<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C90-3076">
  <Title>Three Typed Pragmatics for Dialogue Structure Analysis</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1. INTRODUCTION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> An efficient, and smooth communication be'~ween humans is generally realized in spoken dialogues. This fact is mainly supported by various ellipsis exp:degessions concerning old information, the dialogue participants, zero-pronouns - especially in dapanese, substitutional verbs and so on. Ass result, each utterance is fragmental. A sequence of these utterances generally construct a whole dialogue step by step. \['ragmental utterance comprehension by a hearer can be achieved using knowledge of the dialogue sitamtion, context intbrmation, domain dependent knowledge, especially the donmin dependent action hierarchy\[Litman871, universal pragmatics concerning how to advance a dialogue, maintain dialogue cooperation between dialogue participants, etc., and language specific pragmatics \[ Levinson831. Such ellii;sis-resolution-is one of the main problems in discourse understanding. Several approaches were proposed and implemented in \[fiendrix781, \[Shimazu79\], \[Carbonel1831, etc. These researchers used various heuristic rules and did not make a clear distinction between domain ~pecific knowledge and pragmatics. As a consequence, the user interface became inflexible because the system basically handled expected utterance patterns.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> *(1) :A discourse goal is characterized by a discourse expectation which dialogue participants mutually believe as an expectation. Therefore, a discourse goal is very vague because a expectation depends on various attentions or empathies and the participant's knowledge, *(2) :Allowing embedded turn-takings. *(3):A communicative act is basically defined as an abstract action, one that effects the bearer's thinking or deci,qiommaking and which can be described by a plan schema (cf. Cohen84).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Recently, a plan-based dialogue understanding approach was developed using a kind of pragmatics metaplan: a 'discourse plan' incorporated with domain knowledge, 'domain plan' \[Litnmn871. This approach was based on Allen &amp; Perrault's plan recognition strategies \[AllenS0\], \[PerraultS0\], \[Allen871. By way of contrast, a pragmatic-based approach was proposed in order to understand intersentential elliptical fragments \[Carberry891. She claimed Litnmn's strategies could not recognize a surprise ors doubt conveyed by an elliptical fragment, for example &amp;quot;$10,000 &amp;quot;:&amp;quot;,. which is not a complete sentence including postulated speech acts 'request' or 'inform'. In addition, she also claimed that metaplans representing communicative goals should be dealt with adequately. She newly introduced 'discourse expectation' rules for grasping interaction between an information-seeker and an information-provider and 'discourse goal' rules for identifying an information-seeker's conversational or communicative goa\[*(l).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> These rules are heuristics for interpreting an elliptical fragment which explicitly indicates no linguistic clues to interpreting speech act.s. On the other hand, in order to make the general understanding mechanism clear, a surprise or a doubt fragment such as mentioned above, must be understood from recognizing an irregular meaning from the view of gaps between common sense (a certain prerequisite eondition) and the declaration. Furthermore, studying how to express a query, an answer, a confirmation, a surprise or a doubt in a context and a dialogue situation is necessary.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> In consideration of making a dialogue understanding model including such an understanding process, a method to handle pragmaties and utterance or dialogue must be studied. This l?aj)er shows three typed pragmaties use(t 1or cooperative dialogue development, as well as a dialogue structure analysis and understandinfi model using a plan recognition approach. 'lhe pragmatlcs are described by a 'dialogue plan', 'communication plan' and 'interaction plan'.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>