Article

Free access

An empirical investigation of proposals in collaborative dialogues

Authors:

Barbara Di Eugenio,

Johanna D. Moore,

Pamela W. Jordan,

Richmond H. ThomasonAuthors Info & Claims

ACL '98/COLING '98: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 1

Pages 325 - 329

https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980899

Published: 10 August 1998 Publication History

PDF eReader

Abstract

We describe a corpus-based investigation of proposals in dialogue. First, we describe our DRI compliant coding scheme and report our inter-coder reliability results. Next, we test several hypotheses about what constitutes a well-formed proposal.

References

[1]

John L. Austin. 1962. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Google Scholar

[2]

Jean Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2).

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Mark G. Core and James Allen. 1997. Coding dialogues with the DAMSL annotation scheme. AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Actions in Human and Machines, Cambridge MA.

Google Scholar

[4]

Barbara Di Eugenio, Pamela W. Jordan, and Liina Pylkkänen. 1997. The COCONUT project: Dialogue annotation manual. http://www.isp.pitt.edu/~intgen/research-papers.

Google Scholar

[5]

Barbara Di Eugenio, Pamela W. Jordan, Richmond H. Thomason, and Johanna D. Moore. 1998. The Acceptance cycle: An empirical investigation of human-human collaborative dialogues. Submitted for publication.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

William M. Grove, Nancy C. Andreasen, Patricia McDonald-Scott, Martin B. Keller, and Robert W. Shapiro. 1981. Reliability studies of psychiatric diagnosis. theory and practice. Archives General Psychiatry, 38:408--413.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[7]

Jerry Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt, and Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1--2):69--142.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Klaus Krippendorff. 1980. Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

[9]

Rebecca J. Passonneau. 1994. Protocol for coding discourse referential noun phrases and their antecedents. Technical report, Columbia University.

Google Scholar

[10]

Massimo Poesio and David Traum. 1997. Representing conversation acts in a unified semantic/pragmatic framework. AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Actions in Human and Machines, Cambridge MA.

Google Scholar

[11]

T. Rietveld and R. van Hout. 1993. Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Mouton de Gruyter.

Google Scholar

[12]

John R. Searle. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics 3. Speech Acts. Academic Press.

Google Scholar

[13]

A. Stolcke, E. Shriberg, R. Bates, N. Coccaro, D. Jurafsky, R. Martin, M. Meteer, K. Ries, P. Taylor, and C. Van Ess-Dykema. 1998. Dialog act modeling for conversational speech. AAAI Spring Symposium on Applying Machine Learning to Discourse Processing.

Google Scholar

[14]

Richmond H. Thomason and Jerry R. Hobbs. 1997. Interrelating interpretation and generation in an abductive framework. AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Actions in Human and Machines, Cambridge MA.

Google Scholar

[15]

Raimo Tuomela. 1995. The Importance of Us. Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar

[16]

Marilyn A. Walker. 1993. Informational Redundancy and Resource Bounds in Dialogue. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, December.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

Marilyn A. Walker. 1996. Inferring acceptance and rejection in dialogue by default rules of inference. Language and Speech, 39(2).

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Langlet CClavel CD'Mello SGeorgiou PScherer SProvost ESoleymani MWorsley M(2018)Detecting User's Likes and Dislikes for a Virtual Negotiating AgentProceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3242969.3243024(103-110)Online publication date: 2-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3242969.3243024
Hervás RFinlayson M(2010)The prevalence of descriptive referring expressions in news and narrativeProceedings of the ACL 2010 Conference Short Papers10.5555/1858842.1858852(49-54)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1858842.1858852
Geertzen JBunt HAlexandersson JKnott A(2009)Measuring annotator agreement in a complex hierarchical dialogue act annotation schemeProceedings of the 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue10.5555/1654595.1654619(126-133)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1654595.1654619
Show More Cited By

An empirical investigation of proposals in collaborative dialogues
1. Hardware
  1. Power and energy
    1. Power estimation and optimization

Recommendations

Acoustic-Prosodic Entrainment and Rapport in Collaborative Learning Dialogues
MLA '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM workshop on Multimodal Learning Analytics Workshop and Grand Challenge

In spoken dialogue analysis, the speech signal is a rich source of information. We explore in this paper how low level features of the speech signal, such as pitch, loudness, and speaking rate, can inform a model of student interaction in collaborative ...
System-initiated digressive proposals in automated human-computer telephone dialogues: the use of contrasting politeness strategies

System-initiated digressive proposals may be used to introduce new and unexpected information into automated telephone services. These digressions may be viewed as particularly pronounced forms of unsolicited interruptions as they contain information ...
Distilling dialogues: a method using natural dialogue corpora for dialogue systems development
ANLC '00: Proceedings of the sixth conference on Applied natural language processing

We report on a method for utilising corpora collected in natural settings. It is based on distilling (re-writing) natural dialogues to elicit the type of dialogue that would occur if one the dialogue participants was a computer instead of a human. The ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

ACL '98/COLING '98: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 1

August 1998

768 pages

Program Chairs:
Christian Boitet
Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France
,
Pete Whitelock
Sharp Laboratories of Europe Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom

Publisher

Association for Computational Linguistics

United States

Publication History

Published: 10 August 1998

Qualifiers

Article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 85 of 443 submissions, 19%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
331
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)43
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Langlet CClavel CD'Mello SGeorgiou PScherer SProvost ESoleymani MWorsley M(2018)Detecting User's Likes and Dislikes for a Virtual Negotiating AgentProceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3242969.3243024(103-110)Online publication date: 2-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3242969.3243024
Hervás RFinlayson M(2010)The prevalence of descriptive referring expressions in news and narrativeProceedings of the ACL 2010 Conference Short Papers10.5555/1858842.1858852(49-54)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1858842.1858852
Geertzen JBunt HAlexandersson JKnott A(2009)Measuring annotator agreement in a complex hierarchical dialogue act annotation schemeProceedings of the 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue10.5555/1654595.1654619(126-133)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1654595.1654619
Prasad RWalker MJokinen KMcRoy S(2002)Training a Dialogue Act Tagger for human-human and human-computer travel dialoguesProceedings of the 3rd SIGdial workshop on Discourse and dialogue - Volume 210.3115/1118121.1118142(162-173)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2002
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3115/1118121.1118142
Larsson SJokinen KMcRoy S(2002)Issues under negotiationProceedings of the 3rd SIGdial workshop on Discourse and dialogue - Volume 210.3115/1118121.1118136(103-112)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2002
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3115/1118121.1118136
Walker MPassonneau RBoland JWebber B(2001)Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Darpa Communicator spoken dialogue systemsProceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics10.3115/1073012.1073078(515-522)Online publication date: 6-Jul-2001
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3115/1073012.1073078
Walker MPassonneau R(2001)DATEProceedings of the first international conference on Human language technology research10.3115/1072133.1072148(1-8)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2001
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3115/1072133.1072148
Jordan PWalker MIida H(2000)Learning attribute selections for non-pronominal expressionsProceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics10.3115/1075218.1075242(181-190)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3115/1075218.1075242
Jordan PIida H(2000)Can nominal expressions achieve multiple goals?Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics10.3115/1075218.1075237(142-149)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2000
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3115/1075218.1075237
(1999)Mixed-Initiative InteractionIEEE Intelligent Systems10.1109/5254.79608314:5(14-23)Online publication date: 1-Sep-1999
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/5254.796083

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Recommendations

Acoustic-Prosodic Entrainment and Rapport in Collaborative Learning Dialogues

System-initiated digressive proposals in automated human-computer telephone dialogues: the use of contrasting politeness strategies

Distilling dialogues: a method using natural dialogue corpora for dialogue systems development

Comments

Published In

Sponsors

Publisher

Publication History

Qualifiers

Acceptance Rates

Other Metrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Cited By

PDF

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Abstract

References

Cited By

Recommendations

Acoustic-Prosodic Entrainment and Rapport in Collaborative Learning Dialogues

System-initiated digressive proposals in automated human-computer telephone dialogues: the use of contrasting politeness strategies

Distilling dialogues: a method using natural dialogue corpora for dialogue systems development

Comments

Information

Published In

Sponsors

Publisher

Publication History

Qualifiers

Acceptance Rates

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

PDF

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations