Abstract
Developers of dialogue systems must confront the complexities of natural language. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how “sequence package” analysis, as a novel approach, can help to improve natural language understanding. Such an approach would go beyond the standard grammatical formalisms represented in most dialogue systems, to include context-dependent utterance sequences that are shaped by the unfolding talk. What is then comprised in a sequence package is a series of related turn construction units and turns that make up either single or multiple episodes of talk, and sometimes an entire conversation. The author examines help-related dialogue to show how reports of troubles that often appear ambiguous and vague can be better understood by looking at the sequential design of speakers' turn constructions. Subtle features found in troubles-related talk that are important, but often overlooked, may be identified by mapping out the sequence package arrangement of the talk. For example, a caller's need for vital empathic support, before he or she can be ready to receive help, might be hard to detect if the caller only provides hidden, and possibly contradictory, signs of emotional distress. Or a patient might be unclear and somewhat inconsistent when trying to describe his or her chief complaint in the course of a medical interview. Thus, an analysis of sequence packages can potentially uncover crucial information often buried in the talk. In designing dialogue systems that model spontaneous speech, a sequence package analysis might serve as a basic component of natural language systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, J. (1983). Reorganizing intentions from natural language utterances. In M. Brady and R.C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational Models of Discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 107–166.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (1984). Transcript notation. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. ix–xvi.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 101–151.
Button, G. (1990). Going up a blind alley: Conflating conversation analysis and computational modeling. In P. Luff, N. Gilbert, and D.M. Frolich (Eds.), Computers and Conversation. London: Academic Press, pp. 67–90.
Button, G., Coulter, J., Lee, J.R.E., and Sharrock, W. (1995). Computers, Minds and Conduct. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Button, G. and Sharrock, W. (1995). On simulacrums of conversation: Toward a clarification of the relevance of conversation analysis for human-computer interaction. In P.J. Thomas (Ed.), The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–125.
Clayman, S.E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems, 35:474–492.
Cohen, P.R. and Perrault, C.R. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Sciences, 3:177–212.
Coulter, J. (1979). Beliefs and practical understanding. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., pp. 163–186.
Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reporting in invitation sequences. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–151.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. and Holt, E. (1988). Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems, 35(4):398–417.
Firth, A. (1995).Transcript notatiton. In A. Firth (Ed.), The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. xiii–xv.
Frankel, R. (1990). Talking in interviews: A dispreference for patient-initiated questions in physician-patient encounters. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, pp. 231–262.
Frolich, D.M. and Luff, P. (1990). Applying the technology of conversation to the technology for conversation. In P. Luff, N. Gilbert, and D.M. Frolich (Eds.), Computers and Conversation. London: Academic Press, pp. 187–220.
Gaudiano, P. (1999). Smart Bots: Solutions for the Networked Economy (White Paper). New York: Artificial Life, Inc.
Gilbert, G.N., Wooffitt, R.C., and Frazer, N. (1990). Organizing computer talk. In P. Luff, N. Gilbert, and D.M. Frohlich (Eds.), Computers and Conversation. London: Academic Press, pp. 235–257.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. London: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.
Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1986). Attention, intention and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175–204.
Grosz, B.J. and Hirschberg, J. (1992). Some characteristics of discourse structure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 1:429–432.
Heeman, P.A. and Allen, J.F. (1999). Speech repairs, intonational phrases and discourse markers: Modeling speakers’ utterances in spoken dialog. Computational Linguistics, 25(4):222–256.
Heins, R., Franzke, M., Durian, M., and Bayya, A. (1997). Turntaking as a design principle for barge-in in spoken language systems. International Journal of Speech Technology, 2:155–164.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 93–137.
Hirst, G. (1991). Does conversation analysis have a role in computational linguistics? Computational Linguistics, 17(2):211–227.
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (1983). On a failed hypothesis: ‘Conjuctionals’ as overlap vulnerable. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature; 28:29–33.
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–222.
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 9(2/3):153–183.
Jefferson, G. and Lee, J.R.E. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of troubles-telling and a service encounter. Journal of Pragmatics; 5:399–422.
Lindeman, M.J. (1993a October). How to design “caller friendly” applications: Seven steps to effective caller interface design (Caller Interface, Part I). Voice Processing Magazine, Oct. 1993, 1–4.
Lindeman, M.J. (1993b, November). Encyclopedia of human factors: Human factors issues to consider during design (Caller Interface, Part II). Voice Processing Magazine, Oct. 1993, 1–5.
Local, J. and Kelly, J. (1986). Projections and 'silences': Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies; 9(2/3):185–204.
Machowski, M. (1997). Speech recognition and natural language processing as a highly effective means of human-computer interaction.Paper written for User Interface class. Denver: Computer Science Department, University of Colorado.
Markowitz, J.A. (1996). Using Speech Recognition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Maynard, D.W. (1991a). The perspective-display series and the delivery and receipt of diagnostic news. In D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 164–192.
Maynard, D.W. (1991b). Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. American Journal of Sociology; 97:448–495.
McIlvenny, P. and Raudaskoski, P. (1992). The mutual relevance of conversation analysis and linguistics: A discussion in reference to interactive discourse. In L. Heltoft and H. Haberland (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics.Roskilde, Denmark: Department of Languages and Culture, Roskilde University, pp. 263–277.
McTear, M.F. (1987). The Articulate Computer. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miikkulainen, R. (2000).Text and discourse understanding: The DISCERN system. In R. Dale, H. Moisl, and H. Somers (Eds.), A Handbook on Natural Language Processing: Techniques and Applications for the Processing of Language as Text, Vol. II. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 905–919.
Neustein, A. (1984). Linguistic technology and artificial intelligence in medical history-taking. Update: Computers in Medicine; 2(5):56–60.
Neustein, A. (1986a). Computer-aided instruction for improving history-taking skills (Part I). Physicians and Computers; 4(6):32–35.
Neustein, A. (1986b). Computer-aided instruction for improving history-taking skills (Part II). Physicians and Computers; 4(7):33–37.
Neustein, A. (1989). Medical history-taking as an interactive event. In W. von Raffler-Engel (Ed.), Doctor-Patient Interaction Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co, pp. 61–76. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, Vol. IV.
Neustein, A. (1999). How “sequence packages” can aid language understanding. Speech Technology; 4(4):36–37.
Neustein, A. (2000). Designing the virtual agent: Some theoretical and practical considerations. Call Center News Service, 4(24):1–4.
Ochs, E, Schegloff, E.A., and Thompson, S.A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perrault, C.R. and Allen, J. (1980). A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6(3/4):167–182.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–163.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2/3):219–229.
Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B.J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices.In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 64–91. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2.
Reichman, R. (1985). Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Riloff, E. and Lehnert, W. (1994). Information extraction as a basis for high-precision text classification. ACM Transactions on Information Systems; 12(3):296–333.
Sacks, H. (1992a). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation, Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. ix–818.
Sacks, H. (1992b). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation, Vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. ix–580.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language; 50:696–735.
Schegloff, E.A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist; 70:1075–1095.
Schegloff, E.A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.
Schegloff, E.A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3/4):104–152.
Schegloff, E.A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–52.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992). To Searle on conversation: Anote in return. In J. Verschueven (Ed.), Searle on Conversation, Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. Amsterdam/Philadelphla: John Benjamins Publishing Co., Vol. 21, pp. 113–128.
Schegloff, E.A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1):99–128.
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.
Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica; 7:289–327.
Schiffrin, D. (1990). The principle of intersubjectivity in communication and conversation. Semiotica; 80(1/2):121–151.
Sidner, C.L. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady and R.C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational Models of Discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 267–330.
Suchmann, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ten Have, P. (1991). Talk and institution: A reconsideration of the ‘asymmetry’ of doctor-patient interaction. In D. Boden and D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 138–163.
Torode, B. (1995). Negotiating ‘advice’ in a call to a consumer helpline. In A. Firth (Ed.), The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 345–372.
von Raffler-Engel, W. (1989). Introduction. In W. von Raffler-Engel (Ed.), Doctor-Patient Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., pp. xvii–xxxviii. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, Vol. IV.
Wooffitt, R., Frazer, N.M., Gilbert, N., and McGlashan, S. (1997). Humans, Computers and Wizards: Analyzing Human (Simulated) Computer Interaction. London: Routledge.
Wooffitt, R. and MacDermid, C. (1995). Wizards and social control. In P.J. Thomas (Ed.), The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–141.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neustein, A. Using Sequence Package Analysis to Improve Natural Language Understanding. International Journal of Speech Technology 4, 31–44 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009600731404
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009600731404