An empirical examination of cooperation, effort and risk in task-oriented dialogue
This thesis presents a discussion of proposed structuring principles for dialogue, and tests them empirically using data from the HCRC Map Task Corpus. The concepts of Cooperation (as described by Grice, and as used more generally in Linguistics), Coordination, Collaboration, Parsimony, Risk and Effort are exÂŹ amined, and empirically testable hypotheses are developed, with which we are able to evaluate the claims for these principles in the context of task-oriented dialogue. In order to test our hypotheses, we categorise the utterances in our database in terms of Risk and Effort. Unlike Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis or Dialogue Games, our approach is evaluative. The intent in our dialogue coding is not only to label what the speakers did, but also to assess it in terms of its appropriateness at that point in the dialogue: the system codes not only what people do, but also what they don't do. Therefore, our system marks both the presence and absence of dialogue attributes. The hypotheses derived from the structuring concepts were statistically tested on the data produced by the coding system. The results produced by the empiriÂŹ cal tests showed a relationship between dialogue errors and task errors,
Davies, B. L.
An empirical examination of cooperation, effort and risk in task-oriented dialogue. This thesis presents a discussion of proposed structuring principles for dialogue, and tests them empirically using data from the HCRC Map Task Corpus. The concepts of Cooperation (as described by Grice, and as used more generally in Linguistics), Coordination, Collaboration, Parsimony, Risk and Effort are exÂŹ amined, and empirically testable hypotheses are developed, with which we are able to evaluate the claims for these principles in the context of task-oriented dialogue. In order to test our hypotheses, we categorise the utterances in our database in terms of Risk and Effort. Unlike Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis or Dialogue Games, our approach is evaluative. The intent in our dialogue coding is not only to label what the speakers did, but also to assess it in terms of its appropriateness at that point in the dialogue: the system codes not only what people do, but also what they don't do. Therefore, our system marks both the presence and absence of dialogue attributes. The hypotheses derived from the structuring concepts were statistically tested on the data produced by the coding system. The results produced by the empiriÂŹ cal tests showed a relationship between dialogue errors and task errors,
empirical examination cooperation effort risk task_oriented dialogue present discussion propose structure principle dialogue test empirically use data map_task corpus concept cooperation describe grice use generally linguistics coordination collaboration parsimony risk effort empirically testable hypothesis develop able evaluate claim principle context task_oriented dialogue order_test hypothesis categorise utterance database term risk effort unlike discourse_analysis conversation_analysis dialogue games evaluative intent dialogue cod label speaker also_assess term appropriateness point dialogue_system cod people also therefore system mark presence_absence dialogue attribute hypothesis derive structure concept statistically test data produce cod system produce cal test show relationship dialogue error task error