Cooperativity in human‐machine and human‐human spoken dialogue

A methodology for diagnostic evaluation of spoken human — machine dialogue

“…The guidelines were initially developed on the basis of our WOZ corpus (Section 2) and were then refined through comparison with an already established set of maxims for cooperative human-human dialogue; cf. Bernsen, Dybkjaer and Dybkjaer (1996) and Grice (1975). The underlying assumption is that any dialogue design error, apart, perhaps, from problems of system impoliteness, can be seen as a problem of non-cooperative system behaviour.…”

“…These had to do with the fact that system-initiated repair meta-communication had not been simulated during WOZ; cf. Bernsen et al (1996).…”

Humour, Relationship Maintenance and Personality Matching in automated dialogue: A controlled study

“…In a different area researchers have examined co-operation in human-human and human-computer dialogue (e.g. Bernsen et al, 1996), looking at how to provide clear communication of what the system can do and how the user can interact with the system.…”

Principles for the design of cooperative spoken human-machine dialogue

“…A detailed discussion of, and comparison with, Grice's work is presented elsewhere [2]. The comparison between our principles and Grice's maxims yielded a clear-cut result.…”

“…The principles were made explicit, based on the problems analysis. The WOZ corpus analysis led to the identification of 14 principles of cooperative spoken human-machine dialogue based on analysis of 120 examples of user-system interaction problems [2]. If the principles were observed in the design of the system's dialogue behaviour, we assumed, this would serve to reduce the occurrence of user dialogue behaviour that the system had not been designed to handle.…”