1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

This paper takes two behavioural principles which have been suggested as explanatory models for human conversation, and tests them on a corpus of task-oriented dialogues (the HCRC Map Task Corpus). The principles chosen are Clark’s Collaborative Theory and Shadbolt’s Principle of Parsimony, which are both interested in notions of although they come from entirely different subfields of linguistics. The aim of the study is to compare the explanatory power of each of these principles when they are applied to real language data. Each of the principles was converted into a set of representative hypotheses about the types of behaviour which they would predict in dialogue. Then, a way of coding dialogue behaviour was developed, in order that the hypotheses could be tested on a suitably sized dataset. In particular, the coding system tried to distinguish between the levels of effort which participants used in their utterances. Finally, a series of statistical tests was undertaken to test the predictions of the hypotheses on the information generated by the coding system. The strongest support was found for the Principle of Parsimony and its associate Principle of Least Individual Effort, at the expense of the Collaborative Principle and the Principle of Least Collaborative Effort. There is certainly evidence that speakers try to minimise effort, but this seems to be occurring on an individual basis – which can be to the cost of the overall dialogue and task performance – rather than on a collaborative basis.

© 2007 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.2.03dav
2007-01-01
2024-10-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.2.03dav
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, A.H. , M. Bader , E.G. Bard , E. Boyle , G.M. Doherty , S. Garrod , S.D. Isard , J.C. Kowtko , J. McAllister , J. Miller , C.F. Sotillo , H.S. Thompson , and R. Weinart
    (1991a) The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech34.4: 351-366.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, A.H. , and E.A. Boyle
    (1994) Forms of introduction in dialogues: Their discourse contexts and communicative consequences. Language and Cognitive Processes9: 101-122. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402111 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, A.H. , A. Clark , and J. Mullin
    (1991b) Introducing information in dialogues: Forms of introduction chosen by young speakers and the responses elicited from young listeners. Journal of Child Language18: 663-687. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900011302
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900011302 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1994) Interactive communication skills in children: Learning how to make language work in dialogue. Journal of Child Language21: 439-463.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. , and S. Harris
    (1997) Managing Language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.44
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.44 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beebe, L.M. , and M.C. Cummings
    (1996) Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S.M Gass & J. Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan, S.E. , and H.H. Clark
    (1996) Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition22.6: 1482-1493. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.22.6.1482
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carletta, J
    (1992) Risk-taking and recovery in task-oriented dialogue. University of Edinburgh: Ph.D. thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (1996) Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics 22.2: 249-254.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Carletta, J. , and C. Mellish
    (1996) Risk-taking and recovery in task-oriented dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics26: 71-107. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00046‑1
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00046-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carletta, J. , S. Isard , G. Doherty-Sneddon , A. Isard , J.C. Kowtko , and A.H. Anderson
    (1997) The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics23.1: 13-31.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, H.H
    (1992) Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, H.H. , and S.E. Brennan
    (1991) Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick , J. Levine & S. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark, H.H. , and M.A. Krych
    (2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language50: 62-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, H.H. , and E.F. Schaefer
    (1987a) Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes2: 19-41. doi: 10.1080/01690968708406350
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406350 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1987b) Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers. Journal of Memory and Language26: 209-225. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90124‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90124-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Clark, H.H. , and D. Wilkes-Gibbs
    (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition22: 1-39. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(86)90010‑7
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Connor, U. , and T.A. Upton
    (eds.) (2004) Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/scl.16
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/scl.16 [Google Scholar]
  20. Coupland, N. , H. Giles , and J.M. Wiemann
    (eds.) (1991) ‘Miscommunication’ and problematic talk. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Davies, B.L
    (1998) An empirical examination of cooperation, effort and risk in task-oriented dialogue. University of Edinburgh: Ph.D. thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Testing dialogue principles in task-oriented dialogues: An exploration of cooperation, collaboration, effort and risk. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics, No.11. University of Leeds, UK: Department of Linguistics & Phonetics, pp. 30-64.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. . (in prep) Least collaborative effort or least individual effort: Examining the evidence.
  24. Eckert, P
    (1999) Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fawcett, R.P. , and B.L. Davies
    (1992) Monologue as a turn in dialogue: Towards an integration of Exchange Structure and Rhetorical Structure Theory. In R. Dale , E. Hovy , D. Rösner & O. Stock (eds.), Aspects of automated natural language generation. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 151-166. doi: 10.1007/3‑540‑55399‑1_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55399-1_11 [Google Scholar]
  26. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Grosz, B. , and C. Sidner
    (1986) Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics12: 175-206.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Houghton, G. , and S.D. Isard
    (1987) Why to speak, what to say and how to say it: Modelling language production in discourse. In P. Morris (ed.), Modelling cognition. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 249-267.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Isard, A. , and J. Carletta
    (1995) Transaction and action coding in the Map Task corpus. Tech. Rep. HCRC/RP-65. Edinburgh, Scotland: Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kowtko, J.C. , S.D. Isard , and G.M. Doherty
    (1992) Conversational games within dialogue. Tech. Rep. HCRC/RP-31. Edinburgh, Scotland: Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lave, J. , and E. Wenger
    (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  32. Leech, G
    (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lin, Y.Q. , R.P. Fawcett , and B.L. Davies
    (1993) Genedis: The discourse generator in COMMUNAL. In A. Sloman , D. Hogg , G. Humphreys , A. Ramsay & D. Partridge (eds.), Prospects for Artificial Intelligence. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 148-157.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Power, R
    (1979) The organization of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics17: 107-152. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.1‑2.107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.107 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schegloff, E.A
    (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist70: 1075-95. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schober, M.F
    (1995) Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimised in conversations about locations?Discourse Processes20: 219-247. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544939
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544939 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schober, M.F. , and H.H. Clark
    (1989) Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology21: 211-232. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(89)90008‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-X [Google Scholar]
  38. Shadbolt, R.N
    (1984) Constituting reference in natural language dialogue: The problem of referential opacity. University of Edinburgh: Ph.D. thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Siegel, S. , and N.J. Castellan
    (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. London: McGraw Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sinclair, J. McH , and M. Coulthard
    (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Traum, D.R
    (1994) A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. University of Rochester: Ph.D. thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Wilkes-Gibbs, D
    (1986) Collaborative processes of language use in conversation. Stanford University: Ph.D. thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (1997) Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (eds.), Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. , and H.H. Clark
    (1992) Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language31: 183 - 194. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(92)90010‑U
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90010-U [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.2.03dav
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Collaboration; Effort; Least collaborative effort; Principle of parsimony; Risk-effort trade-off

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error