”Natural” Natural Language-Based Human-Computer Interaction



What does it mean for a human-machine interaction paradigm to be natural? Certainly it means to take into account what man has developed filogenetically as his devices for interacting with his similars: natural language in the first place. We are well aware that natural language is not only the main vehicle for such communication, but also that it has the dual role of being the device through which we organize our thought. This makes natural language communication a window on the mind as many human scientists have told us so convincingly, but also implies that natural language communication does not need “cognitive transducers”. If often we do need some conscious phase in organizing what we want to communicate, this depends on planning our communicative actions, deciding what we want to say and optimizing our rhetoric strategies; it does not depend much on the lower level of expressing ourselves through words. So, for human-machine interfaces, natural language has an unmatchable potential. On the other side we are facing an extraordinary revolution that touches all levels of our life. Computers and telecommunication are really part of our ecological system.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    AI Trends, Editorial, February 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Arens, Y., Feiner, S., Hollan, J., Neches, R. “Proc. of the IJCAI Workshop on a New Generation of Intelligent Interfaces”, Detroit 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Cohen, P.R. et al., “Synergetic Use of Direct Manipulation and Natural Language”, Proc. CHI 89, Austin, Texas, May 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Doyle J., Patil R.S., “Two theses of knowledge representation: language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 48, No. 3, April 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Feiner, S. and McKeown, K.“Coordinating Text and Graphics in Explanation Generation”, Proc. AAAI-90, Boston 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Halasz, F.G., “Reflections on NoteCards, Seven Issues for the Next Generation of Hypermedia Systems”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 7, July 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Hollan, J., Rich, E., Hill, W., Wroblenski, D., Wilker, W., Wittenburg, K., Grudin, J., ”An Introduction to Hits: Human Interface Tool Suite”. MCC, Tech. Rep. ACA-HI-406-88, Austin, Texas USA, December 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Kay, M. “Algorithm Schemata and Data Structures in Syntactic Processing”, Technical Report CSL-80, Xerox Palo Alto Research Centers. Palo Alto, California, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Stock, O. “Natural Language and Exploration of an Information Space: the AlFresco nteractive System” Proceedings of IJCAI-91, the Twelfth International Joint Conference Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Trigg, R.H., Moran, T.P., Halasz, F.G., “Tailorability in NoteCards”. In Proc. of Interact 87 2nd IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Stuttgart, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Wahlster, W., “User and Discourse Models for Multimodal Communication”. In J.W. Sullivan and S.W. Tyler, eds., Architectures for Intelligent Interfaces: Elements and Prototypes, Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Wahlster, W., Andrè, E., Hecking, M., Rist, T., “WIP: Knowledge-based Presentation of Information”, Report WIP-1, DFKI, Saarbrücken, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRST- Istituto per 1a Ricerca Scientifica e TecnologicaPovo, TrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations