Abstract
Conversation, talk, the communicative process, can be compared to the symphonic play of a piece of music. There is an orchestra, the musicians, whose tones and notes must flow, complement and harmonize with one another. There is a main theme. As the music builds variations on the theme are played, and new themes and subthemes are introduced. The basinett responds to the strings, the bass emphasizes the mood of the violin, while the french horn adds a new melody. The subtlety and evenness of flow, the seeming simplicity of the piece, the rich interleaving of subdevelopments, variations, tangents, and recapitulations, are what make a piece of music great.
Coherent communication is much the same. It looks easy. It flows. It seems effortless. In reality, of course, it is rich and complex, in both form and content. As in music, conversants may begin a conversation slowly, tentatively, with some simple (or complex) topic in mind. Slowly the momentum builds, the connections surface, and the themes become defined. As in music, these themes are then elaborated upon in various ways. Topic elaborations often spawn their own variations. New themes and subthemes are introduced. All the while, as in music, original themes reappear and are interwoven with the new ones. The twists and turns of the conversation seem to occur effortlessly.
In music, there is usually one composer in control of which instrument plays next; one composer who is in charge of what the instrument will say. There is a single coordinator of theme introductions, developments, variations, and interweavings. The composition is done off-line and usually involves editing and re-editing for flaws. In discourse, however, we have on-line development with multiple parties responsible for flow coordination. All parties have to organize their own turns, themes, and variations, in addition to their being able to integrate these items into co-conversants'.
In their book, “Understanding Computers and Cognition,” Winograd and Flores (1987) cite the following from Gadamer (Winograd and Flores, 1987, p. 32):
It is not so much our judgments as it is our prejudices that constitute our being ... the historicity of our existence entails that prejudices, in the literal sense of the word, constitute the initial directedness of our whole ability to experience. Prejudices are biases of our openness to the world. They are simply conditions whereby we experience something — whereby what we encounter says something to us. (Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, 1976, p. 9)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boggs, S. T.: 1978, ‘The development of verbal disputing in part—Hawaiian children’, Lang. Soc. 7, 325–344.
Cohen, R.: 1980, ‘Understanding arguments’, Proceedings CSCSI, Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence.
Dumesnil, J. and B. Dorval: in press, ‘The development of context for perspective-related talk’, Discourse Processes.
Erickson, F. and J. Schultz: 1982, The Counselor as Gatekeeper, Academic Press, New York.
Gadamer, H.: 1976, Philosophical Hermeneutics, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Garvey, C.: 1977, Play, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.
Grimes, J.: 1978, ‘Topic levels’, Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing 2, Association for Computational Linguistics.
Gumperz, J.: 1977, ‘Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference’, Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.
Hobbs, J.: 1976, ‘A computational approach to discourse analysis’, Technical Report, City University of New York.
Jefferson, G.: 1984, ‘On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters’, in M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Karmiloff-Smith, A.: 1979, ‘Language as a formal problem space for children’, MPS-NIAS Child Language Conference: Beyond Description in Child Language.
Kuno, S.: 1975, ‘Empathy and syntax’, in S. Kuno (ed.), Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Harvard University Press, pp. 1–73.
Linde, C.: 1974, ‘Information structures in discourse’, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University.
Linde, C. and J. Gougen: 1978, ‘Structure of planning discourse’, Journal of Social and Biological Structure 1, 219–251.
Maturana, H. R.: 1980, Biology of Cognition, 1970, reprinted in Maturana and Varela, pp. 2–62.
Maturana, H. R. and F. Varela: 1980, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Reichman, R.: 1978, ‘Conversational coherency’, Cognitive Science 3, 283–327.
Reichman, R.: 1981a, ‘Plain speaking: A theory and grammar of spontaneous discourse’, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Reichman, R.: 1981b, ‘Modeling informal debates’, Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Reichman, R.: 1984a, ‘Extended person-machine interface’, Artificial Intelligence 22, 157–218.
Reichman, R.: 1984b, ‘Technical discourse: The present progressive tense, the deictic “that,” and pronominalization’, Discourse Processes 7, 337–369.
Reichman, R.: 1985, Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Reichman, R.: in press, ‘Communication and mutual engagement’, in B. Dorval (ed.), Conversational Development, Erlbaum Press.
Vilant, A.: in press, ‘Relevant responses in man/machine conversation’, in M. Taylor and D. Bouwhuis (eds.), Structure of Multi Modal Dialogues, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Weiner, J.: 1979, ‘The structure of natural explanation: Theory and application’, System Development Corporation.
Winograd, T. and F. Flores: 1987, Understanding Computers and Cognition, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.
Woods, W.: 1980, ‘Cascaded ATN grammars’, American Journal of Computational Linguistics 6(1),1–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reichman, R. Modeling human dialogue with computers. Argumentation 4, 415–430 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184768
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184768