<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C86-1055">
  <Title>COMMUNICATIVE TRIAD AS A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT OF LANOUAGE INTERACTION</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
COMMUNICATIVE TRIAD
AS A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT OF LANOUAGE INTERACTION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
  </Section>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
ABSTRACT
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Researches on dialogue natural-language interaction with intellectual &amp;quot;human-computer&amp;quot; systems are based on models of language &amp;quot;human-to-human&amp;quot; interaction, these models representing descriptions of communication laws. An aspect of developing language interaction models is an investigation of dialogue structure. In the paper a notion of elementary communicative triad (SR-triad) is introduced to model the &amp;quot;stimulus-reaction&amp;quot; relation between utterances in the dialogue. The use of the SR-triad apparatus allows us to represent a scheme of any dialogue as a triad structure. SR-triad structure being inherent both to natural and programming language dialogues, SR-system is claimed to be necessary while developing dialogue processors.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
1. INTRODUCTION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In earlier papers devoted to interpersonal interaction iFrank,1981; Levinson,1981\] much attention is paid to studying the role of speecb act (SA) in dialogue structure. Considering SA as a principal functional element of language interaction (LI) is of special importance for developing natural language models which are to be practically applied to human-computer natural--language interaction.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> We proceed from the statement that there are not solitary performed speech acts in real communication, SAs are interconnected and involved in a general LI structure \[Wunderlich,1980\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Within the framework of our approach to the formal\[ description of dialogue structure a notion of SR-triad reflecting the &amp;quot;stimulus-reaction&amp;quot; relation between utterances in the dialogue is proposed to construct a more adequate representation of dialogue structure. Representing any dialogue as a triad structure (T-structure) in contrast to previous analysis \[Hundsnurscher,1981\] is characterized by distinguishing three phases in the interaction of the type &amp;quot;stimulus-reaction&amp;quot;. First we shall consider different roles of speech acts in the dialogue T-structure. Then we shall introduce three types of relations between SR-triads (intersection, imbedding and succession) and discuss dialogues with a complicated structure which is represented by combinations of these relations and reflects different strategies to attain some goal.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="234" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2. SR-TRIAD AND A TYPOLOGY OF SAS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Any dialogue is considered to be a sequence of SAs distributed in time which is charaterized by: a) a change of roles of the speaker and the hearer between communication participants (further designated as X and Y) and b) certain relations between SAs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Each SA is aimed at accomplishing whole complex of goals/tasks. The discussion of their content is not relevant to the purposes of this paper. So we confine our discussion to one goal (g.X) only associated with some SA of the author X (SA.X). The very fact of producing an SA which &amp;quot;initiates&amp;quot; g.X raises before the addressee Y a communicative task to react to this goal, i.e. to close g.X positively or negatively. Thus between SA.X and the following SAs of Y there appear &amp;quot;stimulus- reaction&amp;quot; relations. Between an initiation and a closure of g.X there may take place intermediate interactions aimed at accomplishing the communicative task by Y. The intermediate SAs of Y are associated with goals subordinated to the communicative task, and the intermediate SAs of X which are reactions to the corresponding SAsstlmuli of Y are associated with the initiating SA.X by the goal g.X and aimed at explanation, supporting, correction of the goal or some other components of tile SA.X content.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 2.1. In the capacity of the basic structural element of dialogue interaction, SR-trlad is pro-posed which reflects three following phases of the interaction these phases being associated with any goal initiated in the dialogue.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The first ~hase is a speech act SA1.X by means of which its author X induces his dialogue partner Y to realize some communicative goal g.X (initiation of g.X).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The ~#cond phase is represented by a positive or negative reaction SA1.Y of Y to this goal (closure of g.X).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The third ~hase is a reaction SA2.X of X to SAI.Y which may be positive (acceptance) or negative (rejection) as well. Often SA2.X may be absent in real dialogues that means an acceptance of Y's reaction by default (as it follows from the completion of the interaction or from the transition to the initiation of' a new goal). Irrespective of the explicit/implicit form of expression, this phase is considered as a regular organizing component of the interaction process.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 2.2. Let us enumerate principal types of speech acts reflecting the roles of the SA in the dialogue T-structure and introduce symbols to designate them in schemes.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7">  (1) An initiating SA is a primary initiation of the goal (see the designation in fig. la).*) (2) An initiative-reactive SA is an initiation  of an intermediate goal without trying to close the principal goal, for example, the author of the given SA has not sufficient information for generating a reaction to the principal goal, or the information at the author's disposal is considered by the author as non-authentic, gives rise to doubt, needs correction etc. Such an SA is aimed at some component of the content of the previous SA (the connection with this component is designated by a dotted line (see fig.lb)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8">  (3) A reactive SA is a positive or negative  reaction (to the goal) reflecting the second phase of an SR-triad (fig.lc). This reaction may be *)Here and further (in schemes) a horizontal line represents a goal with which the role of the given SA is connected in an SR-triad; a line representing a subordinated goal is shown tower than that representing the principal goal.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9">  recognized by X as final: an SA of type (4) follows and the goal is closed, otherwise the reaction is not final: an SA of type (5) follows.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> (4) A completing SA reflects the third phase of an SR-triad and contains the acceptance of the previous positive or negative reaction of the partner (fig.ld).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> (5) A re-initiating SA ls a re-initiation of  the goal which means rejection of the reaction to the given goal and ptays a double role in the dialogue T-structure: such an SA simultaneously reflects the third phase of one triad and the first phase of the other triad which follows it immediately (fig.li).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> In any dialogue complex SAs representing the combinations of the enumerated structural types are possible. Let us llst some of them:  (6) An initiating complex SA is a primary initiation of the goal with a complication, e.g. with a motivation (fig. If).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> (7) A reactive-initiative complex SA is a closure of the goal with a complication, for example: a) a positive closure with a counter-condition; b) a  follow by default, then they are designated in the structural schemes by a dotted arrow.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> 2.3. The elementary SR-triad describes the structure of a minimal interaction (e.g. question answer, inducement - refusal etc.). The structural schemes given in fig.2 illustrate the positive (a) and negative (b) closures of the goal in a  of Y to g.X.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> SA2.X is an acceptance of Y's reaction by X (may be expressed implicitly).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> In the elementary SR-triad each SA is simple, without a complication. SR-triads describe both the dialogue fragments and simplest dialogues.The latter do not seem to be rare or artificial \[cf. Hundsnurscher,1981J, they are entirely typical, e.g. in communicative situation with random unknown partners: null  (a) SA1.X: What is the time, please? SAi.Y: Twenty minutes past four.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> SA2.X: Thanks.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18"> (b) SA1.X: Have you a cigarette? SAI.Y: Unfortunately not.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="19"> SA2.X: Excuse mel 3. THE TYPES OF RELATIONS BETWEEN SR-TRIADS  In the general case the dialogue T-structure is described by a system of SR-triads which are connected with each other by the relations of intersection, imbedding and succession.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="20"> 3.1. Let us consider the above types of the relations on examples of dialogues with a complicated T-structure which consists of two SR-triads. The intersection of SR-triads represents the T-structure of a dialogue containing a motivated refusal which is a negative reaction to the goal g.X initiated by SA1.X (e.g. to a request). This reaction includes a motive of the refusal satisfying x (see a structural scheme given in fig.3).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="22"> SAt.Y is a negative reaction to g.X with the initiation of a reason aimed at the component C of the SAI.X content.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="23"> SA2.X is a positive reaction to the reason with the removal of the goal g.X.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="24"> SA2.Y is an acceptance of X's reaction to the reason by Y (possibly by default).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="25"> In any real dialogue the refusal may be expressed indirectly, i.e. SAI.Y contains only the reason for non-performing the action to which Y is insured.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="26"> The imbeddin~ of SR-triads characterizes the T-structure of the dialogue containing an initiating complex SA, consists of the initiation of g.X with a motivation (e.g. giving an argument for the goal g.X). In this case four kinds of the goal closure are possible (flg.4(a-d)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="28"> To illustrate these schemes, let us give the following variants of the dialogue:*) SA1.X:Would you go with me, it is very necessary for me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="29">  SA\].Y:(a)Agreed,I'm all for it. (b}Certainly not and you needn't it. (c)I'l go, though I think it unnecessary. (d)I know it's necessary for you but I shan't go.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="30"> SA2.X:I see.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="31">  The succession of SR-triads describes the following cases: (a) the dialogue in which goals are initiated and closed in turns; the connection between these goals is not considered in the T-structure (see</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="33"> SA1.X: What is the time of Krasnodar flight? *) Certain artificiality of the examples is due to the trend to adduce &amp;quot;pure&amp;quot; Illustrations which are not complicated by components beyond the scope of the schemes considered.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="34">  represent combinations of the above types of the relations between SR-triads. These dialogues include intermediate speech acts: each SA initiating a subordinated goal opens an intermediate SR-triad which complicates the dialogue structure. Thus, for example, in a dialogue the speech acts of X, which are connected with the principal goal initiated by the SAI.X, may be defined as &amp;quot;insisting&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;persuading&amp;quot;. This is the case if Y &amp;quot;offers resistance&amp;quot; to X, i.e. Y objects, expresses doubts or advances counter-arguments. Let us mention as an instance a similar dialogue {see the scheme in fig.7).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="35"> SAI.X: Let's go to the lecture about Sldorov.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="36"> SA1.Y: No, I doubt whether it will be interesting.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="37"> SA2.X: Well, to be sure, Ivanov will deliver the lecture himself, there will be slides and taperecords. null  (b} a positive reaction to the principal goal g.X (agreement}.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="38"> SA4.X is a completing SA.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="39"> In the above communicative situation the patti- null cipant X may choose another strategy of attaining his principal goal g.X: X may initiate g.g not at once but &amp;quot;to pave the way&amp;quot; for it, for instance, to let Y know of the lecture, to elucidate the degree of his interest and, if necessary, to raise it, i.e. to construct a sequence of auxiliary SAs and then to advance the principal SA.X(offer). The T-structure of a similar dialogue interaction may be represented by the scheme in fig.8.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="41"> The above SR-triad, being tim basic structural element of language interaction, reflects tile interconnection of SAs according to the type of tile &amp;quot;stimulus-reaction&amp;quot; relation. It is of special importance for us to distinguish the third phase which means that the positive or negative reaction of a participant to a certain goal initiated by his partner becomes final only after the acceptance (approval} of this reaction by the initiator of the goal. It should be noted that even a positive closure of g.X by Y does not always satisfy X, e.g. a prompt agreement is interpreted by X as thoughtless and insufficiently reasonable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="42"> The acceptance of a reaction by a dialogue participant may happen at different levels of the interaction. Thus if Y gives advice to X's request PSor an advice (there are no violations at the communicative level) but tile content of tile advice (so-called extracommunicative information} does not satisfy X, then he looks in the content of the advice for the reason of initiating a further dis-cussion. Tlle above offered apparatus for describing the dialogue T-structure with the use of additional means reflecting the character of a connection between the goals can, apparently, be applied for integral multilevel structural representation of LI.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="43"> In the paper we have limited ourselves to the consideration of a dialogue (or a fragment of a dialogue} subordinated to one goal, its development, achievement or removal. However, except the dialogue connectedness with respect to goal, other types of SAs connectedness in a dialogue may be discussed, e.g. a thematic one. The dynamics of the development of the theme does not always correspond to the development of the goal. The introduction of the notion of the theme and the investigation of its relations to the goals will allow us to represent a thematic structure to accompany the T-structure of a dialogue or to be combined with it.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>