dialogue macrogame theory

Dialogue Macrogame Theory

Part IV:

Approaches to dialogue

Peter Kühnlein


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues.

M02, 1:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. Some dialogues can be analyzed with DMT;some cannot.

M02, 1:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. Some dialogues can be analyzed with DMT […].Where it fits, DMT gives a partial technical characterization of the classesof dialogues represented in the analysis.

M02, 1:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. […T]his paper introduces a new term, DialogueMacrogame, which represents some structures that resemble the dialoguegames of the predecessor model.

M02, 1-2:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide adescriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues.

M02, 1,3:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide adescriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues.[…] The assumptions of DMT include saying that not all dialogues are alike,and that the differences between dialogue situations affect the dynamics ofthe dialogues which occur in them.

M02, 1,3:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide adescriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues.[…] The assumptions of DMT include saying that not all dialogues are alike,and that the differences between dialogue situations affect the dynamics ofthe dialogues which occur in them. We therefore […] seek to find a set oftheories that can jointly account for the coherence of dialogues that arise indifferent kinds of situations.

M02, 1,3:


Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particularnatural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide adescriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues.[…] The assumptions of DMT include saying that not all dialogues are alike,and that the differences between dialogue situations affect the dynamics ofthe dialogues which occur in them. We therefore […] seek to find a set oftheories that can jointly account for the coherence of dialogues that arise indifferent kinds of situations. […] DMT is designed to be one such theory.

M02, 1,3:


A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues.

M02, 3:


A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent ifa person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impressionthat every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalentlythat there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained.

M02, 3:



M02, 3:

Mann points out that it is researchers’ impressions that count as evidencefor the coherence of dialogues, not those of participants.



M02, 3-4:

Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of thedialogue participants.



M02, 3-4:

Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of thedialogue participants. It arises especially from the way that the conventionsof dialogue cause the participants to adopt and dismiss groups of intentions.



M02, 3-4:

Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of thedialogue participants. It arises especially from the way that the conventionsof dialogue cause the participants to adopt and dismiss groups of intentions.Grouping of intentions is the foundation for coordination of the activities ofdialogue participants.



M02, 3-4:

Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of thedialogue participants. It arises especially from the way that the conventionsof dialogue cause the participants to adopt and dismiss groups of intentions.Grouping of intentions is the foundation for coordination of the activities ofdialogue participants.

How is this expressed by DMT?


The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, thedialogue macrogame.

M02, 4:


The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, thedialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of threegoals:

M02, 4:

1. A goal of the initiator

2.

3.



M02, 4:


2. A goal of the responder

3.



M02, 4:



3. A joint goal

This is very similar to what is known from Dialogue Games Theory



M02, 4:



3. A joint goal

When a game is used, the goal of the initiator and the joint goal will be in thememory of the initiator as commitments. (DMT does not constrain therelationship of these two.)



M02, 4:



3. A joint goal

When a game is used, the goal of the initiator and the joint goal will be in thememory of the initiator as commitments. […] Similarly, the goal of the responderand the joint goal will be in the memory of the responder as commitments.



M02, 4:



3. A joint goal

In each memory, the two goals are committed and uncommitted simultaneously,and at the same time each person’s knowledge of the other’s commitments isadjusted.


M02, 4:

One of the games is the Information Offering game.


M02, 4:

One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, asingle occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long intervalof interaction.


M02, 4:

One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, asingle occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long intervalof interaction. Currently in DMT there are about 19 defined games.


http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm:

Name of Game Joint Goal Goal of Initiator (I) Goal of Responder (R)




Information Seeking (IS)

I knows the information that is sought

I has identified to R the information that is sought

R has provided the information that is sought








Information Offering (IO)

R comes to know the information that is offered

I has provided the information that is offered

R has identified the information that is offered












Action Seeking (AS)

R knows what action A I wants R to do (or what outcome O that I wants R to accomplish)

I has identified to R the action A or outcome O

R has decided whether to commit to doing A or seeking to accomplish O












Action Seeking (AS)

R knows what action A I wants R to do (or what outcome O that I wants R to accomplish)

I has identified to R the action A or outcome O

R has decided whether to commit to doing A or seeking to accomplish O

Action Offering (AO)

R knows what action A I is offering to do for R (or what outcome O that I is offering to seek to accomplish)

I has identified to R the action A or outcome O that is offered

R has decided and expressed to I whether R accepts I’s offer to do A or seek to achieve O




Permission Seeking (PS)

Determine whether R gives permission to I to do a particular action A or seek a particular outcome O of action

I has identified to R the action A or outcome O for which permission is sought

R has decided whether R grants permission to I to do A or seek to achieve O




Information Probe (IP)

I knows whether R knows particular information (inf) which R could already know based on prior experience

I has identified inf to R

R has exhibited R’s own knowledge of inf








Socratic Challenge (SC)

I knows whether R can construct particular information (inf) which R plausibly is able to construct based on prior experience










Socratic Challenge (SC)

I knows whether R can construct particular information (inf) which R plausibly is able to construct based on prior experience



The difference reduces to IP testing knowledge while SC tests inferencecapabilities




Clarification Seeking (CS)

I and R come to have compatible views of U

I expresses an uncertainty about U

R reduces the uncertainty of I about U








Suggestion Offering (SO)

R knows an idea (possibly hypothetical or conjectural) S of I

I has expressed S R has expressed the adequacy of R’s knowledge of S











Response Seeking (RS)

I comes to know R’s view of S

I knows R’s view of S

R has expressed a personal view of S











Response Seeking (RS)

I comes to know R’s view of S

I knows R’s view of S

R has expressed a personal view of S

Plan Making (PM)

Create a plan to achieve a state described by S

Contribute to a plan to achieve a state described by S

Contribute to a plan to achieve a state described by S




Conversation Seeking (CS)

I and R interact in dialogue

I initiates the interaction with R

R interacts with I

All DMGs except this one can be embedded in one another





(not recursive)



R interacts with I





(not recursive)



R interacts with I

Unidentified Game (UG)

- - -


M02, 4:



M02, 4:


http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm::

The set of dialogue games is open in principle. Researchers can add ormodify definitions to fit their perceptions and purposes.


M02, 4:


http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm::

The set of dialogue games is open in principle. […] More basically, the set isopen in principle because the macrogames are seen as cultural conventions.

This reflects Mann’s original intention to parallel Wittgenstein’s“Sprachspiele” with “dialogue games”


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions.


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this.


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid.


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. Theseactions are almost always implicit, but certain situations (especially thediagnosis of misunderstanding) can cause them to become explicit.


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […]Similarly, games terminate by negotiation.


M02, 5:



Name of Game Act Abbreviation Name of Game Act Abbreviation


M02, 5:




bid a game bg


M02, 5:




bid a game bg

accept a game ag


M02, 5:




bid a game bg

accept a game ag

reject a game rg


M02, 5:




bid a game bg bid termination of a game

bt

accept a game ag accept termination of a game

at

reject a game rg reject termination of a game

rt


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […]Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. If a game has been bid and thebid has been accepted the game is open.



bt


at


rt


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […]Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. [...] The scope of a game is theentire interval during which it is in use, including the initial bid of the game […]



bt


at


rt


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […]Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. [...] The scope of a game is theentire interval during which it is in use, including the […] final acceptance of termination



bt


at


rt


M02, 5:

The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control ofboth participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particularkinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A gameis bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […]Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. […] Since DMT applies to entiredialogues, it supplements views of sentences, turns or inherently smallcollections of turns in dialogue.

Up to this point, besides the definition of the scope of a game everythingseems to be just like good old dialogue games theory (Mann 1982)


M02, 5:

It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit thatcould be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, evenwhen the major activity is joint goal pursuit.


M02, 5:

It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit thatcould be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, evenwhen the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actionsthat do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a singleturn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals.

It has been one of the shortcomings of DG theory that it was notpossible to treat speech-action pairs. Unilaterals promise to remedythis problem.


http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm

Name of Unilateral Defining Function Examples




Tell Provide information Doctor announces a diagnosis

Remember: To provide information is the purpose of the informationoffering (IO) game, too. The relation between DMGs and Unilaterals willbe discussed shortly.





Direct Request action Scalpel. Go. Buy it.

Again, to request action is the purpose of the action seeking game.





Direct Request action Scalpel. Go. Buy it.

Action Perform an action during the dialogue

turn on a light

“Action” is a Unilateral that has no parallel in DGT




Assess Express attitudes or evaluations of situations

Wonderful. That’s a new threat.

This, in turn, could be a case of information offering (IO)






Suggestion Propose an idea for consideration

Maybe you could take a pill before you go to dinner.

There is a DMG called “Suggestion Offering” defined above






Suggestion Propose an idea for consideration

Maybe you could take a pill before you go to dinner.

Promise Commit to a future action or to create a future condition

I’ll pay you the rest of it tomorrow.

How about the action offering (AO) game, here?




Rhetorical Question

Raise a question without indicating expectation of an answer

Are presidents saints?

Maybe cases of information probing (IP) or socratic challenge (SC) games?




Rhetorical Question



Repair Revise a prior expression A: I need three feet of canvas.

B: OK.

A: Make that three yards.

This seems okay as a Unilateral.




Rhetorical Question



Repair Revise a prior expression A: I need three feet of canvas.

B: OK.

A: Make that three yards.

Completion Provide an ending for something being said by another

A: A stitch in time is worth ---

B: --- two in the bush.


M02, 5:


It is about time to have a look at the relation between DMGs andUnilaterals. Here is what Mann explains.


M02, 5:


http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm:

Name Function Number of Participants

Recursive? Example of Use

(We are presented with a table, again.)


M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame

Unilateral


M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame

Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants

Unilateral Pursue one or more goals of One Participant


This characterization of Unilaterals seems at least doubtful. How aboutthe Completion? From our own corpus Inst: Now you take Const: a screwshould count as a completion, yet is uttered in the pursuit of a joint goal.




Dialogue Macrogame




This characterization of Unilaterals seems at least doubtful. How aboutthe Direct? As introduced, there seems to be no difference between itand the bid of an Action Seeking game. (This idea will be elaborated alittle more in a minute.)




Dialogue Macrogame




This characterization of Unilaterals seems at least doubtful. How aboutthe Direct? As introduced, there seems to be no difference between itand the bid of an Action Seeking game. Besides this, the latter could beused in pursuit of just the initiator’s intention.




Dialogue Macrogame




M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame




M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame


2


1


How about the Completion, again? By definition, Completion provides anending for something being said by another. So it necessarily involvestwo participants.




Dialogue Macrogame


2


1


M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame


2


1


M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame


2 yes


1 no


Not all of the DMGs are recursive: Conversation Seeking (CS) notablyand explicitly can not be embedded: It is marked as “not recursive”.




Dialogue Macrogame


2 yes


1 no


Not all of the DMGs are recursive: Conversation Seeking (CS) notablyand explicitly can not be embedded. The Unilateral Suggest, on the otherhand, can surely be embedded.




Dialogue Macrogame


2 yes


1 no


M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame


2 yes


1 no


M02, 5:





Dialogue Macrogame


2 yes [Given elsewhere]


1 no I’ll do that. It’s done.


M02, 5:


Mann’s opinion, in short:

Unilaterals are actions that are part of the interaction, performed by onlyone of the participants, that distinctively do not involve collaboration orjoint goals.


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large really are (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication.


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation?


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there away to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at thecategories of Unilaterals.



Name of Category of Unilaterals

Defining Function Examples

Politeness Acts of respect, honor, gratitude…

Thank you.

The example (“Thank you”) could very well be the acceptance of anaction offering (AO) game.






Thank you.

What makes it a “polite” speech act is the Searle & Vandervekian (1992)“mode of achievement”






Thank you.

Acknowledge Express clear hearing, agreement, willingness to comply with requests,…

OK. Yes. Roger.

Here is quite a hotchpotch of “defining functions”; but acts (1) and (2)look like answers to previous utterances.






Thank you.


OK. Yes. Roger.

Here is quite a hotchpotch of “defining functions”; (3) seems to be acase of meta-communication






Thank you.


OK. Yes. Roger.

Media Mgt. Establish, maintain, terminate communication media

Hello. Over. Have a nice day.

Utterances (1) and (3) seem to be paradigm cases of (1) conversationseeking and (3) bid of termination of CS or acceptance thereof.






Thank you.


OK. Yes. Roger.



Utterance (2) seems to be meta-communication.






Thank you.


OK. Yes. Roger.



These two cases – obviously meta-communication - remain.


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there away to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at thecategories of Unilaterals.


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there away to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at thecategories of Unilaterals. The “defining functions” and the examplessupport the suspicion that Unilaterals by and large should count notas a new type of entity in DMT.


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there away to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at thecategories of Unilaterals. The “defining functions” and the examplessupport the suspicion that Unilaterals by and large should count notas a new type of entity in DMT. Rather, they should be characterizedas indicated.


M02, 5:


Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex)speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there away to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at thecategories of Unilaterals. The “defining functions” and the examplessupport the suspicion that Unilaterals by and large should count notas a new type of entity in DMT. Rather, they should be characterizedas indicated. The meta-communicative acts should be taken to beexplicit bids or acceptances plus turn-taking signals.


M02, 5:


Summary: DMT is a partially refined version of DGT.


M02, 5:


Summary: DMT is a partially refined version of DGT. The inventory ofDGT comprises the inventory of DMT (with a changed definition ofthe scope of a DG).


M02, 5:


Summary: DMT is a partially refined version of DGT. The inventory ofDGT comprises the inventory of DMT (with a changed definition ofthe scope of a DG). Unilaterals are in fact already implicit in DGT,except (1) actions and (2) meta-communicative acts.

Two Ss, instructor and constructor cooperate in building a toy airplane

Dialog example & situation

Previous step : highest coordination peak point


(A)Inst: So, jetzt nimmst du

Well, now you takeCnst: eine Schraube

a screw.Inst: eine <-> orangene mit einem

Schlitz.an <-> orange one with a slit

Cnst: Ja. Yes


(A)Inst: So, jetzt nimmst du

Well, now you takeCnst: eine Schraube

a screw.Inst: eine <-> orangene mit einem

Schlitz.an <-> orange one with a slit

Cnst: Ja. Yes

Available Bolts


(B)

Inst: Und steckst sie dadurch, also

And you put it through there,

let’s see

Cnst: Von oben.

From the top.

Inst: Von oben, daß also die drei festgeschraubt werden dann.

From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.

Cnst: Ja.

Yes.

Intended Junction

Intended Result


(A)Inst: Well, now you takeCnst: a screw.Inst: an <-> orange one with a slitCnst: Yes.



(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s seeCnst: From the top.Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.Cnst: Yes.


Assume that you are left with the impression that this discourseis coherent.




Assume that you are left with the impression that this discourseis coherent. How can it be annotated using DMT?

(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw.Inst: an <-> orange one with a slitCnst: Yes.



This is fairly straightforward.

(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw. AS, ag ?Inst: an <-> orange one with a slitCnst: Yes.



Of course, constructor accepts the bid; but the utterance can beclassified in various ways…

(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw.

Completion?Inst: an <-> orange one with a slitCnst: Yes.



Of course, constructor accepts the bid; but the utterance can beclassified in various ways…

(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw. AS, agInst: an <-> orange one with a slitCnst: Yes.



(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw. AS, agInst: an <-> orange one with a slit SO, bg ?Cnst: Yes.



(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw. AS, agInst: an <-> orange one with a slit IO, bg ?Cnst: Yes.



(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw. AS, agInst: an <-> orange one with a slit Repair ?Cnst: Yes.



(A)Inst: Well, now you take AS, bgCnst: a screw. AS, agInst: an <-> orange one with a slit RepairCnst: Yes. AS, bt




(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bgCnst: From the top.Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.Cnst: Yes.



(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bgCnst: From the top.

Completion ?Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.Cnst: Yes.



(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bgCnst: From the top. CS, bg ?Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.Cnst: Yes.



(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bgCnst: From the top. CS, bgInst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.Cnst: Yes.



(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bgCnst: From the top. CS, bgInst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. CS, agCnst: Yes.



(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bgCnst: From the top. CS, bgInst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. CS, agCnst: Yes. AS, bt


dialogue macrogame theory

Documents