<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W97-0501">
  <Title>Pragmatics and AAC approaches to conversational goals</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="2" end_page="2" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
Acknowledge
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Say yes, Say no, Say don't know Agree, Disagree Evaluate good, Evaluate bad Interrupt, Say thanks, Ask for expansion Say wait a minute (stall for time) Say a mistake was made in speaking. In order to maximise the speed of response, these phrases were spoken when the button was activated, without recourse to a menu of possible choices. A random variation was built in to avoid too much repetition of exactly the same words. For example, a set of alternative &amp;quot;acknowledge&amp;quot; responses might be &amp;quot;Uh-huh&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yeah&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;I see&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yeah, yeah&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Yeah, uh huh&amp;quot;. This was in keeping withthe principle that in this case speed of response was the key issue, and if the phrase was not exactly what was required, an approximation to the wording needed would in any case be sufficient.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> From early trials of the TALK system, the need for another category of speech act emerged. Often it is important to provide a comment which does need to be selected from a menu of possibilities, because its use is dependent on the context. Also there are reusable phrases which serve to move the conversation forward and which, although suitable as responses to many different things a partner might say, need to be selected specifically. These phrases we called &amp;quot;context-sensitive comments&amp;quot; (Todman, Aim, and Elder, 1994). We experimented with a number of different types of comment and, though the set that finally went into TALK was by no means a definitive one, the list of comment categories given. below, with an example of each, was found to be useful (Todman and Morrison, 1995) and added to the flexibility of the system: Aphorism (e.g. &amp;quot;That's how life goes sometimes&amp;quot;) Expression of sympathy (e.g. &amp;quot;Sorry to hear that&amp;quot;) Hedge (e.g. &amp;quot;I don't really remember&amp;quot;) Apology (e.g. &amp;quot;Sorry, I didn't think of that&amp;quot;) Question (&amp;quot;How about you?&amp;quot;) Specific feedback (&amp;quot;That's really interesting&amp;quot;) These context-sensitive comments, like the quick-fire phrases, helped with speed, maintenance of flow, and having a share of the control of the conversation. They also provided a better way of responding appropriately to the unexpected than the more general-purpose quick-fire remarks.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Some initial testing of TALK was performed in which only pre-stored text was used, in order to examine the limits of speaking entirely with pre-stored material. A facility for adding unique text for speaking during a conversation was then added. The use of this feature, of course, involves the user in a significant time penalty.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In trials, the TALK system has shown that incorporating the modelling of pragmatic features of conversation can produce improved results in computer-aided communication. Significant increases in speed are possible. One physically disabled non-speaking person using TALK achieved a speaking rate of about 67 words per minute (Todman et al. , 1995).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> This represents a considerable increase on the 2-10 words per minute which is the current norm (Beukelman and Mirenda, 1992).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In a study analysing the quality of the content of TALK-aided conversations compared with conversations on the same topic carried out by natural speakers, the content of the computer-aided conversations was rated significantly higher than that of the unaided samples (p &lt; .001) (Todman, Elder, and Alm, 1995). This was an encouraging finding indicating that using pre-stored material could actually enhance the perceived quality of conversational content.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Currently two AAC users are taking part in a long-term evaluation of the usefulness of the TALK prototype in their daily conversations, and a third AAC user is evaluating a version of TALK which has been adapted for people with limited literacy skills. From these informal evaluations, the users report that using the prototype has given them conversational opportunities they would not otherwise have had. Two of the users have given a number of public lectures, using the TALK system to deliver the lecture and deal with the following question and answer sessions (Grant, 1995); (McGregor, 1995); (Todman and Grant, 1996). Such applications of the system have a clear relationship to the communicational goals of mutual enjoyment and enhancement of the perceived status of the speaker. These longitudinal long-term studies continue.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> A number of improvements suggest themselves to further enhance the usability of systems such as TALK. The prototype models several aspects of the pragmatics of conversation, but no doubt there are other aspects which could be helpfully incorporated.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> As can be seen in Figure 3, the interface is quite complex at present. Introducing predictive features could help to simplify the control task for the user.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> It may be that work currently underway in the field of natural language processing can be of assistance in suggesting ways to accomplish this task.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>