Abstract
In recent years, it has come to be widely accepted that linguistic and situational context must be used in understanding an utterance. It is not at all clear, however, how to represent such contextual information or what its precise role in the understanding process is. In fact, even the very nature of context remains problematic. In this paper, we look at task-oriented dialogue2 and propose some initial answers to these questions. Our answers take the form of several distinctions and structures, from which we draw some broad implications. The reader is cautioned that we intend our observations to be suggestive rather than in any way exhaustive. (See, for example, Grosz [4] for a different, but complementary, perspective on this problem.)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Brown, G.P.: ‘A framework for processing dialogue,’ LCS TR-182 (June 1977), Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Bruce, B.C.: ‘Belief systems and language understanding,’ BBN Report No. 2973 ( January 1975 ), Bolt, Baranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.
Deutsch, B.G.: ‘The structure of task oriented dialogs,’ Proceedings IEEE Speech Symposium, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa. (April 1974).
Grosz, B.: ‘The representation and use of focus in a system for understanding dialogs,’ Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass. (August 1977).
Hawkinson, L.: ‘The representation of concepts in OWL,’ Advance Papers of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Tbilisi, Georgia, USSE (September 1975).
Minsky, M.: ‘A framework for representing knowledge,’ in: Winston (ed.), Visual Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1975.
Moore, J.A., Levin, J.A., and Mann, W.C.: ‘A goal-oriented model of human dialogue,’ American Journal of Computational Linguistics, Microfiche 67 (1977).
Schank, R. and Abelson, R.: Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 1977.
Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H.: ‘Opening up closing,’ Semiotica 8 (1973).
Swartout, W.: ‘A digitalis therapy advisor with explanations,’ Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass. (August 1977).
Szolovits, P., Hawkinson, L., and Martin, W.A.: ‘An overview of OWL, a language for knowledge representation,’ Proceedings of the Workshop on Natural Language for Interaction with Data Bases, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; also available as LCS TM-86 (June 1977), MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1984 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, G.P. (1984). Linguistic and Situational Context in a Model of Task-Oriented Dialogue. In: Vaina, L., Hintikka, J. (eds) Cognitive Constraints on Communication. Synthese Language Library, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9188-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9188-6_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-1949-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-9188-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive