Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - 1991
DOI: 10.3115/981344.981351
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue

Abstract: This paper presents a tripartite model of dialogue in which three different kinds of actions are modeled: domain actions, problem-solving actions, and discourse or communicative actions. We contend that our process model provides a more finely differentiated representation of user intentions than previous models; enables the incremental recognition of communicative actions that cannot be recognized from a single utterance alone; and accounts for implicit acceptance of a communicated proposition.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
61
0
3

Year Published

1994
1994
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
61
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Such an ambiguity can be solved by considering the concept sequence of utterance (3). If only the speech act of utterance (2) is considered, the speech act of utterance (3) may be inform.…”
Section: Failure Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Such an ambiguity can be solved by considering the concept sequence of utterance (3). If only the speech act of utterance (2) is considered, the speech act of utterance (3) may be inform.…”
Section: Failure Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies on the determination of a system's domain action have been based on dialogue models, such as finite-state models, frame-based models [12], and plan-based models [3,4]. A finite-state model consists of a set of nodes representing dialogue states and a set of arcs between the nodes.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A scheme is explained with which the system is able to take task goals, text goals and text structure into account for generating text. (Lambert and Carberry, 1991) discusses another plan-based model of dialogue, which has three plan levels: domain level, problem solving level, and discourse level. (Lambert and Carberry, 1992) continues on the previous model, which is extended for modelling conflicting beliefs and negotiating about such conflicts, thus enabling negotiation subdialogues.…”
Section: Modelling Of Dialogue Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cohen (1992) and Jacob (1995), among others, have explored discourserelated extensions to direct manipulation that incorporate anaphora and make previous context directly available. However, most work on applying human discourse principles to human-computer interaction, e.g., (Lambert and Carberry, 1991;Yanklovich, 1994), have assumed that natural language understanding will be applied to the user's utterances In Moore et al's work (Lemaire and Moore, 1994;Moore and Swartout, 1990), which focuses on explanation dialogues, users are presented with a full textual history of their interaction with the system, from which they may select any phrase as the context for a further query. Unlike our approach, Moore's history display has no explicit structure other than the alternation of user and system utterances.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Workmentioning
confidence: 99%