CONVERSATION ACTS IN TASK‐ORIENTED SPOKEN DIALOGUE

A linguistic form's compositional, timeless meaning can be surrounded or even contradicted by various social, aesthetic, or analogistic companion meanings. This paper addresses a series of problems in the structure of spoken language discourse, including turn‐taking and grounding. It views these processes as composed of fine‐grained actions, which resemble speech acts both in resulting from a computational mechanism of planning and in having a rich relationship to the specific linguistic features which serve to indicate their presence. The resulting notion of Conversation Acts is more general than speech act theory, encompassing not only the traditional speech acts but turn‐taking, grounding, and higher‐level argumentation acts as well. Furthermore, the traditional speech acts in this scheme become fully joint actions, whose successful performance requires full listener participation. This paper presents a detailed analysis of spoken language dialogue. It shows the role of each class of conversation acts in discourse structure, and discusses how each class can be processed and recognized. Conversation acts, it will be seen, better account for the success of conversation than speech act theory alone. They also provide a pragmatic view of meaning in which the literal/non‐literal distinction is simply irrelevant.

[1]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Analyzing Intention in Utterances , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[2]  S. Duncan,et al.  On signalling that it's your turn to speak☆ , 1974 .

[3]  M. Brady,et al.  Recognizing Intentions From Natural Language Utterances , 1983 .

[4]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils , 1975 .

[5]  James F. Allen,et al.  Two Constraints on Speech Act Ambiguity , 1989, ACL.

[6]  V. Yngve On getting a word in edgewise , 1970 .

[7]  James F. Allen,et al.  The Trains 91 Dialogues , 1993 .

[8]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Bengt Oreström Turn-taking in English conversation , 1983 .

[10]  William C. Mann,et al.  RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY: A THEORY OF TEXT ORGANIZATION , 1987 .

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

[12]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Mixed Initiative in Dialogue: An Investigation into Discourse Segmentation , 1990, ACL.

[13]  David R. Traum The Discourse Reasoner in TRAINS-90 , 1991 .

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

[15]  D. Bouwhuis,et al.  The Structure of Multimodal Dialogue , 1989 .

[16]  R. Lathe Phd by thesis , 1988, Nature.

[17]  George Ferguson,et al.  Domain Plan Reasoning in TRAINS-90 , 1991 .

[18]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Confirmations and Joint Action , 1991, IJCAI.

[19]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Opening up Closings , 1973 .

[20]  A. Smith Schubert , 1927 .

[21]  J. Atkinson,et al.  A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement , 1985 .

[22]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts , 1979, Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  J. Searle,et al.  Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts , 1975 .

[24]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[25]  C. Raymond Perrault An application of default logic to speech act theory , 1987 .

[26]  James D. McCawley,et al.  The syntactic phenomena of English , 1988 .

[27]  Lenhart K. Schubert,et al.  The TRAINS Project , 1991 .

[28]  Robbert-Jan Beun,et al.  The recognition of declarative questions in information dialogues , 1989 .

[29]  M. Halliday Categories of the theory of grammar , 1959 .

[30]  Elizabeth Hinkelman,et al.  Linguistic and pragmatic constraints on utterance interpretation , 1990 .