 1989, ACL.

[10]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  What the speaker means: the recognition of speakers plans in discourse , 1983 .

[11]  Paul Luff,et al.  Conversational resources for situated action , 1989, CHI '89.

[12]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Discourse Deixis: Reference to Discourse Segments , 1988, ACL.

[13]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  The Coherence of Incoherent Discourse , 1985 .

[14]  Philip R. Cohen.  The Pragmatics of Referring and the Modality of Communication , 1984, Comput. Linguistics.

[15]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  User Participation in the Reasoning Processes of Expert Systems , 1982, AAAI.

[16]  Martha E. Pollack,et al.  Inferring domain plans in question-answering , 1986 .

[17]  R. S. Nickerson,et al.  On conversational interaction with computers , 1976, UODIGS '76.

[18]  Peter Johnson,et al.  People and Computers: Designing the Interface , 1985 .

[19]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. , 1977 .

[20]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Coherence and Coreference , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  E. Schegloff.  Discourse as an interactional achievement : Some uses of "Uh huh" and other things that come between sentences , 1982 .

[22]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Beyond Question-Answering. , 1981 .

[23]  Carl Pollard,et al.  A Centering Approach to Pronouns , 1987, ACL.

[24]  Robin Cohen,et al.  Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse , 1987, CL.

[25]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Now Let’s Talk About Now; Identifying Cue Phrases Intonationally , 1987, ACL.