<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="J79-1067">
  <Title>HELPING-GAME Paramctcrs: Thc parameters are two roles (HELPER and HELPEE) and a topic (TASK/HG). A Modcl of Dialogue Parameter specifications:</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Thc broadest goal of our research has been to improve the sorry state of interactive man-machine communication, including its appearance of complexity, rigidity, lack of continuity and the difficulty it poses for many people to acquire useful levels of cornpctcnce. In our pursuit of this goal, we have adopted-the following two assumptions: Assumption L: When pcople communicate with machines, they do so by using their already well-dcvelopcd ability to communicate with other people.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Assumption 2: The effectiveness of this communication is diminished by any adaptation required of the human.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> A scientific understanding of how people cvmmunicate is thus relevant to the design of man-machine communication schemes, but suchknowledge is seldom used in the design process. Since human communication skills have not been characterized at a level of clctsil appropriate for guiding design, interface designers have not been able to take into account some major determinants of their succcss.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The opcrativc goal of our research was therefore to creatd a mode/ of human communicafion at an appropriate level of detail to benefit man-machine communication design. Any form of communication must be based on ,knowledge shared by the individuals engazed in that communication. However, the nature of this shared knowladgs and how is it uscd in the communicative process have not been well undcrstood. We have developed a working hypothesis which has deeply affected the r-csearch: Hypothesis: People know that certain kinds of goals may be pursued by communication, and they know which kinds of communication acts correspond to which goals. Tho use of this knowledge is essential to comprehending dialogue.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> In particular, a pcrson generates an utterance to advance one or more of his own goals. Thus, to assimilate a particular utterance, it is necessary to identify why the person said i't.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Working with this hypothesis, we have conducted three related investigations: A Model of Dialogue.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  1. A study of naturally occurring language to discover regularities of usage and to determine what these regularities mean lo the users of the language. 2. The representation of there regularities as knowledge structures and processes in a dialogue model.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> 3. The establishment of standards by which the model's performance can  be compared with that of humans on closely related tasks.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> We have adopted two additional, tactical constraints on the task:  1. We have modeled only the receptive aspects of communication.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> 2. Wc-have examined only dialquc communication, interaction in real-time,  by exactly two people. These dialogues were conducted over a rcsttictcd medium so ihat there was no visual or intonational communication not captured in thc tr~nscript.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> A ~odcl of Dialogue</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>