Communication in Multiagent Systems pp 1-36

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2650)

| Cite as

Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts

  • Philip R. Cohen
  • C. Raymond Perrault

Abstract

This paper explores the truism that people think about what they say. It proposes hat, to satisfy their own goals, people often plan their speech acts to affect their listeners’ beliefs, goals, and emotional states. Such language use can be modelled by viewing speech acts as operators in a planning system, thus allowing both physical and speech acts to be integrated into plans.

Methodological issues of how speech acts should be defined in a plan-based theory are illustrated by defining operators for requesting and informing. Plans containing those operators are presented and comparisons are drawn with Searle’s formulation. The operators are shown to be inadequate since they cannot be composed to form questions (requests to inform) and multiparty requests (requests to request). By refining the operator definitions and by identifying some of the side effects of requesting, compositional adequacy is achieved. The solution leads to a metatheoretical principle for modelling speech acts as planning operators.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J.: A plan-based approach to speech act recognition. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Report No. 131/79, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto (January 1979)Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L.: How to do things with words. J. O. Urmson (Ed.), Oxford University Press (1962)Google Scholar
  3. Bruce, B.: Belief systems and language understanding. Report No. 2973, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. (January 1975)Google Scholar
  4. Bruce, B., Newman, D.: Interacting plans. Cognitive Science 2, 195–233 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce, B., Schmidt, C.F.: Episode understanding and belief guided parsing. Presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics Meeting at Amherst, Massachusetts, July 26-27 (1974)Google Scholar
  6. Carbonell Jr., J.G.: POLITICS: Automated ideological reasoning. Cognitive Science 2, 27–51 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, P.R.: On knowing what to say: Planning speech acts. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Report No. 118, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto (January 1978)Google Scholar
  9. Deutsch, B.G.: The structure of task-oriented dialogues. In: Erman, L.D. (ed.) Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on speech recognition. Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1974)Google Scholar
  10. Donnellan, K.: Reference and definite description. The Philosophical Review 75, 281–304 (1960); Reprinted in Steinberg, Jacobovits (eds.): Semantics. Cambridge University Press (1966) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fikes, R., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2, 189–208 (1971)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon, D., Lakoff, G.: Conversational postulates. In: Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, pp. 63–84. Chicago Linguistic Society (1971)Google Scholar
  13. Green, C.: Application of theorem-proving techniques to problem-solving. In: Walker, D.E., Norton, L.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Washington, D.C. (May 1969)Google Scholar
  14. Grice, H.P.: Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66, 377–388 (1957); Reprinted in Steinberg, D.A., Jacobovits, L.A. (eds.) Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and belief. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1962)Google Scholar
  16. Hintikka, J.: Semantics for prepositional attitudes. In: Davis, J.W., et al. (eds.) Philosophical logic. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland (1969); Reprinted in Linsky, L. (ed.) Reference and modality. Oxford University Press, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D.K.: Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In: Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine intelligence 4. American Elsevier, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  19. Meehan, J.R.: Tale-spin, an interactive program that writes stories. In: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 91–98Google Scholar
  20. Moore, R.C.: Reasoning about knowledge and action. Ph.D. Thesis, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (February 1979)Google Scholar
  21. Morgan, J.: Conversational postulates revisited. Language, 277–284 (1977)Google Scholar
  22. Newell, A., Simon, H.A.: GPS, A program that simulates human thought. In: Feigenbaum, E.A., Feidman, J. (eds.) Computers and thought. McGraw Hill, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  23. Perrault, C.R., Allen, J.F.: A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  24. Perrault, C.R., Cohen, P.R.: Inaccurate Reference. In: Josbi, A.K., Sag, I.A., Webber, B.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the workshop on computational aspects of linguistic structure and discourse setting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  25. Sacerdoti, E.D.: A structure for plans and behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Note 109, Artificial Intelligence Center, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California (August 1975)Google Scholar
  26. Schank, R., Abelson, R.: Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1977)MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Schiffer, S.: Meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1972)Google Scholar
  28. Searle, J.R.: A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Gunderson, K. (ed.) Language mind and knowledge. University of Minnesota Press (1976)Google Scholar
  29. Searle, J.R.: Indirect speech acts. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics Speech acts, vol. 3. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  30. Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  31. Strawson, P.F.: Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review lxxiii (1964); Reprinted in Logico-linguistic papers. Methuen & Co., London (1971) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip R. Cohen
    • 1
  • C. Raymond Perrault
    • 2
  1. 1.Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 
  2. 2.University of Toronto 

Personalised recommendations