Skip to main content
Log in

Collaborative conversational interfaces

  • Published:
International Journal of Speech Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a method of designing human-computer speech interfaces based on principles of human conversation. It argues that conversation is the primary mode of language use and that it is fundamentally collaborative. Speech interfaces should therefore be designed to recreate the collaborative nature of natural conversations. The paper presents five strategies for designingcollaborative conversational interfaces, and it describes the principles of human-language use that underly these strategies. The paper also argues that collaborative conversational interfaces have a crucial advantage over other kinds of interfaces in that they are readily adaptive to different levels of experience and styles of use. The paper gives examples of collaborative conversational interfaces that we have developed, and discusses the ways in which these interfaces have been made adaptive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basson, S., Kalyanswamy, A., Man, E., Springer, S., and Yashchin, D. (1995). Establishing speech technology requirements: The money talks field trial. InProceedings of the 14th Annual International Voice Technologies Applications Conference (AVIOS '95). San Jose, California, pp. 131–136.

  • Bates, B. (1987).A Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking. 4th edition. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S.E. and Clark, H.H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22:482–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. (1992).Arenas of Language Use. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Clark, H.H. and Carlson, T.B. (1981). Context for comprehension. InProceedings of the 1980 Attention and Performance Conference. Jesus College, Cambridge. Reprinted in Clark, H. (1992).Arenas of Language Use, 60–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. and Marshall, C.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, and I.A. Sag (Eds.),Elements of Discourse Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process.Cognition, 22:1–39. Reprinted in Clark, H. (1992).Arenas of Language Use, 107–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou, P., Daane, S., and Dev, P. (1994). Transforming information for computer-aided instruction: Using a Socratic dialog method to teach gross anatomy. InProceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. 1992, p. 1043.

  • Crangle, C.E. (1989). On saying ‘Stop’ to a robot.Language and Communication, 9(1):23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crangle, C.E. (1997). Conversational interfaces to robots.Robotica 15:117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crangle, C.E., Carlson, R.W., Fagan, L.M., Davis, A., Erlbaum, M.S., Keck, K., Olson, N., Sherertz, D.D., and Tuttle, M.S. (1996a). Conversational access to on-line cancer information: An adaptable speech interface. InProceedings of the 1996 American Medical Informatics Association Fall Symposium (AMIA): Beyond the Superhighway: Exploiting the Internet with Medical Informatics. Washington, DC, p. 962.

  • Crangle, C.E., Carlson, R.W., Fagan, L.M., Erlbaum, M.S., Olson, N.E., Sherertz, D.D., and Tuttle, M.S. (1996b). Meeting clinical information needs: An interface that provides uniform access across diverse information sources. InWorking Papers, AAAI-96 Spring Symposium on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Application of Current Technologies. Stanford University, California, Menlo Park: AAAI Press, pp. 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crangle, C.E. and Suppes, P. (1994).Language and Learning for Robots. Stanford University, Stanford: CSLI Press. Distributed by Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detmer, W.M., Shiffman, S., Wyatt, J.C., Friedman, C.P., Lane, C.D., and Fagan, L.M. (1994). A continuous-speech interface to a decision-support system: II. An evaluation using a Wizard-of-Oz experiment.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2(1):46–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, B.R. (1981). The technology of interaction—Dialogue programming rules.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14:133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S. and Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination.Cognition, 27:181–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning.Philosophical Review, 66:377–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1968). Utterer's meaning, sentence meaning, and wordmeaning.Foundations of Language, 4:225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, E.A. and Clark, H.H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116:26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K., Poon, A., Shiffman, S., Lin, R., and Fagan, L.M. (1992). A history-taking system that uses continuous speech recognition. InProceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Baltimore, MD, pp. 757–761.

  • Krauss, R.M. and Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interactions: A preliminary study.Psychonomic Science, 1:113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, R.M. and Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4:343–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B.J., Reeves, B., and Dryer, D.C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43:223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, P. (1996). Spoken language understanding. In Ron Cole (Ed.),Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology. http://www.cse.ogi.edu/CSLU/HLTsurvey/HLTsurvey.html.

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G.A. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.Language, 50:696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E.A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings.American Anthropologist, 70:1075–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E.A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.),Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk 32nd Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.Language, 53:361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings.Semiotica, 8:289–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act? In M. Black (Ed.),Philosophy in America. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 221–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969).Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiffman, S., Detmer, W.M., Lane, C.D., and Fagan, L.M. (1994). A continuous-speech interface to a decision-support system: I. Techniques to accommodate for misrecognized input.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2(1): 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simes, D.K. and Sirsky, P.A. (1985). Human factors: An exploration of the psychology of human-computer dialogues. In H. Rex Hartson (Ed.),Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. vol. 1, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 49–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (1983).Discourse Analysis—The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle, M.S., Nelson, S.J., Fuller, L.F., Sherertz, D.D., Erlbaum, M.S., Sperzel, W.D., Olson, N.E., and Suarez-Munist, O.N. (1992). The semantic foundations of the UMLS Metathesaurus. In K.C. Lun et al. (Eds.),MEDINFO '92. North Holland: Elsevier, pp. 1506–1511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle, M.S., Sherertz, D.D., Acuff, R.D., Cole, W.G., Schipma, P.B., Nelson, S.J., and Carlson, R.W. (1995). Bringing knowledge to the point of care. InProceedings of the Healthcare Information Management Systems Society Annual Meeting (HIMSS). San Antonio, Texas, pp. 101–120.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crangle, C.E., Fagan, L.M., Carlson, R.W. et al. Collaborative conversational interfaces. Int J Speech Technol 2, 187–200 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02111207

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02111207

Keywords

Navigation