Skip to main content

Conversation with and through computers

Abstract

People design what they say specifically for their conversational partners, and they adapt to their partners over the course of a conversation. A comparison of keyboard conversations involving a simulated computer partner (as in a natural language interface) with those involving a human partner (as in teleconferencing) yielded striking differences and some equally striking similarities. For instance, there were significantly fewer acknowledgments in human/computer dialogue than in human/human. However, regardless of the conversational partner, people expected connectedness across conversational turns. In addition, the style of a partner's response shaped what people subsequently typed. These results suggest some issues that need to be addressed before a natural language computer interface will be able to hold up its end of a conversation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Bell, A.: 1984, ‘Language Style as Audience Design’. Language in Society 13, 145–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K.: 1986, ‘Syntactic Persistance in Language Production’. Cognitive Psychology 18(3), 355–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E.: 1988, ‘The Multimedia Articulation of Answers in a Natural Language Database Query System’. In: Proc., Second Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Association of Computational Linguistics, Austin, TX, pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E.: 1990, ‘Conversation as Direct Manipulation: An Iconoclastic View’. In: B. Laurel (ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell J. G.: 1979, ‘Towards a Self-Extending Parser’. In: Proc., 17th Annual Meeting of the ACL. Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 3–7.

  • Carbonell, J. G. and P. J. Hayes: 1987, ‘Robust Parsing Using Multiple Construction Specific Strategies’ In: L. Bolc (ed.), Natural Language Parsing Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. and S. E. Brennan: 1991, ‘Grounding in Communication’. In: J. Levine L. B. Resnick, and S. D. Behrend (eds.), Shared Cognition: Thinking as Social Practice. APA Books, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. and G. L. Murphy: 1982, ‘Audience Design in Meaning and Reference’. In: J. F. LeNy and W. Kintsch (eds.), Language and Comprehension. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. and E. F. Schaefer: 1987, ‘Collaborating on Contributions to Conversations’. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. and E. F. Schaefer: 1989, ‘Contributing to Discourse’. Cognitive Science 13, 259–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. and D. Wilkes-Gibbs: 1986, ‘Referring as a Collaborative Process’. Cognition 22, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S. and A. Anderson: 1987, ‘Saying What You Mean in Dialogue: A Study in Conceptual and Semantic Co-ordination’. Cognition 27, 181–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guindon, R. K. Shuldberg, and J. Conner: 1987, ‘Grammatical and Ungrammatical Structures in User-Adviser Dialogues: Evidence for Sufficiency of Restricted Languages in Natural Language Interfaces to Advisory Systems’. In: Proc., 25th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Association of Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA, pp. 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrix, G.: 1985, Q&A. Software, Symantec.

  • Isaacs, E. and H. H. Clark: 1987, ‘Reference in Conversation Between Experts and Novices’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116, 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B.: 1990, ‘Interface Agents: Metaphors With Character’. In: B. Laurel (ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C.: 1983, Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. and S. Kelter: 1982, ‘Surface Form and Memory in Question Answering’. Cognitive Psychology 14(1), 78–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milroy, L.: 1987, ‘Style-Shifting and Code-Switching’. In: Observing and Analyzing Natural Language. Blackwell, New York, pp. 171–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A.: 1981, ‘The Trouble with Unix’. Datamation 27, 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M. A. and K. M. Underwood: 1984, ‘How Should People and Computers Speak to One Another?’. In: Proceedings, Interact '84: First IFIP Conference on ‘human-Computer Interaction’. London, International Federation for Information Processing, pp. 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, B.: 1981, ‘A Note on Human Factors Issues of Natural Language Interaction with Database Systems’. Information Systems 6(2), 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, B.: 1982, ‘The Future of Interactive Systems and the Emergence of Direct Manipulation’. Behavior and Information Technology 1, 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F. and H. H. Clark: 1989, ‘Understanding by Addressees and Overhearers’. Cognitive Psychology 21(2), 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shatz, M. and R. Gelman: 1973, ‘The Development of Communication Skills: Modifications in the Speech of Young Children as a Function of Listener’. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38, 5:1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. and H. Sacks: 1973, ‘Opening Up Closings’. Semiotica 8, 289–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson: 1974, ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation’. Language 50, 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brennan, S.E. Conversation with and through computers. User Model User-Adap Inter 1, 67–86 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158952

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158952

Key words

  • discourse modeling
  • human/computer interaction
  • natural language interfaces
  • recipient design