Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of dialogue that is somewhat distinct from other aspects. Each layer is defined by information state components, a set of relevant dialogue acts, and then several classes of rules relating the two and enabling dialogue performance. Several layers are used in the current system. The contact layer [2, 5, 10] concerns whether and how other individuals can be accessible for communication. Modalities include visual, voice (shout, normal, whisper) and radio. The attention layer concerns the object or process that agents attend to [25] Contact is a prerequisite for attention. The Conversation layer ....

....the separate dialogue episodes that go on during an interaction. Each conversation consists of a number of sub layers, each of which may have a different information content for different conversations happening at the same time. The participants may be active speakers, addressees, or overhearers [5]. The turn indicates the (active) participant with the right to communicate (using the primary channel) 25, 35] The initiative indicates the participant who is controlling the direction of the conversation [37] The grounding component of a conversation tracks how information is added to the ....

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

....dialogue episodes that go on during an interaction. A conversation is a reified process entity, consisting of a number of sub fields. Each of these fields may be different for different conversations happening at the same time. The participants may be active speakers, addressees, or overhearers [15]. The turn indicates the participant with the right to communicate (using the primary channel) The initiative indicates the participant who is controlling the direction of the conversation. The grounding component of a conversation tracks how information is added to the common ground of the ....

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

....These actions are interpreted in terms of creation and of positioning on social commitments and arguments. The proposed formalism allows us to model the dynamics of conversations and offers an external representation of the conversational activity. This notion of external representation [6] is very useful because it provides conversational agents with a common understanding of the current state of the conversation and its advancement. An example of such an external representation is the conversational model proposed by [26] Based on our formalism, a model is made available to the ....

Clark, H.H. Using language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....for grounding names of basic objects (dogs, shoes, cars, etc. 18] Landau and Jackendoff provide a detailed analysis of additional visual shape features, such as axes of orientation, that also play a role in language [19] Clark observed that people speak and gesture to coordinate joint actions [20]. Speakers and listeners use various aspects of their physical environment to encode and decode utterance meanings. Communication partners are aware of each other s gestures and foci of attention and they integrate these sources of information in conversation. Even young infants leverage ....

H. Clark, Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....as an intelligent conversational agent, a richer sense of the notion of dialogue is needed. Thus the natural language dialogue system does not merely reactively act upon the spoken commands issued by the user. In this process grounding is an important way of establishing successful communication [4]. We have constructed the dialogue system with the aim that it should be modular. Currently we use a commercially available dictation system (IBM ViaVoice) to translate the commands of the user to text. When audio input is received by the system it is mapped to a possible command using a simple ....

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

....in a natural way: they should initiate information seeking or clari cation dialogues when necessary, without forcing the user to navigate complex menu systems on a screen or understand how to write programming code. Finally, they should be able to participate naturally in joint activities (see [Cla96] in which both the human operator and the intelligent device collaborate in order to bring about a desired outcome. These activities provide and importance context by which utterances in a conversation should be understood. Most or all of these advantages that arise from using natural language ....

....between (tower) in the above example. The state of each node is given in brackets for instance, done] The conventions used in the above diagram will be used throughout this paper. The Activity Tree is meant to be similar conceptually to the types of representations developed by Clark in [Cla96] and indeed it is meant to serve a similar purpose. Clark makes a powerful case in his book that an agent must be able to understand and model the joint activities in which he she it is engaged. Indeed, he shows that without such an understanding it would be impossible to comprehend 27 and ....

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....attempts to identify any advertisements that are relevant to the requests and notify the providers and consumers as appropriate. From a larger perspective, interactions between social agents may be considered as taking place within conversations, and conversation may be viewed as a joint activity [3] which can be realized as sequences of smaller actions, many of which are themselves joint actions. Social agents which participate to this joint activity have to coordinate their joint actions. In each joint act, the participants face a coordination problem: which actions are expected To sum ....

....and modify their assumptions, knowledge and beliefs during the process of a conversation. Conversationalists assumptions, knowledge and beliefs correspond to some extent to the notions of background network as postulated by Searle [12] or to the notion of commun ground as introduced by Clark [3]. According to Searle, the network comprises the propositional beliefs that are directly necessary to understand an utterance, whereas the background comprises those assumptions and beliefs that are too basic to be needed directly for the interpretation of utterances but which are necessary if the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Clark, H. H. Using Language, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....discussed in the remaining subsections below. Some of the most influential ideas on how humans communicate meaning, using language, were proposed by Grice [112] and his maxims have been the starting point for much further research. An up to date, easier to follow, discussion is provided by Clark [49], while the issue of relevance is discussed in some detail by Sperber and Wilson [251] More detailed information on the theory and experimental results, that is only briefly mentioned in the following subsections, is provided in the sections that follow this one. 2.2 Creating possible ....

Herbert H. Clark. Understanding language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....request r 1 succeeds in getting A f s attention and causes a switch to interaction I 1 . The second request is not successful, because A f s attention is fully loaded by the current interaction I 2 and the request is missed. degree to which they share models of the world, or have common ground [3,4,12]. This is because the greater the common ground between agents, the more succinct and accurate the communication is between them. How does common ground help us model attentional resources We know from cognitive psychology that although working memory has a small and finite storage capacity to ....

H. Clark, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

....acts. One important function in natural language interaction is to provide feedback on the behavior on others. This behavior is used in the process referred to as grounding where the interlocutors try to establish mutual belief by performing joint actions that strives towards a set of goals [3]. 4.1 Feedback Providing feedback is crucial for the success or failure of a spoken language dialogue [1] Feedback signals in spoken language can be used for these purposes: Continuation of contact Provide information about perception and understanding Evaluation and response to ....

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

....episodes that go on throughout the interaction. A conversation is a reified process entity, consisting of a number of sub fields. Each of these fields may be different for different conversations happening at the same time. The participants may be active speakers, addressees, or overhearers [Clark, 1996].Theturn indicates the participant with the right to communicate (using the primary channel) The initiative indicates the participant who is managing the content expressed. The grounding component of a conversation tracks how information is added to the common ground of the participants. The ....

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language.Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

....meeting place from many entry points, it is often hard for visitors to assume much about one snothers cultural backgrounds, group memberships, and other aspects of social identity. Psychologists have demonstrated that people need this sort of common context in order to build new relationships [2]. Some commercial chat rooms make use of human moderators to help fulfill this need. However, human moderators are a scarce resource. We believe this is an appropriate new application domain for social interface agents. Social interface agents could provide ongoing, in context help in forming ....

....Different cultures have different notions of how to begin and develop conversations. What is a safe topic in one culture, may be very awkward in another culture. For example, in some cultures it is appropriate to ask about family members right away; whereas in other cultures this is private [5, 2]. We developed an agent prototype that could provide safetopic suggestions, if the conversation was faltering. We focused on conversations between Japanese and Americans. These two national groups are known to have very different interaction styles and cultural norms [5] and so we felt this was ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Clark, H.H., Using Language, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....or irrelevant information. Thus, in formulating an expression of doubt, the speaker must consider how much the doubted agent needs to know in order to collaborate in resolving the doubt and how much the doubted agent can be expected to infer without being explicitly told. In addition, Clark[Cla96] argues that participants in discourse select utterances that express their communicative intent efficiently, often in sentence fragments. Generation is a problem of choices, and the choices made by the speaker as well as the choices that are discarded say something about the speaker s intent. ....

Herbert Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....human dialogue [1] The rules of a dialogue game function as a recipe for joint action. A particular type of a dialogue game, an initiative response pair, de nes minimal well formed interactions [6] From such basic exchanges larger dialogues can be constructed coherently. The notion of uptake [2] is crucial in this respect. By making an initiative, an agent invites other participants to respond in a particular way. An initiative is often ambiguous. There are di erent ways the responder can take up the challenge. Thus the interaction is jointly determined by the participants. 2. FLEXIBLE ....

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....that convey definite reference have been elicited from human subjects using similar tasks. In pioneering work on referential communication [14, 15, 16] a task was used in which one subject must get the other to arrange ten hard to describe figures in a particular order. In subsequent work [11, 12], a similar type of collaborative task was employed, although Tangram figures were instead used. While these tasks were useful for exploring the role of accumulating common ground in the production of utterances that convey definite reference, they also required that the subjects not be visible to ....

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

....from a message. These ideas have coalesced into the notion of postmodernism, which emphasises the relativity of meaning for individual agents. More recently linguists have emphasised that language use, and the structures of conversations, are actively shaped within the context of a discussion (Clarke, 1996). Whilst providing a rich body of ideas, context centric theories are essentially qualitative, and do not provides us with quantitative mechanisms for making decisions about the design or management of communication technologies or computational processes. Information theory (channel centric) ....

....or homophily can give us an indication of the likely costs and degree of success of an interaction, it may be necessary to actually examine the specifics of the knowledge that agents share. In linguistics, the shared knowledge between agents is called the common ground (Clarke, Brennan, 1991; Clarke, 1996), and we can try to operationalise that notion: Definition 4: For interacting agents a and b with respective internal models M a and M b, the common ground G a:b between them is the intersection of their model spaces M a#b . Note that we are saying nothing at present about the way an individual ....

H. Clark, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1996).

No context found.

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

....which govern the dialog move option space for any input. This approach does not explain why dialogue structure might vary across tasks and genres. It could be argued that tutorial dialogue is not really that different from other types of conversation. Rather, building on work of Herbert Clark [2, 3], apparent violations of conversational rules in tutorial dialogue (e.g. tutors ask questions they know the answer to) are really just a consequence of the activity tutoring that tutorial dialogue works in service of. Once one has a good model of the activity of tutoring, we can explain why ....

....system is a spoken dialogue system and uses deep process ing techniques (our system utilizes Gemini, a symbolic grammar) These properties both jibe well with cur rent research on dialogue and offer greater naturalness to the user. 3 Theoretical Background Joint Activities Joint activities [2, 3] are those ac tivities in which participants have to coordinate their individual actions to succeed; e.g. moving a desk. Joint activities like moving a desk can be divided into two types of actions: basic and coordinating. Basic actions for moving a desk include those illustrated in Figure i ....

Clark, H.H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press (1996).

No context found.

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

Clark, H.H.: Using language. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996).

No context found.

Clark, H.H. Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

Clark, H.: Using language. Cambridge University Press (1996)

No context found.

H. H. Clark, Using language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

H.H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

No context found.

H.H. Clark, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

No context found.

Clark, Herbert H. (1996): Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

No context found.

H. H. Clark, Using language, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

No context found.

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

No context found.

Herbert Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.

No context found.

Clark, H. H. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

H. H. Clark, Using language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

H.H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

H.H. Clark, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

H. Clark, Using Language, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

Clark H. H.: Using Language, Cambridge University Press, 1996, Great Britain.

No context found.

H. H. Clark, Using language, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

No context found.

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

No context found.

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

No context found.

H. H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996.

No context found.

Clark, H.H., Using Language. 1996, Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.

No context found.

Herbert H. Clark. Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.

No context found.

Clark H. H.: Using Language. Cambridge University Press (1996)

No context found.

Clark, H. H. (1996b). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.

No context found.

Eve Clark. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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