Query responses

• Autorzy: Łupkowski P. , Ginzburg J.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v4i2.173

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In this article we consider the phenomenon of answering a query with a query. Although such answers are common, no large-scale, corpusbased characterization exists, with the exception of clarification requests. After briefly reviewing different theoretical approaches on this subject, we present a corpus study of query responses in the British National Corpus and develop a taxonomy for query responses. We identify a variety of response categories that have not been formalized in previous dialogue work, particularly those relevant to adversarial interaction. We show that different response categories have significantly different rates of subsequent answer provision. We provide a formal analysis of the response categories within the framework of KoS.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

question; query responses; corpus study; KoS

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN
• Czasopismo: Journal of Language Modelling
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: Vol. 4, No. 2
• Strony: 245--292
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 43 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Łupkowski P.

• Department of Logic and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

autor

Ginzburg J.

• Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle (LLF) (UMR 7110) & LabEx-EFL, Université Paris-Diderot (Paris 7), Sorbonne Paris-Cité, France

Bibliografia

• [1] Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides (1998), Questions in dialogue, Linguistics and Philosophy, 21 (3): 237-309.
• [2] Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides (2003), Logics of conversation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [3] Jean Carletta (1996), Assessing agreement on classification task: The kappa statistic, Computational Linguistics, 22 (2): 249-254.
• [4] Lauri Carlson (1983), Dialogue games, Synthese Language Library, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
• [5] Robin Cooper (2005), Austinian truth in Martin-Löf Type Theory, Research on Language and Computation, 3 (4): 333-362.
• [6] Robin Cooper (2012), Type Theory and semantics in flux, in Ruth Kempson, Nicholas Asher, and Tim Fernando, editors, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, volume 14: Philosophy of Linguistics, pp. 271-323, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
• [7] Robin Cooper (2016), Type Theory and language: From perception to linguistic communication, https://sites.google.com/site/typetheorywithrecords/drafts/ttl161130.pdf?attredirects=0, book draft (access 20.03.2017).
• [8] Robin Cooper and Jonathan Ginzburg (2015), Type Theory with Records for NL semantics, in Chris Fox and Shalom Lappin, editors, Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Second Edition, pp. 375-407, Blackwell, Oxford, doi: 10.1002/9781118882139.ch12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch12.
• [9] Thierry Coquand, Randy Pollack, and Makoto Takeyama (2003), A logical framework with dependent types, Fundamenta Informaticae, 20: 1-21.
• [10] Donka Farkas and Floris Roelofsen (2011), Polarity particles in an inquisitive discourse model, https://www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/papers/publications, access 20.03.2017. Manuscript, University of California at Santa Cruz and ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
• [11] Matthias Gamer, Jim Lemon, and Ian Fellows Puspendra Singh (2012), irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr, acess 20.03.2017, R package version 0.84.
• [12] Jonathan Ginzburg (1995), Resolving questions, I, Linguistics and Philosophy, 18: 459-527.
• [13] Jonathan Ginzburg (2010), Relevance for dialogue, in Paweł Łupkowski and Matthew Purver, editors, Aspects of Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. SemDial 2010, 14th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Polish Society for Cognitive Science, Poznań, ISBN 978-83-930915-0-8.
• [14] Jonathan Ginzburg (2012), The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• [15] Jonathan Ginzburg and Robin Cooper (2004), Clarification ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates, Linguistics and Philosophy, 27 (3): 297-366.
• [16] Jonathan Ginzburg, Raquel Fernández, and David Schlangen (2014), Disfluencies as intra-utterance dialogue moves, Semantics and Pragmatics, 7 (9): 1-64.
• [17] Arthur C. Graesser, Natalie K. Person, and John D. Huber (1992), Mechanisms that generate questions, in Thomas W. Lauer, Eileen Peacock, and Arthur C. Graesser, editors, Questions and information systems, pp. 167-187, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
• [18] Jeroen Groenendijk (2009), Inquisitive semantics: Two possibilities for disjunction, in Peter Bosch, David Gabelaia, and Jérôme Lang, editors, Logic, Language, and Computation, volume 5422 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 80-94, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.
• [19] Jeroen Groenendijk and Floris Roelofsen (2011), Compliance, in Alain Lecomte and Samuel Tronçon, editors, Ludics, Dialogue and Interaction, pp. 161-173, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
• [20] Jacqueline C. Kowtko and Patti J. Price (1989), Data collection and analysis in the air travel planning domain, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Speech and Natural Language, HLT ’89, pp. 119-125, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, ISBN 1-55860-112-0, doi: 10.3115/1075434.1075455, http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1075434.1075455.
• [21] Jan Van Kuppevelt (1995), Discourse structure, topicality and questioning, Journal of Linguistics, 31: 109-147.
• [22] Staffan Larsson (2002), Issue based dialogue management, Ph.D. thesis, Gothenburg University, http://www.ling.gu.se/~/sl/Thesis/thesis.pdf, access 20.03.2017.
• [23] Staffan Larsson and David Traum (2003), The information state approach to dialogue management, in Jan van Kuppevelt and Ronnie Smith, editors, Advances in Discourse and Dialogue, Kluwer.
• [24] Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher (2009), Agreement, disputes and commitments in dialogue, Journal of Semantics, 26 (2): 109-158.
• [25] Brian MacWhinney (2000), The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, third edition.
• [26] Rebecca J Passonneau and Bob Carpenter (2013), The benefits of a model of annotation, in Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pp. 187-195, Citeseer.
• [27] Michal Peliš and Ondrej Majer (2010), Logic of questions from the viewpoint of dynamic epistemic logic, in M. Peliš, editor, The Logica Yearbook 2009, pp. 157-172, College Publications, London.
• [28] Massimo Poesio and David Traum (1998), Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts, in J. Hulstijn and A. Nijholt, editors, Proceedings of TwenDial 98, 13th Twente workshop on Language Technology, pp. 207-221, Twente University, Twente.
• [29] Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag (1994), Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Chicago Press and CSLI, Chicago.
• [30] Matthew Purver (2001), SCoRE: A tool for searching the BNC, Technical Report TR-01-07, Department of Computer Science, King’s College London, ftp://ftp.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/pub/tech-reports/tr01-07.ps.gz.
• [31] Matthew Purver (2006), CLARIE: Handling clarification requests in a dialogue system, Research on Language & Computation, 4 (2): 259-288.
• [32] Matthew Purver, Jonathan Ginzburg, and Patrick Healey (2001), On the means for clarification in dialogue, in Proceedings of the 2nd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 116-125, Association for Computational Linguistics, Aalborg, Denmark, http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~mpurver/papers/pgh01sigdial.pdf.
• [33] R Core Team (2013), R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/, acess 20.03.2017.
• [34] Verena Rieser and Joanna Moore (2005), Implications for generating clarification requests in task-oriented dialogues, in Proceedings of the 43rd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Michigan.
• [35] Craige Roberts (1996), Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics, Working Papers in Linguistics-Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, pp. 91-136, reprinted in Semantics and Pragmatics, 2012.
• [36] Kepa Rodriguez and David Schlangen (2004), Form, intonation and function of clarification requests in German task-oriented spoken dialogues, in Jonathan Ginzburg and Enric Vallduví, editors, Proceedings of Catalog’04, The 8th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
• [37] Carolyn P. Rosé, Barbara Di Eugenio, and Johanna D. Moore (1999), A dialogue-based tutoring system for basic electricity and electronics, in Susanne P. Lajoie and Martial Vivet, editors, Artificial intelligence in education, pp. 759-761, IOS, Amsterdam.
• [38] Emanuel Schegloff (2007), Sequence organization in interaction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• [39] David Schlangen (2004), Causes and strategies for requesting clarification in dialogue, in Proceedings of the 5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 136-143.
• [40] Anthony J. Viera and Joanne M. Garrett (2005), Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic, Family Medicine, 37 (5): 360-363.
• [41] Andrzej Wiśniewski (1995), The posing of questions: Logical foundations of erotetic inferences, Kluwer AP, Dordrecht, Boston, London.
• [42] Andrzej Wiśniewski (2003), Erotetic search scenarios, Synthese, 134: 389-427.
• [43] Andrzej Wiśniewski (2013), Questions, inferences and scenarios, College Publications, London.