Advertisement

Dialogue

  • Pierre M. Nugues
Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH)

Abstract

While discourse materialized in texts delivers static information, dialogue is dynamic and consists of two interacting discourses. Once written, a discourse content is unalterable and will remain as it is for its future readers. On the contrary, a dialogue enables exchange information flows, to complement and to merge them in a composition, which is not known in advance. Both dialoguing parties provide feedback, influence, or modify the final content along with the course of the conversation.

Keywords

Speech Recognition Application Programming Interface Speech Synthesis Dialogue System Dialogue Modeling 
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.

References

  1. Alexandersson, J. (1996). Some ideas for the automatic acquisition of dialogue structure. In S. LuperFoy, A. Nijholt, & G. V. van Zanten (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh Twente workshop on language technology (pp. 149–158). Enschede: Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. F., & Core, M. (1997). Draft of DAMSL: dialog annotation markup in several layers. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/ Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J. F., & Perrault, C. R. (1980). Analyzing intentions in utterances. Artificial Intelligence, 15(3), 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, J. F., Schubert, L. K., Ferguson, G., Heeman, P., Hwang, C. H., Kato, T., Light, M., Martin, N. G., Miller, B. W., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. R. (1995). The TRAINS project: A case study in building a conversational planning agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical AI, 7, 7–48.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Andry, F. (1992). Mise en œuvre de prédictions linguistiques dans un système de dialogue oral homme-machine coopératif. PhD thesis, Université Paris Nord.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bilange, E. (1992). Dialogue personne-machine. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  8. Bratko, I. (2012). Prolog programming for artificial intelligence (4th ed.). Harlow: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Bühler, K. (1982). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB. First edition 1934.Google Scholar
  10. Carberry, S. (1990). Plan recognition in natural language dialogue. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Cozannet, A. (1992). A model for task driven oral dialogue. In Proceedings of the second international conference on spoken language processing (ICSLP), Banff (pp. 1451–1454).Google Scholar
  12. Eckert, W. (1996). Gesprochener Mensch-Machine-Dialog. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Fikes, R., & Nilsson, N. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3/4), 189–208.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Gazdar, G., & Mellish, C. (1989). Natural language processing in Prolog: An introduction to computational linguistics. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief, an introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jekat, S., Klein, A., Maier, E., Maleck, I., Mast, M., & Quantz, J. (1995). Dialogue acts in Verbmobil. Verbmobil-report 65, Universität Hamburg, DFKI, Universität Erlangen, TU Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mast, M. (1993). Ein Dialogmodul für ein Spracherkennungs- und Dialogsystem (Dissertationen zur Künstlichen Intelligenz, Vol. 50). Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
  19. Mast, M., Kummert, F., Ehrlich, U., Fink, G. A., Kuhn, T., Niemann, H., & Sagerer, G. (1994). A speech understanding and dialog system with a homogeneous linguistic knowledge base. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 16(2), 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moeschler, J. (1989). Modélisation du dialogue: Représentation de l’inférence argumentative. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  21. Moeschler, J., & Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  22. Nilsson, N. (1998). Artificial intelligence: A new synthesis. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial intelligence, a modern approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Sagerer, G. (1990). Automatisches Verstehen gesprochener Sprache (Reihe Informatik, Vol. 74). Mannheim: B.I. Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning, studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Vanderveken, D. (1988). Les actes de discours: Essai de philosophie du langage et de l’esprit sur la signification des énonciations. Bruxelles: Mardaga.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre M. Nugues
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations