Keeping the initiative: An empirically-motivated approach to predicting user-initiated dialogue contributions in HCI

EACL 2006 - 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 185-192

  Fischer, Kerstin ^a   Bateman, John A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIALOGUE SYSTEMS;

SPEECH PROCESSING;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

EID: 84893387402     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Christine Doran, John Aberdeen, Laurie Damianos and Lynette Hirschman. 2001. Comparing Several Aspects of Human-Computer and Human-Huamn Dialogues. Proceedings of the 2nd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Aalborg, Denmark.
2. James Allen. 1999. Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Sept./Oct.: 14-16.
3. R. Amalberti, N. Carbonell, and P. Falzon. 1993. User representations of computer systems in humancomputer speech interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38: 547-566.
4. Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Kerstin Fischer and Anton Batliner. 2000. What makes speakers angry in human-computer conversation. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation, Bellagio, Italy.
6. Kerstin Fischer. 2003. Linguistic methods for investigating concepts In use. In Thomas Stolz and Katja Kolbe, editors, Methodologie in der Linguistik. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
7. Frederico T. Fonseca, Max J. Egenhofer, Peggy Agouris, and Gilberto Câmara. 2002. Using ontologies for integrated geographic information systems. Transactions in GIS, 6(3).
8. Barbara J. Grosz. 1982. Discourse analysis. In Richard Kittredge and John Lehrberger, editors, Sublanguage. Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains, pages 138-174. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
9. L. Hitzenberger and C. Womser-Hacker. 1995. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zu multimodalen natürlichsprachigen Dialogen in der MenschComputer- Interaktion. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 19(1): 51-61.
10. Eric Horvitz. 1999. Uncertainty, action, and interaction: In pursuit of mixed-initiative computing. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Sept./Oct.: 17-20.
11. Daniel Marcu. 2000. The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: a surface-based approach. Computational Linguistics, 26(3): 395-448, Sep.
12. W.C. Ogden and P. Bernick. 1996. Using natural language interfaces. In M. Helander, editor, Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland.
13. Martin J. Pickering and Simon Garrod. 2004. Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27(2): 169-190.
14. R.J. Ross, J. Bateman, and H. Shi. 2005. Applying Generic Dialogue Models to the Information State Approach. In Proceedings of Symposium on Dialogue Modelling and Generation. Amsterdam.
15. H. Sacks, E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50: 696-735.
16. Gerhard Sagerer, Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer, and Gert Rickheit. 1994. "Wir bauen jetzt ein Flugzeug,": Konstruieren im Dialog. Arbeitsmaterialien. Report SFB 360, University of Bielefeld.
17. E. A. Schegloff. 1972. Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In D. Sudnow, editor, Studies in Social Interaction, pages 75-119. The Free Press, New York.
18. Marc Swerts. 1998. Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 485-496.
19. Bonnie Webber, Alistair Knott, Matthew Stone, and Aravind Joshi. 1999. Discourse relations: a structural and presuppositional account using lexicalized TAG. In Proceedings of the 37th. Annual Meeting of the American Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'99), pages 41-48, University of Maryland. American Association for Computational Linguistics.
20. Elizabeth Zoltan-Ford. 1991. How to get people to say and type what computers can understand. International journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34: 527-647.