Clark, H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....working as a team, and as a team they attempt to optimize the team s performance and minimize the team s consumption of resources. This follows from Clark s assumption that conversants in dialogue attempt to achieve their dialogue purpose with LEAST COLLAB ORATVE EFFORT[Clark and Schaefer, 1989; Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1986; Clark and Brennan, 1990] This approach contrasts with other approaches in which agents only participate in communication to the degree that it maxi mizes their own expected utility [Durfee et el. 1994] A final choice has to do with which processes collaborative effort consists of. A common ....

Herbert H. Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39, 1986.

....view, agreeing on what has been said, and what is meant, is crucial to conversation. The part of what has been said that the interlocutors understand to be mutually shared is called the common ground, and the process of establishing parts of the conversation as shared is called grounding [1] As [2] point out, participants in a conversation attempt to minimize the effort expended in grounding. Thus, interlocutors do not always convey all the information at their disposal; sometimes it takes less effort to produce an incomplete utterance that can be repaired if needs be. 3] has proposed a ....

....0.30 Assertion negative within: gaze pause: gaze ungrounded go ahead: 0.27 elaboration:0.73 positive within: gaze pause: map grounded go ahead: 0.83 elaboration: 0.17 Answer negative pause: gaze ungrounded go ahead: 0.22 elaboration: 0. 78 [1] U: How do I get to Room 309 [2] M: To get to Room 309, go to that door and make a right. 3] M: Walk down the hall and make a left at the door [4] M: It s the glass door with red couches right outside. 5] M: And that s Room 309. look at map look at map look at map gaze at MACK [2] M: To get to Room 309, go to that door ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Clark, H.H. and D. Wilkes-Gibbs, Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 1986. 22: p. 1-39.

....well formed, and appropriate to the dialogue context. Sixty colleagues not involved in this research completed the experiment. In this evaluation technique the human subject is essentially an overhearer of the original conversation and makes judgements based on his or her overhearer status [7]. The remainder of this section describes the five sentence planners that we compare in more detail. SPOT, the two rule based systems, and the two baseline sentence planners are all NLG based sentence planners. We described SPoT above. In all of the NLG sentence planners, each speech act is ....

Herbert H. Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39, 1986.

....an opportunity for other developers to perform the role of future readers, but they are not usually held for this purpose) This form of communication is significantly different from the collaborative process that underlies most human communication. For instance, a study by Clark and Wilkes Gibbs [50] showed how two people work together in the creation of agreed references (to complex Figure 22: Similarity tree for duty . The first value is the computed similarity of the word to its parent (in the tree) the second value its similarity to duty . From Lin [174] shapes) The results also ....

Herbert H. Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1 39, 1986.

....are welldefined objects represented as boxes on the map. Areas are more ill defined objects, and there is less mutual knowledge between the speakers about the meaning (i.e. extension) of such referents. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1. Coordination of referring expressions As Clark and Wilkes Gibbs [7] have demonstrated, referring is a collaborative process between speaker and hearer. In constructing the referring expression, the speaker tries to get the hearer to identify the object that he has in mind. But since the speaker and the hearer will inevitably have somewhat different beliefs about ....

Clark, H. H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1992). Referring as a Collaborative Process. In H. H. Clark (Ed.), Arenas of Language Use, 107-143. Chicago: University Press.

....Section 4 deals with constructive planning and goal formulation. Finally, section 5 draws conclusions. 2 Constructive Dialogue Model The Constructive Dialogue Model (CDM) is based on the following claims: 1. Dialogue is cooperative negotiation rather than a simple question answer sequence, cf. [14, 6]. 2. Participants are rational, cooperative agents [13] 3. The agent with a need initiates the dialogue [10] 4. The agents push their own goal forward while showing consideration to the partner s goal. 5. The agents exchange new information. 6. Contributions are reactions to the immediately ....

H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions In Communication, pages 463--493. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.

....with spoken conversation This paper suggests that direct manipulation (DM) interfaces can be extended by incorporating, via the DM modality itself, interaction techniques that add certain language features associated with spoken conversation. Clark and his colleagues [Clark and Marshall, 1981; Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1986] reported that, in humanhuman conversations, the conversants formed mutual beliefs about referents, and that this mutuality extended to the way in which expressions about these referents were generated and understood. Other work [e.g. Lambert and Carberry, 1992] had explored negotiation ....

. Herbert Clark and Deborah Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition. 22:1-39, 1986.

....process during text interpretation[2] In human tohuman interaction, however, referring is a much more collaborative process. Participants often under specify their referents, relying on their discourse partners for feedback if more information is needed to uniquely identify a particular referent [3,4]. This has the effect of minimizing the joint effort of the participants in an interaction by reducing the time speakers must spend specifying referents. Until recently, few computational systems have attempted to model this aspect of human communication. The difficulty lies in the fact that the ....

Clark, H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, D., 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, vol. 22, pages 1-39.

....to be false, and inferences which may be invalid when more information becomes available. In dialogue situations, uncertainty is dealt with by the flexibility of the medium itself: negotiating, giving feedback and explanations. A common ground is gradually built over a set of contributions (cf. [7]) rather than in a one shot process where all the information is given to the partner at once ( 13] cf. also Inui et al. these proceedings) If there are any dialogue plans, they must be general and partial so that they can be modified, specified and augmented according to the on going ....

H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs, `Referring as a collaborative process', in Intentions In Communication, eds., P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, 463--493, The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1990).

....may help shape questions and elaborations, as in (11b) and (11c) In response to B s answer, A proposes a possible refinement of B s interpretation. A specializes B s vocabulary but preserves much of the structure of B s utterance, its links to context, and its function for the ongoing task. See [Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1986, Heeman and Hirst, 1995] Coordination at the level of pragmatic interpretation may also help to signal satisfactory understanding, as in (11d) Here B repeats not only on A s words themselves, but also its interpretation, in order to mark this interpretation as recognized and its contribution as ....

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39.

....can give rise to conflict and misunderstanding among users. The impact of this on existing networks (such as USENET) is great, and extension of networked communication technology to new user groups exacerbates the problem. Another focus of our work applies Psycholinguistics models [Grice 1975] [Clark and Wilkes Gibbs 1986] to address the pragmatics of social interaction and communication over limited bandwidth channels. Face to face communication is to a great degree mediated by conversants knowledge of their common ground of shared referents, which is largely created and maintained by the use of non verbal cues ....

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22,139.

....relevant for current purposes, basic levels are normally used in neutral contexts. Lakoff (1987:42) For example, There s a dog on the porch can be used in a neutral context, whereas special contexts are needed for There s a mammal on the porch or There s a wire haired terrier on the porch. See [3] The input for the Incremental Algorithm is an object r, a contrast set C consisting of alternative objects from which r has to be distinguished (the distractors, that is: all elements of the context set except r) and, crucially, a list of preferred attributes. This list contains, in order of ....

Clark, H. & D. Wilkes-Gibbs (1986), Referring as a Collaborative Process, Cognition 22:1-39.

.... contributions (Levinson, 1992) Participants derive explicitly or implicitly a common set of beliefs about the activity, and they drive towards mutual understanding of their intentions and actions a process referred to as grounding (Clark Brennan, 1991; Clark Schaefer, 1987, 1989; Clark Wilkes Gibbs, 1990). Just as a dance is more than the sum of individual autonomous motions, a conversation is more than a structured sequence of utterances. People engaged in conversation elegantly coordinate the presentation and acceptance of utterances to achieve and confirm mutual AAAI Fall Symposium on ....

Clark, H.H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1990. Referring as a collaborative process. In Intentions in Communication, 463-493. MIT Press.

....via a chat window. The enhanced version of the system introduces three shared semi structured representations for communicating information relevant to planning. In particular, the representations characterize users high level shared plans (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) make explicit shared references (Clark Wilkes Gibbs, 1990) to various objects in the domain, and simplify sequencing of coordination points (Alterman and Garland, in press) Figure 1: VesselWorld Control Center Figure 4: The Object List 1. 10406910 crane2 : I m at lw4. Any spec. equip 2. 10460863 crane1 : nonenone 3. 10500140 crane2 : Ok I ve ....

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1990). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39.

....take extra turns to improve their understanding. Introduction Saying something doesn t guarantee it will be understood. People engage in dialog to make sure that what the speaker intended has been understood to ground their understanding (e.g. Clark Brennan, 1991; Clark Schaefer, 1989; Clark Wilkes Gibbs, 1986; Schober Clark, 1989) People ground their understanding to a criterion sufficient for their current purposes; in casual conversations (e.g. at a cocktail party) people may not need to understand precise details to satisfy their conversational goals, but in other settings (e.g. air traffic ....

Clark, H.H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.

....How do we stop recursion Strength of evidence principle The participants expect that, if evidence e 0 is needed for accepting presentation u 0 and e 1 for accepting the presentation of e 0 , then e 1 will be weaker than e 0 . jon ICS Lecture 11 February 13, 2000 Co ordination 9 A Principle Clark and Wilkes Gibbs 1986 propose the Principle of Least Collaborative E ort: Participants attempt to minimise the cognitive work that both do in presenting and accepting an utterance. What evidence is there for the claim that conversation is collaborative in this way jon ICS Lecture 11 February 13, 2000 ....

Clark, H. H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.

.... themselves if they detect a potential source of misunderstanding in their original utterance (Schegloff, Jefferson, Sacks 1977) and will correct their conversational partner if the feedback provided by the partner indicates a misunderstanding (Schegloff 1992) A psychological model presented by Clark and Wilkes Gibbs (1986) predicts that a cooperative dialogue participant will provide more substantial evidence of understanding when the content of an utterance is perceived to be especially important, and when the communication channel between the participants is perceived to be less reliable. Brennan and Hulteen ....

Clark, H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22.

....to build a system that always understands everything that the user says. Instead, a usable system must deal with its limited abilities in understanding the user. It must collaborate with the user in order to reach mutual understanding of what the user said. This process is referred to as grounding [3, 2]. Conversants display their understanding (or lack of understanding) through such means as paraphrasing, making the next relevant contribution, and requesting clarifications or confirmations. We believe that endowing a system with proper grounding mechanisms will make it robust in dealing with ....

....of contributions, such as first presenting the destination and origin and then presenting the time (e.g. u: I want to go to Portland from Chicago. s: At what time u: At 5 p.m. The way speakers break this down depends on a number of factors, such as minimization of collaborative effort [3]. Allowing for all possible contribution patterns for a contribution will add to the complexity of the dialogue structure, making it difficult and laborious to create, edit and maintain. Hence, this variability is typically not supported. Rather, the structured dialogue model prompts the user for ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39, 1986.

....which may be addressed by placing more emphasis on the analysis of repair. Psycholinguistic Approaches One of the most important approaches to modeling communication is the collaborative model of dialogue (CM) developed by Clark and co workers (e.g. Clark, 1996; Clark and Schaefer, 1989; Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1986) This provides an account of the interactive process through which people build up their common ground during interaction. The CM account is developed around the observation that the parties to an interaction only consider an utterance or other communicative act to have been added to common ground ....

Clark, H.H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22: 1--39.

....mom. 31 6 Reference in Task Oriented Spoken Dialog Although no prior studies explore the contrast between referential expressions in task oriented dialogs versus other types of dialog, many researchers have observed that task oriented dialog is different from normal social conversation (cf. [Clark and Wilkes Gibbs1986]) It is well known that disfluencies in spoken dialog affect other language understanding processes such as speech recognition and prepositional phrase attachment, but it might come as some surprise that disfluencies in spoken dialog also affect referring expressions. Problems for reference ....

Herbert H. Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39.

....1.2 Spontaneous Self Repair Besides producing hesitations which do not convey useful information to the partner, agents who do not have time to build their complete intended utterances can produce imprecise versions of them and then refine them later on. For instance, Clark and Wilkes Gibb [9] report on dummy noun phrases (such as thing or whats it ) which can be used as place holders in an otherwise complete utterance. As well as noun phrases with varying degrees of precision, we have also found variations in verb phrases and other syntactic structures: ffl Yeah, the thing the ....

....how to divide up the message construction modules, we expect that there will be scope for building anytime algorithm versions of existing work. For instance, we will need a way of planning referring expressions, and this might involve combining the use of dummy noun phrases (Clark and Wilkes Gibb [9]) and something like Reiter and Dale s algorithm [18] to come up with successively better solutions. Since the JAM system (Carletta [8] already makes high level decisions for the map task domain from the choice of move to the semantic content of the utterance, we expect to build anytime versions ....

H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibb. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39, 1986.

....To support interpersonal communication at distance, however, we first need to understand the key components of face toface interaction. Face to face interpersonal communication requires speakers and listeners to co ordinate both conversational content and process (Clark Brennan, 1991, Clark Schaefer, 1989, Grosz Sidner, 1986, Walker, 1993, Whittaker, Brennan Clark, 1991) Co ordinating content involves the construction and maintenance of shared beliefs. Speakers and listeners therefore have to infer and monitor other participants understanding (Clark Brennan, 1991, Clark Schaefer, 1989, Whittaker et al. ....

CLARK, H. & WILKES-GIBBS, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.

....Jameson and Weis, 1995] 18 November Dialogue, Joint Intentions and Plans. Basic reading: Grosz and Kraus, 1993] Additional reading: Lochbaum, 1995] Presenter: Karen Kipper 20 November Dialogue, Joint Intentions and Plans. Basic reading: Heeman and Hirst, 1995] Additional reading: [Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1990] 25 November Dialogue and Shared Context Attention Basic reading: Ros e et al. 1995; Walker, 1996] Additional reading: Poesio and Traum, 1997] 2 December Dialogue and Belief Basic reading: Galliers, 1992; McRoy and Hirst, 1993] Additional reading: Carberry and Lambert, to appear 1997; ....

Herbert Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. In Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 463--493. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1990.

....and systems. Plan based approaches (e.g. Allen Perrault, 1980; Carberry, 1990) show a greater ability to handle complex dialogues, but the resulting systems are often slow because of the difficulty of determining user s underlying plans. Finally, more recent collaborative approaches (e.g. (Clark Wilkes Gibbs, 1986; 1 See www.iet.com Projects sigdial 2 although we eventually plan to incorporate multi modal interaction, we focus here on speech and natural language 1 Figure 1: Dialogue Research Methodology Grosz Kraus, 1996) have captured more of the underlying motivations and mechanisms of ....

Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1--39.

....representations for communicating information relevant to planning. In particular, the representations characterize their high level shared plans (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) simplify sequencing of coordination points (Alterman and Garland, in press) and make explicit the shared references (Clark WilkesGibbs, 1990) to various objects in the domain. The task for the system is to segment the traces of these planning activities into goal oriented procedural representations. These procedural representations must then be matched to similar kinds of goals and partial plan representations in future planning ....

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1990). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39.

....emphasis is placed on the social commitments of the dialogue participants (obligations to act and commitments to propositions) without making explicit claims about the actual beliefs and intentions of the participants. Also, heavy emphasis is placed on how dialogue participants socially ground (Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1986) the information expressed in dialogue: the information state assumed in this theory speci es which information is assumed to be already part of the common ground at a given point, and which part has been introduced, but not yet been established. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. ....

H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39.

....Clark s Models in Computer Administered Survey Interviews Jonathan E. Bloom Michael F. Schober New School for Social Research Department of Psychology, AL 340 65 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 jbloom newschool.edu schober newschool.edu ABSTRACT We examine whether Clark Wilkes Gibbs (1986) model of referring generalizes to standardized survey interviews, in which ordinary conversational resources for establishing understanding are restricted. If Clark Wilkes Gibbs logic applies, then survey respondents should understand survey questions more accurately (that is, as survey ....

....resources and costs for grounding understanding vary (see Clark Brennan, 1991) and this may affect which kinds of feedback are optimal for interviewers (or systems) to give respondents in order to help them interpret questions as survey designers intend. Our program of research has tested Clark and Wilkes Gibbs (1986) model in the context of survey interviews. Clark and Wilkes Gibbs proposed that, in ordinary conversation, references are only understood when the speaker and addressee both agree that understanding has been achieved to a criterion sufficient for current purposes. This contrasts with the more ....

Clark, H.H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.

....recapture C# time overhearer and a side participant. According to Clark, overhearers are just that, they have no rights or responsibilities in the current conversation (Clark, 1996) while participants are said to bear a mutual responsibility toward the understanding of each utterance (Clark Wilkes Gibbs, 1986). The second aircraft, as a side participant, has gone some way towards fulfilling this type of responsibility overheard conversation has been used to maintain awareness of the work of others within the joint activity of ATC. Because of the broadcast nature of VHF, much of the common ....

Clark, H.H. and Wilkes-Gibbs (1986). Referring as a Collaborative Process. #########, 22, 1-39.

No context found.

Clark, H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39

No context found.

Clark, H. H., &Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.

No context found.

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.

No context found.

Clark, H. H. and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39.

No context found.

H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a Collaborative Process. Cognition, 22:1-- 39, 1986.

No context found.

Clark, H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39

No context found.

Clark, H.H., Wilkes-Gibbs, D.: Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22 (1986) 1--39

No context found.

Clark, H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39 Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, R. M.

No context found.

Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1--39.

No context found.

Clark, H. H. and D. Wilkes-Gibbs, Referring as a collaborative process,in:P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, MIT, 1990 pp. 463--493.

No context found.

H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39.

No context found.

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process.

No context found.

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39

No context found.

Clark, H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1-39.

No context found.

H.H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollak, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 463--493. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

. Clark, H. H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process, Cognition, 22: 1-39.

No context found.

Clark, H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1--39.

No context found.

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.

No context found.

Clark, H. & D. Wilkes-Gibbs (1986), Referring as a collaborative process, Cognition 22:1-39.

No context found.

H.H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, (22):1--39, 1986.

No context found.

Clark, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.

No context found.

Clark, H. & D. Wilkes-Gibbs (1986), Referring as a Collaborative Process, Cognition 22:1-39.

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