Hirst, G., McRoy, S., Heeman, P., Edmonds, P., & Horton, D. 1994. Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understandings. Speech Communication 15: 213-229. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Uncertainty, Utility, and Misunderstanding: A.. - Paek, Horvitz (1999) (Correct)
....little work has focused on exploiting uncertainty; for example, by explicitly quantifying uncertainty in terms of probabilities at each level. The framework we present broadens the scope of previous models of grounding and referential expressions (Edmonds, 1993; Heeman, 1991; Heeman Hirst, 1992; Hirst et al. 1994) by highlighting the efficacy of Bayesian networks and decision theory to reason about uncertainty before and during misunderstanding. Furthermore, the introduction of decision theory allows systems to use expected utility to provide fine grain, context sensitive guidance of compensatory measures, ....
Hirst, G., McRoy, S., Heeman, P., Edmonds, P., & Horton, D. 1994. Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understandings. Speech Communication 15: 213-229.
A Plan-Based Model of Misunderstandings in Cooperative.. - Ardissono, Boella, Damiano (1998) (4 citations) (Correct)
....depending on who A believes to have made the mistake. This commitment leads A to produce a repair turn, which initiates a subdialogue aimed at restoring the common interpretation ground. Many researchers (e.g. consider Pollack (1990) Perrault (1990) Hobbs et al. 1993) Nagao (1993) and Hirst et al. 1994)) have used abductive frameworks for carrying on the interpretation of a dialogue and possibly restructuring the dialogue context, when a failure occurs in the integration of new utterances. In our plan based model, the whole interpretation process is represented as the execution of interpretation ....
G. Hirst, S. McRoy, P. Heeman, P. Edmonds, & D. Horton (1994). Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understandings. Speech Communication, 15:213-- 229.
Using Joint Actions To Explain Acknowledgments In Tutorial.. - Brandle (1998) (3 citations) (Correct)
....communication, in the second track not communication in the primary communication track. 3.1.5 Repair. When people recognize that there has been some failure in the communication, they typically start trying to fix the problem so that understanding is achieved. This process is called repair. Hirst et al. 1994] identify classes of situation where repair is needed: 1) misunderstandings and 2) non understandings, and present models for how these problems are solved. They argue that though computers have a far from perfect command of language, we should not despair. They point out that humans also evidence ....
Hirst, Graeme, McRoy, Susan, Heeman, Peter, Edmonds, Philip, and Horton, Diane. 1994. Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understandings.
The Rhetorical Parsing, Summarization, and Generation of Natural.. - Marcu (1997) (Correct)
....fashion. Given the psychological constraints and the limited resources that humans have, it is conceivable that incremental processing is impossible without backtracking this would be consistent with the mistakes and re interpretations that are observed in naturally occurring conversations [ Hirst et al. 1993, McRoy, 1993 ] 5 Studying the ways in which the algorithms presented in this chapter can be modified in order to derive valid text structures incrementally is, however, outside the scope of this thesis. 5 I thank Graeme Hirst for bringing up this hypothesis. 3.7 Summary In this chapter, I ....
G. Hirst, S. McRoy, P. Heeman, P. Edmonds, and D. Horton. Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understandings. In International Symposium on Spoken Dialogue - New Directions in Human and Man-Machine Communication, pages 185--196, Tokyo, Japan, Nov 10-12 1993.
A Uniform Treatment of Pragmatic Inferences in Simple and.. - Marcu, Hirst (1995) (1 citation) Self-citation (Hirst) (Correct)
....preferred to keep defeasibility outside the mathematical world. For Frege (1892) Russell (1905) and Quine (1949) everything exists ; therefore, in their logical systems, it is impossible to formalize the cancellation of the presupposition that definite referents exist (Hirst, 1991; Marcu and Hirst, 1994). We can taxonomize previous approaches to defeasible pragmatic inferences into three categories (we omit here work on defeasibility related to linguistic phenomena such as discourse, anaphora, or speech acts) 1. Most linguistic approaches account for the defeasibility of pragmatic inferences by ....
....utterance, they are defeasible. However, after that utterance is analyzed, there is no possibility left of cancelling that inference. But it is natural to have implicatures and presuppositions that are inferred and cancelled as a sequence of utterances proceeds: research in conversation repairs (Hirst et al. 1994) abounds in such examples. We address this issue in more detail in section 3.3. 2. One way of accounting for cancellations that occur later in the analyzed text is simply to extend the boundaries within which pragmatic inferences are evaluated, i.e. to look ahead a few utterances. Green (1992) ....
G. Hirst, S. McRoy, P. Heeman, P. Edmonds, and D. Horton. 1994. Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understandings. Speech Communication, 15:213--229.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC