Collaborating on contributions to conversations

Clark, Herbert H.; Schaefer, Edward F.

doi:10.1080/01690968708406350

Cited by 289 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

144

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our goal is to address these problems in a more adaptive, context-sensitive, and systematic way. To do this, we have extended Clark and Schaefer's (1987) model in order to specify an adaptive feedback model for a spoken language system to which a user can delegate actions.…”

Section: A Model Of Grounding With a Spoken Language Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: a theoretical framework

Brennan

Hulteen

1995

Knowledge-Based Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In human-computer interaction, as in conversation, neither partner is omniscient. To facilitate repairs when problems arise, an interface needs to enable both user and system to coordinate their separate knowledge states. We present a conversational feedback model for human-computer interaction, based on a collaborative theory of human communication (Clark & Schaefer, 1989) and use this model to systematically provide context-sensitive feedback messages from an application-independent spoken language system. We then describe a simulation, an informal user study, and a working prototype that use this model in a telephone agent application that allows dialing by voice. TOWARD A MORE ROBUST SPEECH INTERFACETraditional approaches to improving the performance of spoken language systems have focused on improving the accuracy of the underlying speech recognition and natural language processing technology. The assumption is that if a system can translate exactly what the user said into text and then map this onto an application command, speech will be a successful input technique. With this approach, improving speech recognition accuracy requires asymptotic effort that ultimately is reflected in the cost of the technology.We argue that perfect performance by a speech recognizer is simply not possible, nor should it be the goal. There are limiting factors that are difficult or impossible to control, such as variability in the acoustic environment. Moreover, many words and phrases in English are homophones of other words and phrases, so in some situations, both human and machine listeners find them ambiguous. People frequently have trouble discerning, remembering, or guessing the grammar and vocabulary that a system expects and then limiting themselves to it -this has been dubbed "the vocabulary problem" by Furnas, Landauer, Gomez, and Dumais, 1987. In addition, ambiguous input is a problem on the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels. Finally, because people have many other demands on them while they are speaking such as performing tasks, planning what to say next and monitoring their listeners and the environment, they frequently do not produce the kind of fluent but constrained speech that a speech recognizer has been trained to process. Human utterances frequently contain speech errors, and yet this is rarely a problem for human listeners. The intrinsic limits on the well-formedness of utterances and on the accuracy of speech recognition technology suggest that to solve the problem, we must first redefine it. Let us start by considering how people handle these problems in conversation.

show abstract

Section: A Model Of Grounding With a Spoken Language Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: a theoretical framework

Brennan

Hulteen

1995

Knowledge-Based Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fields of conversation analysis (see Goodwin & Heritage, 1990 for an overview of the field) and psycholinguistics (see Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986;Clark & Schaefer, 1987, 1989Schober & Clark 1989; for the most relevant aspects) offer a model of conversation which seems highly pertinent to the difficulties our users faced. They present what we may term an "interactive" model of communication.…”

Section: Models Of Conversationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design for conversation: lessons from Cognoter

Tatar

Foster

Bobrow

1991

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When studying the use of Cognoter, a multi-user idea organizing tool, we noticed that users encountered unexpected communicative breakdowns. Many of these difficulties stemmed from an incorrect model of conversation implicit in the design of the software. Drawing on recent work in psychology and sociology, we were able to create a more realistic model of the situation our users faced and apply it to the system to understand the breakdowns.

show abstract

“…As has been suggested by Clark (1996), doing things together means that each individual makes contributions to the ongoing activity -something that implies that the contributions of the participants must be coordinated and collaborative (Clark, 1996). It is thus crucial in joint activities that the participants are mutually responsive to each other's actions, treat these as contributions to the joint activity, and are mutually supportive in helping each other to 6 complete the joint activity (Clark & Schaefer, 1987, 1989Hydén 2011Hydén , 2014. Joint activity progresses through the addition of new contributions, thus adding to the common ground.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting Brussels sprouts: Collaboration involving persons with dementia

Hydén¹

2014

Journal of Aging Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How people with dementia collaborate with other people is an area in need of more research and conceptualizations. Collaboration introduces a number of new possibilities and demands concerning cognitive and linguistic abilities and it is suggested that a theoretical framework that emphasize that cognitive resources are not exclusively individual, but are part of cognitive and communicative context. In this article focus is on joint activities and their collaborative organization is analyzed using an example involving persons with dementia working together with staff preparing a meal. The analysis shows that persons with dementia are able to collaborate in fairly advanced activities if they are supported in such a way that they can make use of the cognitive and linguistic resources of others, in particular cognitive

show abstract

Collaborating on contributions to conversations

Cited by 289 publications

References 11 publications

Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: a theoretical framework

Interaction and feedback in a spoken language system: a theoretical framework

Design for conversation: lessons from Cognoter

Cutting Brussels sprouts: Collaboration involving persons with dementia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About