Completions and continuations in dialogue: a preliminary account
Massimo Poesio (Uni Essex)Hannes Rieser (Uni Bielefeld)
CATALOGBarcelona, July 2004
Sentence cooperations: an example
Inst: So, jetzt nimmst DuWell, now you grasp
Cnst: eine Schraubea screw.
Inst: eine <-> orangene mit einem Schlitz.an <-> orange one with a slit
Cnst: Ja. Yes.
Sentence cooperations: an informal definition (Clark, 1996)
SENTENCE COOPERATION: At least two dialogue participants contribute to a sentence production
COMPLETION: sub-sentential structure continued by obligatory constituents
CONTINUATION: material added to already `complete’ sentence
The significance of sentence cooperations
Clear evidence that dialogue requires coordination at the sub-sentential level (see also Pickering and Garrod, in press)
Provide insights into incrementality and compositionality issues
A tool to investigate competing claims about coordination in dialogue
Purely intentional models Pickering and Garrod’s IAM based on simpler alignment
mechanisms.
Outline of the talk
Sentence cooperations in the Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus (BTPC)An introduction to PTT (Poesio and Traum 1997, 1998; Matheson et al,
2000; Poesio, to appear) Intro to model of we-intentions we use, following
Bratman (1992), Tuomela (2000) and Grosz and Kraus (1996)
A PTT implementation of an intentional analysis of completions (May have time to sketch an IAM analysis)
The Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus
The Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus
22 video-filmed, speech recorded and transcribed dialogues two agents, Instructor and Constructor constructing a “Baufix” airplane different sight conditions: total screen, half-screen,
face to face
3675 contributions 160 sentence cooperations (4.34 %) in most of them cooperation other-initiated (95%)
Sentence cooperations in the BTPC (Skuplik, 1999)
126 sentence cooperations from the BTPC 54 completions (43%) 72 continuations (57%)
Production of the completion / continuation: 79% Cnst, 21% Inst
84% of compl. / contin. accepted by previous speaker (41% implicitly)
Release-turn signalled in 31% of cases
A few other observations
Completions become more frequent as dialogue procedes (routinization?)
The example, revisited
Inst: So, jetzt nimmst DuWell, now you grasp
Cnst: eine Schraubea screw.
Inst: eine <-> orangene mit einem Schlitz.an <-> orange one with a slit
Cnst: Ja. Yes.
CNST COMPLETION(70%) WITH AN OBLIGATORY NP
RESULTING IN A SENTENCE WHEN MERGED
SIGNALED BY LENGHTENING OF “DU”, LEVEL TONE
Outline of the talk
The Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus (BTPC)
An introduction to PTT (Poesio, 1995; Poesio and Traum 1997,
1998; Matheson et al, 2000; Poesio, to appear) Intro to model of we-intentions we use, following
Bratman (1992), Tuomela (2000) and Grosz and Kraus (1996)
A PTT implementation of an intentional analysis of completions
PTT
A theory of semantics and interpretation in dialogue originally motivated by work on the TRAINS projectKey characteristics:
Building on (Compositional) DRT (Muskens, 1996) Common ground as a record of the discourse situation
(Barwise and Perry, 1983) An account of incremental semantic interpretation An account of GROUNDING So far, primarily concerned with aspects of dialogue
driven by obligations
Common ground: beyond assertion
A They have at their disposal enormous assets // and their policy
B //look can I just come in on that// last year
A //YES IN A MINUTE IF YOU MAY AND WHEN I’M FINISHED // then you’ll know
B // yes I’M SO SORRY
(Coulthard 1977)
Common ground: beyond assertion
B: Go to Elmhurst, pass the courthouse and go to Elmhurst and then to Elmhurst, uh north.A: mm hum.B: Towards Riverton, till you come to that Avila HallA: Oh yesB: Dju know where that//is?A: //uh huhA: Oh surelyB: Avilla Hall on the corner of Bor//donA: //uh huhB: Well there, on Bordon you turn back to town, left.
(George Psathas, "Direction-giving in Interaction," in Boden and Zimmerman, ed.)
From DRT to PTT
a. A: There is an engine at Avon.
b. B: It is hooked to a boxcar
DRT: [ x,w,y,u,s,s’| engine(x), Avon(w), s: at(x,w), boxcar(y), s’:hooked-to(u,y),
u=x]
Common ground and discourse situation in PTT
[ce1,ce2,K1,K2|
K1=[x,w,s| engine(x), Avon(w), s: at(x,w)],
ce1: assert(A,B,K1)
K2=[y,z,s’| boxcar(y), s’:hooked-to(z,y), z=x],
ce2: assert(B,A,K2)]
Locutionary acts in the common ground
“The fact that a speaker is speaking, saying the words he is saying in the way he is saying them, is a fact that is usually accessible to everyone present. Such observed facts can be expected to change the presumed common background knowledge of the speaker and his audience in the same way that any obviously observable change in the physical surroundings of the conversation will change the presumed common knowledge.” (Stalnaker, Assertion, p. 323)
The time-order of sentence processing
GARDEN-PATH phenomena shows that parsing is INCREMENTAL (Bever, 1974; Frazier, 1987)Marslen-Wilson 1973, 1975: semantic information ALSO accessed immediatelySwinney, 1979: lexical access incrementalJust and Carpenter,1980: IMMEDIACY HYPOTHESIS (“Every word encountered should be processed to the deepest level possible before the eye moves on to the next word”)Eye-tracking work (Tanenhaus et al, 1995, tomorrow): really fine-grained incrementality
Alignment at all levels Pickering & Garrod
Clarification questions (Ginzburg and Cooper, Purver
and Ginzburg)
A: Did Bo leave?B: BO? A: Bo Smith.B: Yes, half an hour ago.
Matthew: It wasn’t all that bad. At least the pool was clean.Lara: MR POOL?Matthew: The pool.Lara: Oh. <laugh>
(“What is the intended content of your utterance ‘Bo’?”)
(“Did you utter the words ‘Mr. Pool’?”)
Micro conversational events (Poesio, 1995)
boxcar [u|u:utter(A,”boxcar”), Noun(u), sem(u)=x [|boxcar(x)], + SYN INFO (NEXT)]
umm [u,ce| u: utter(A,”umm”), ce: keep-turn(A), generate(u,ce)]
MCEs in the example dialogue
[mce6| mce6:utter(Cnst,"Schraube"), Noun(mce6), sem(mce6)= v([ |screw(v)]];
[mce1,ce1| mce1:utter(Inst,“so"), Adv(mce1), ce1:take-turn(Inst), generate(mce1,ce1)];[mce2,ce2| mce2:utter(Inst,“jetzt"), Adv(mce2), ce2:keep-turn(Inst), generate(mce2,ce2)]; [mce3| mce3:utter(Inst,"nimmst"), Verb(mce3), sem(mce3)= Qx(Q(x’[e| e: grasp(x, x’)]))];[mce4| mce4:utter(Inst,"Du"), Pro(mce4), sem(mce4)= P.P (you)];[mce5| mce5:utter(Cnst,"eine"), Det(mce5), sem(mce5)= P’P([y| ]; P’(y); P(y))]
Syntactic interpretation with MCEs (Poesio, 1996)
MCE1 CE1
mce1:utter(Inst,“so"),ce1:take-turn(Inst), generate(mce1,ce1)];
MCE2 CE2
U1:S
MCE3:”nimmst”:V
U2:NP
U3:NP
MCE3
MCE4:”Du”:Pro
U4:NP
MCE4
Syntactic Interpretation with MCEs, II
MCE1 CE1
mce1:utter(Inst,“so"),ce1:take-turn(Inst), generate(mce1,ce1)];
MCE2 CE2 MCE3
U1:S
MCE3:”nimmst”:V
U2:NP
U3:NPMCE4:”Du”:Pro
MCE4
Semantic interpretation and compositionality
)()3(
)2(
,)1(,32 ,31
,
usem
usem
usemuuuu
BINARY SEMANTIC COMPOSITION
U3:()
U1: U2:
Intentions and obligations
OBLIGATIONS: [o | o:OblCnst ([|address(Cnst, ce1)])]
INTENTIONS: [i | i:IntInst&Cnst ([|join(Cnst, wing1,fuselage1)])]
INTENTIONAL STRUCTURE: Grosz&Sidner-like sp(i1) = i2 dom(i1) = i2
Grounding
As in proposals such as Clark and Schaefer (1989) and Traum (1994), establishment of common ground (‘G’) modeled in terms of CONTRIBUTIONS, or DISCOURSE UNITS, that may be ACKNOWLEDGED or REPAIRED
Discourse Units and Grounding Acts
MCE1 CE1
mce1:utter(Inst,“so"),ce1:take-turn(Inst), generate(mce1,ce1)];
MCE2 CE2 MCE3 …
U1:S
MCE3:”nimmst”:V
U2:NP
U3:NPMCE4:”Du”:Pro
DU1 …. DU17
DU17 =
ACK(DU17)
CONT(DU17)
REPAIR(DU17)
What prompts the completion? Two accounts
Intentional accountNeed to explain why help
Alignment accountWhat representation is aligned?
HR
Outline of the talk
The Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus (BTPC)
An introduction to PTT (Poesio and Traum 1997, 1998; Matheson et
al, 2000; Poesio, to appear) Intro to model of we-intentions we use, following
Bratman (1992), Tuomela (2000) and Grosz and Kraus (1996)
A PTT implementation of an intentional analysis of completions
Public and private (partial) plans
Inst has a fully specified plan for building the toy-airplane (drawing or model)The public plan among Inst and Cnst is usually underspecified, but gets more refined throughout the construction dialogue Besides the shared partial plan, the agents have private plans which overlap to some extent with the shared plan.The difference between the public plan and the private plans leads to discrepancies and negotiations
The partial shared plan before the example
Join wing and fuselage
Assemble toy airplane
Assemble fuselage Assemble wing
get 5h bar
get 3h bar
get 7h bar1
get 7h bar2
join join alignwing&
fuselage
getbolt
putthroughget
boltgetbolt
getnut
We-intentions for shared cooperative
activity Tuomela’s (2000) modification of Bratman’s 1993 definition of SCA, adapted:
Inst and Cnst WE-INTEND that Cnst join wing and fuselage is equivalent to: It is Inst’s and Cnst’s mutual knowledge that
Inst intends that Cnst join wing&fuselage because Cnst intends that Cnst join wing&fuselage
and Cnst intends that Cnst join wing&fuselage because Inst
intends that Cnst join wing&fuselage
Tuomela’s definition of we-intention, formal
IntInst&Cnst(join(Cnst, W&F))
MK((IntInst join(Cnst, W&F))
/r IntCnst(join(Cnst, W&F))) and
(IntCnstjoin(Cnst, W&F)) /r
IntInst(join(Cnst, W&F))))
(where /r is the reason relation, which is factual)
Outline of the talk
The Bielefeld Toy Plane Corpus (BTPC)
An introduction to PTT (Poesio and Traum 1997, 1998; Matheson et
al, 2000; Poesio, to appear) Intro to model of we-intentions we use, following
Bratman (1992), Tuomela (2000) and Grosz and Kraus (1996)
A PTT implementation of an intentional analysis of completions
The situation before example 1
MP
The partial shared plan before the example
Join wing and fuselage
Assemble toy airplane
Assemble fuselage Assemble wing
get 5h bar
get 3h bar
get 7h bar1
get 7h bar2
join join alignwing&
fuselage
getbolt
putthroughget
boltgetbolt
getnut
Reaching the intention to perform a directive
2.: intertwined discourse / domain planjoin(Cnst,Obj1,Obj2) >Ash&Morr b & c & d & e & f,
(b) 1. direct(Inst, Cnst, grasp(Cnst, Bolt)),2. grasp(Cnst, Bolt),3. tell(Cnst, Inst, grasp(Cnst, Bolt ))
(c) 1.direct(Inst, Cnst, grasp(Cnst, Nut)),2. grasp(Cnst, Nut),3. tell(Cnst, Inst, grasp(Cnst, Nut))
(d) …put through… (e) …fasten.. (f) ….feedback.
1.: (partial) we-intention to join: [i | i:IntInst&Cnst ([|join(Cnst, wing1,fuselage1)])]
Deciding to perform a directive, II
5. Achieve partial Inst intention (& Cnst intention)[i2 | i2:IntInst ([K1,ce1|K1 = [e, x|bolt(x), e:grasp(Cnst,x)]
ce1:direct(Inst, Cnst, K1)])]
3. Distributivity of we-intention
4. Achieve partial we-intention to perform directive:[i1 | i1:IntInst&Cnst ([K1,ce1|K1 = [e,x|bolt(x), e:grasp(Cnst,x)]
ce1:direct(Inst, Cnst, K1)])]
Inst’s private plan
Join wing and fuselage
Assemble toy airplane
Assemble fuselage Assemble wing
get 5h bar
get 3h bar
get 7h bar1
get 7h bar2
join join alignwing&
fuselage
getbolt
…
getbolt
getbolt
orange-bolt-with-slit
Cnst’s private plan
Join wing and fuselage
Assemble toy airplane
Assemble fuselage Assemble wing
get 5h bar
get 3h bar
get 7h bar1
get 7h bar2
join join alignwing&
fuselage
getbolt
…..
getbolt
getbolt
bolt
Planning the directive
7. develop plan to perform utterance that generates directive:
[i4 | i4:IntInst ([u1.1 | utterance(u1.1), sem(u1.1) = K2,
generates(u1.1,ce2)])]
6. arrive at more specific intention (evidence: subsequent repair)
[i3 | i3:IntInst ([K2,ce2|K2 = [e, x|bolt(x),x=orange-slit-bolt,
e:grasp(Const,x)] ce2:direct(Inst, Cnst, K2)])]
Micro-plan8. plan to perform utterance in terms of MCEs
[i5a | i5a:IntInst ([u1.2 | u1.2: „so“:take-turn])];
9. lengthening signals problem - Inst doesn’t necessarily know which bolts are unused possibly does not know how to refer to bolt (NP type / content)
[i5b | i5b:IntInst ([u1.3 | u1.3:“jetzt“:keep-turn])];
[i5c | i5c:IntInst ([u1.4 .. u1.7|
S(u1.1) , u1.4:“nimmst“:V, u1.5:“Du“:NP, u1.7:VP,NP(u1.6),u1.5 u1.1, u1.7 u1.1, u1.4 u1.7, u1.6 u1.7]
Possible motivations for the completion
Interpret lengthening as request to continue obl(Cnst, cont(DU))
Interpret lengthening as request for acknowledgment (also standard PTT)obl(Cnst, ack(DU))
Cooperativeness`Blurting out’
A cooperativeness analysis
10. Cnst acquires intention to turn the directive in a joint action (cfr. Tuomela’s “unrequired contributory actions”)
[i6 | i6:IntCnst ([K3,ce3|K3 = [e,x|bolt(x), e:grasp(Const,x)]
ce3:direct(Inst&Cnst, Cnst, K3)])]
Derivation of 10 not axiomatized by Tuomela, but we assume here is the result of an intention to help.
11. Cnst produces plan to perform action to generate directive; analogous to Inst’s, but content (partial) K3:
[i7 | i7:IntCnst ([u1.1a | utterance(u1.1a), sem(u1.1a) = K3,
generates(u1.1a,ce3)])]
Further specification not possible
Micro-plan for Cnst’s completion
12. most of actions in plan already performed by Inst; Cnst plans missing action
[i8 | i8:IntCnst ([ K1.1d | u1.6:“eine Schraube“:NP,
K1.1d=[x1|bolt(x1)] sem(u1.6) = K1.1d ])]
(Same action would be planned to continue contribution and to acknowledge)
13. Instructor begins repair due to his private plan
An alternative analysis: the IAM model
Successful dialogue involves the development of aligned representations at all levelsAligned representations the result of priming mechanisms at every level of linguistic representation Mental state reasoning an option but not basic
Alignment at all levels
An IAM-analysis of the BTPC example
What leads Cnst to produce “eine Schraube”?
What is a situation model in this domain? “the key dimensions encoded in situation
models are SPACE, TIME, CAUSALITY, INTENTIONALITY, and REFERENCE to the MAIN INDIVIDUALS … “ (p. 7)
Two possible views of the situation model in BTPC domain
The partial shared plan (cfr. earlier analysis)
Cfr. mention of intentionalityWould make the IAM model much closer to the
model presented earlierThe state of Cnst’s plane assembly
The ‘state of assembly route’
Problems with this type of dialogues:Situation models are clearly NOT aligned
(they will only be so at the END of the conversation)
Cannot assume implicit common ground
Need to extend model to deal with directives
A proposal
Based on the notion of priming
Extend the notion of “routine” to non-linguistic actions
During the dialogue, an AGGREGATE FORMATION ROUTINE gets established
Development of the AF routine
JOIN(TAIL, FUSELAGE)
JOIN(TAIL, FUSELAGE)
JOIN(SIDE-RUDDER, FUSELAGE)
The routinePARAMETERS: 2 constituents to be joined through a port a fixing mechanism going through this port (currently
underspecified)
ROUTINE FOR AGGREGATE FORMATION: align material to be joined (requires port identif.) obtain fixing mechanism put fixing mechanism through port fasten fixing mechanism yields: aggregate
Generation of“eine Schraube”
Based not on global shared plan, but on local instantiation of AF-routine, primed in context
Only one parameter is still underspecified: the bolt
Local execution of routine at the ‘obtain fixing mechanism’ point
Syntactic structure to realize action presumably also available through routine
Open problems with this account
Some motivation for completion needed More in general, how is helping done? (Normal cooperativity axioms are based on
beliefs & intentions.)
Also need to say something more about the choice of that particular realizationEconomy principle?
Preliminary conclusions
PTT provides the technical tools to formalize a crucial feature of sentence cooperations: coordination at the micro conversational event levelMind-reading always difficult, but Tuomela’s theory of we-intention goes some way towards formalizing one of the possible motivations for completions, in terms of “help”A preliminary investigation of the alignment route also possible
Top Related