2007
DOI: 10.1527/tjsai.22.425
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Analysis of 'Distinctive' Utterances in Non-task-oriented Conversational Dialogue

Abstract: SummaryIn this paper, we investigate distinctive utterances in non-task-oriented conversational dialogue through the comparison between task-oriented dialogue and non-task-oriented conversational dialogue. We then found that Indirect Responses (IRs) and Clarification Requests (CRs) are significant in non-taskoriented conversational dialogue. IRs are cooperative responses to other's question, while CRs are clarification questions. We analyzed the rhetorical relations about IRs and CRs. We then found that the IR… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To resolve this problem, we started with the automatic addition of causal knowledge. Because such knowledge includes cause and effect relationships, we presumed that a conversational system should use this to guess the relationship between the users input and the system's world knowledge that might be used for an elaborative response, which is proven to be better than a simple one [4]. The following utterances are an example of a dialogue using cause-effect knowledge.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To resolve this problem, we started with the automatic addition of causal knowledge. Because such knowledge includes cause and effect relationships, we presumed that a conversational system should use this to guess the relationship between the users input and the system's world knowledge that might be used for an elaborative response, which is proven to be better than a simple one [4]. The following utterances are an example of a dialogue using cause-effect knowledge.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%