So Let’s See: Taking and Keeping the Initiative in Collaborative Dialogues

  • Sabine Payr
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4722)


In order to create and maintain social relationships with human users in mixed-initiative dialogues, IVAs have to give off coherent signals of claiming or relinquishing leadership in discourse. Quantitaive and qualitative analyses of human-human collaborative task-solving dialogues from the Ohio State University Quake Corpus reveal that discursive dominance is a shared achievement of speakers and given, taken or kept in a consensual way, up to the point where they incur “costs” in terms of efficiency in solving the task. Some verbal signals can be identified as relevant to this process.


Collaborative Dialogue IEEE Intelligent System Automate Call Conversational Behaviour Mixed Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, J.F.: Mixed-initiative interaction. In: IEEE Intelligent Systems, pp. 14–16 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. Brindöpke, C., Häger, J., Johanntokrax, M., Phade, A., Schwalbe, M., Wrede, B.: Darf ich Dich Marvin nennen? Instruktionsdialoge in einem WoZ-Szenario. Szenario-Design und Auswertung. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Byron, D.K., Fosler-Lussier, E.: The OSU Quake 2004 corpus of two-party situated problem-solving dialogs. In: LREC 2006. Proceedings of the 15th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (2006), available from
  4. Chu-Carroll, J., Brown, M.K.: Tracking Initiative in Collaborative Dialogue Interactions. In: ACL/EACL 1997. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 262–270 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. Eggins, S., Slade, D.: Analysing Casual Conversation. Equinox, London (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Fairclough, N.: Language and Power, 2nd edn. Longman, Harlow (2001)Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, K.: The Role of Users Preconceptions in Talking to Computers and Robots. In: Fischer, K. (ed.) How People Talk to Computers, Robots, and Other Artificial Communication Partners, SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition. pp. 112–130 (2006b) (What Computer Talk Is and Isn’t. AQ-Verlag, Saarbrücken, 2006a) Google Scholar
  8. Ferguson, G., Allen, J.F.: TRIPS: An Integrated Intelligent Problem-Solving Assistant. In: Proc. AAAI-98, pp. 567–573. Madison, WI (1998)Google Scholar
  9. Ferguson, G., Allen, J.F., Miller, B.: TRAINS-95: Towards a mixed-initiative planning assistant. In: Drabble, B. (ed.) Proc. 3rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems AIPS-96, Edinburgh, pp. 70–77 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. Guinn, C.I.: Evaluating mixed-initiative dialog. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21–23 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. Payr, S.: Social Role Management in Human-Computer Interaction I. Vienna: Österreichisches Forschungsinstitut für Artificial Intelligence TR-2006-15 (2006b), Seriously Socially Situated Agents. In: Trappl, R.(ed.) Proceedings EMCSR 2006, OGKS Vienna (2006a) Google Scholar
  12. ten Have, P.: Doing Conversation Analysis. Sage, London (1999)Google Scholar
  13. Thornborrow, J.: Power Talk. Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. Longman, Harlow (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Watts, R.J.: Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Payr
    • 1
  1. 1.Austrian Institute for Artificial Intelligence OFAI 

Personalised recommendations