Principles we talk by: Testing dialogue principles in task-oriented dialogues

Bethan Davies

Abstract

This paper takes two behavioural principles which have been suggested as explanatory models for human conversation, and tests them on a corpus of task-oriented dialogues (the HCRC Map Task Corpus). The principles chosen are Clark’s Collaborative Theory and Shadbolt’s Principle of Parsimony, which are both interested in notions of effort although they come from entirely different subfields of linguistics. The aim of the study is to compare the explanatory power of each of these principles when they are applied to real language data. Each of the principles was converted into a set of representative hypotheses about the types of behaviour which they would predict in dialogue. Then, a way of coding dialogue behaviour was developed, in order that the hypotheses could be tested on a suitably sized dataset. In particular, the coding system tried to distinguish between the levels of effort which participants used in their utterances. Finally, a series of statistical tests was undertaken to test the predictions of the hypotheses on the information generated by the coding system. The strongest support was found for the Principle of Parsimony and its associate Principle of Least Individual Effort, at the expense of the Collaborative Principle and the Principle of Least Collaborative Effort. There is certainly evidence that speakers try to minimise effort, but this seems to be occurring on an individual basis – which can be to the cost of the overall dialogue and task performance – rather than on a collaborative basis.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Anderson, A.H., M. Bader, E.G. Bard, E. Boyle, G.M. Doherty, S. Garrod, S.D. Isard, J.C. Kowtko, J. McAllister, J. Miller, C.F. Sotillo, H.S. Thompson, and R. Weinart
(1991a) The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech 34.4: 351-366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.H., and E.A. Boyle
(1994) Forms of introduction in dialogues: Their discourse contexts and communicative consequences. Language and Cognitive Processes 9: 101-122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A.H., A. Clark, and J. Mullin
(1991b) Introducing information in dialogues: Forms of introduction chosen by young speakers and the responses elicited from young listeners. Journal of Child Language 18: 663-687. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1994) Interactive communication skills in children: Learning how to make language work in dialogue. Journal of Child Language 21: 439-463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., and S. Harris
(1997) Managing Language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L.M., and M.C. Cummings
(1996) Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S.M Gass & J. Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E., and H.H. Clark
(1996) Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22.6: 1482-1493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carletta, J
(1992) Risk-taking and recovery in task-oriented dialogue. University of Edinburgh: Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
(1996) Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics 22.2: 249-254.Google Scholar
Carletta, J., and C. Mellish
(1996) Risk-taking and recovery in task-oriented dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 71-107. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Carletta, J., S. Isard, G. Doherty-Sneddon, A. Isard, J.C. Kowtko, and A.H. Anderson
(1997) The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics 23.1: 13-31.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H
(1992) Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., and S.E. Brennan
(1991) Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., and M.A. Krych
(2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50: 62-81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., and E.F. Schaefer
(1987a) Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 19-41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987b) Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers. Journal of Memory and Language 26: 209-225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., and D. Wilkes-Gibbs
(1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1-39. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Connor, U., and T.A. Upton
(eds.) (2004) Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N., H. Giles, and J.M. Wiemann
(eds.) (1991) ‘Miscommunication’ and problematic talk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Davies, B.L
(1998) An empirical examination of cooperation, effort and risk in task-oriented dialogue. University of Edinburgh: Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
(2006) Testing dialogue principles in task-oriented dialogues: An exploration of cooperation, collaboration, effort and risk. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics, No.11. University of Leeds, UK: Department of Linguistics & Phonetics, pp. 30-64.Google Scholar
(in prep) Least collaborative effort or least individual effort: Examining the evidence.
Eckert, P
(1999) Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R.P., and B.L. Davies
(1992) Monologue as a turn in dialogue: Towards an integration of Exchange Structure and Rhetorical Structure Theory. In R. Dale, E. Hovy, D. Rösner & O. Stock (eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 151-166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.Google Scholar
Grosz, B., and C. Sidner
(1986) Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12: 175-206.Google Scholar
Houghton, G., and S.D. Isard
(1987) Why to speak, what to say and how to say it: Modelling language production in discourse. In P. Morris (ed.), Modelling cognition. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 249-267.Google Scholar
Isard, A., and J. Carletta
(1995) Transaction and action coding in the Map Task corpus. Tech. Rep. HCRC/RP-65. Edinburgh, Scotland: Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kowtko, J.C., S.D. Isard, and G.M. Doherty
(1992) Conversational games within dialogue. Tech. Rep. HCRC/RP-31. Edinburgh, Scotland: Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lave, J., and E. Wenger
(1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G
(1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y.Q., R.P. Fawcett, and B.L. Davies
(1993) Genedis: The discourse generator in COMMUNAL. In A. Sloman, D. Hogg, G. Humphreys, A. Ramsay & D. Partridge (eds.), Prospects for Artificial Intelligence. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 148-157.Google Scholar
Power, R
(1979) The organization of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics 17: 107-152.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075-95.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schober, M.F
(1995) Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimised in conversations about locations? Discourse Processes 20: 219-247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schober, M.F., and H.H. Clark
(1989) Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology 21: 211-232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shadbolt, R.N
(1984) Constituting reference in natural language dialogue: The problem of referential opacity. University of Edinburgh: Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
Siegel, S., and N.J. Castellan
(1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. London: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH, and M. Coulthard
(1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Traum, D.R
(1994) A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. University of Rochester: Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D
(1986) Collaborative processes of language use in conversation. Stanford University: Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
(1997) Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (eds.), Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, D., and H.H. Clark
(1992) Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 183 - 194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar