Abstract:
In this paper we explore a new theory of discourse structure that stresses the role of purpose and processing in discourse. In this theory, discourse structure is composed of three separate but interre-lated components: the structure of the sequence of utterances (called the linguistic structure), a struc-ture of purposes (called the intentional structure), and the state of focus of attention (called the attentional state). The linguistic structure consists of segments of the discourse into which the utter-ances naturally aggregate. The intentional structure captures the discourse-relevant purposes, expressed in each of the linguistic segments as well as relationships among them. The attentional state is an abstraction of the focus of attention of the participants as the discourse unfolds. The attentional state, being dynamic, records the objects, properties, and relations that are salient at each point of the discourse. The distinction among these components is essential to provide an adequate explanation of such discourse phenomena as cue phrases, referring expressions, and interruptions. The theory of attention, intention, and aggregation of utterances is illustrated in the paper with a number of example discourses. Various properties of discourse are described, and explanations for the behavior of cue phrases, referring expressions, and interruptions are explored. This theory provides a framework for describing the processing of utterances in a discourse. Discourse processing requires recognizing how the utterances of the discourse aggregate into segments, recognizing the intentions expressed in the discourse and the relationships among intentions, and track-ing the discourse through the operation of the mechanisms associated with attentional state. This processing description specifies in these recognition tasks the role of information from the discourse and from the participants ' knowledge of the domain. 1
Citations
|
149
|
Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in english discourse (Tech
– Sidner
- 1979
|
|
145
|
The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding
– Grosz
- 1977
|
|
129
|
Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse
– Grosz, Joshi, et al.
- 1983
|
|
120
|
Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances
– Allen
- 1983
|
|
120
|
Coherence and coreference
– Hobbs
- 1979
|
|
118
|
Text Generation
– McKeown
- 1985
|
|
105
|
A Theory of Human Action
– Goldman
- 1970
|
|
93
|
D-Theory: Talking about Talking about Trees
– Marcus, Hindle
- 1983
|
|
90
|
Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Distributed by
– Reinhart
- 1982
|
|
89
|
Inferring domain plans in question-answering
– Pollack
- 1986
|
|
72
|
Planning english referring expressions
– Appelt
- 1985
|
|
71
|
Focusing and Description in Natural Language Dialogues
– Grosz
- 1981
|
|
66
|
A Plan-Based Approach to Speech Act Recognition
– Allen
- 1979
|
|
65
|
Utterer’s meaning and intention
– Grice
- 1969
|
|
57
|
The intonational structuring of discourse
– Hirschberg, Pierrehumbert
- 1986
|
|
54
|
Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated Approach for Understanding Dialogues
– Litman
- 1991
|
|
48
|
Plan parsing for intended response recognition in discourse
– Sidner
- 1985
|
|
39
|
Speech acts and rationality
– Cohen, Levesque
- 1986
|
|
39
|
The Thread of Discourse
– Grimes
- 1975
|
|
36
|
A syntactic approach to discourse semantics
– Polanyi, Scha
- 1984
|
|
30
|
Encoding Knowledge in Partitioned Networks
– Hendrix
- 1979
|
|
28
|
Analyzing intention in dialogues
– Allen
- 1980
|
|
28
|
Relational Propositions in Discourse
– Mann, Thompson
- 1983
|
|
26
|
The flow of thought and the flow of language
– Chafe
- 1979
|
|
25
|
Discourse analysis
– Grosz
- 1978
|
|
25
|
Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse
– Linde
- 1979
|
|
24
|
lain speaking: a theory and grammar of spontaneous discourse
– Reichman
- 1981
|
|
24
|
Recognizing intended meaning and speaker's plans
– Sidner, Israel
- 1981
|
|
22
|
Structure of planning discourse
– Linde, Goguen
- 1978
|
|
19
|
What the Speaker Means: The Recognition of Speakers
– Sidner
- 1983
|
|
18
|
The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative
– Chafe
- 1980
|
|
17
|
Understanding Spoken Language
– Walker
- 1978
|
|
16
|
Hesitation and semantic planning in speech
– Butterworth
- 1975
|
|
16
|
The Linguistic Structure of Discourse
– Polanyi
- 1996
|
|
12
|
Speech acts and the recognition of shared plans
– Cohen, Levesque
|
|
7
|
The structure of task oriented dialogs
– Grosz
- 1974
|
|
7
|
Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics
– Sgall
- 1973
|
|
6
|
Determining Verb Phrase Referents in Dialogs
– Robinson
- 1981
|
|
5
|
On the Concept of Communicative Dynamism in the Theory of Functional Sentence Perspective
– Firbas
- 1971
|
|
4
|
Observation Methods for Human Dialogue
– Mann, Moore, et al.
- 1975
|
|
2
|
A Computational Model for the Analysis of Arguments.Technical Report csrg151, University ofToronto
– Cohen
- 1983
|
|
2
|
Protocols of Users Manipulating Visually Presented Information with Natural Language
– Sidner
- 1982
|
|
1
|
1978b Focusing in Dialog. Theoretical Issues
– Grosz
|
|
1
|
Topic and Focus
– Hajiovi
- 1983
|
|
1
|
Composition and
– Holmes, Gallagher
- 1917
|
|
1
|
Volume 12, Number 3, July-September 1986 203 Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L
– Linguistics
- 1984
|
|
1
|
The use of the phrase "linguistic structure" to refer to the structure of sequences of utterances is a natural extension of its use in traditional linguistic theories to refer to the syntactic structure of individual sentences. To avoid confusio
– Press, London
|
|
1
|
the dominance relation, like the one in Marcus and Hindle's D-theory (Marcus et al
– However
- 1983
|
|
1
|
in the task case the orderings may be partial. In fact, the systems built for task-oriented dialogues (Robinson 1981, Walker 1978) did not use a prebuilt tree, but constructed the tree - based on a partially-ordered model - only as a given discourse evolv
– Even
|
|
1
|
have shown recently that intonational features, most notably pitch range, can also be used to indicate discourse segment boundaries. 10. We assume here that the OCP must recognize intentions rather than actions. The argument that such is the case is beyon
– Hirschberg, Pierrehumbert
- 1986
|
