Speech Act Theory as an Evaluation Tool for Human–Agent Communication

Nader Hanna; Deborah Richards

doi:10.3390/a12040079

journal article Open Access Apr 17, 2019

Speech Act Theory as an Evaluation Tool for Human–Agent Communication

Nader Hanna

Deborah Richards

Algorithms Vol. 12 No. 4 pp. 79 · MDPI AG

View at Publisher Save 10.3390/a12040079

Abstract

Effective communication in task-oriented situations requires high-level interactions. For human–agent collaboration, tasks need to be coordinated in a way that ensures mutual understanding. Speech Act Theory (SAT) aims to understand how utterances can be used to achieve actions. SAT consists of three components: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. This paper evaluates the agent’s verbal communication while collaborating with humans. SAT was used to anatomize the structure of the agent’s speech acts (locutionary acts), the agent’s intention behind the speech acts (illocutionary acts), and the effects on the human’s mental state (perlocutionary acts). Moreover, this paper studies the impact of human perceptions of the agent’s speech acts on the perception of collaborative performance with the agent.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

52

[1]

Horvitz, E. (1999, January 15–20). Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (SIGCHI’99), Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 10.1145/302979.303030

[2]

Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language, Cambridge University Press.

[3]

Van Oijen, J., and Dignum, F. (2012, January 4). Agent Communication for Believable Human-Like Interactions between Virtual Characters. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Emotional and Empathic Agents, AAMAS’12, Valencia, Spain. 10.1007/978-3-642-36444-0_3

[4]

Caillou, P., Gaudou, B., Grignard, A., Truong, C.Q., and Taillandier, P. (2017). A Simple-to-Use BDI Architecture for Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation. Advances in Social Simulation 2015, Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-47253-9_2

[5]

Yuasa, M., Mukawa, N., Kimura, K., Tokunaga, H., and Terai, H. (2010). An Utterance Attitude Model in Human-Agent Communication: From Good Turn-Taking to Better Human-Agent Understanding. CHI′10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. 10.1145/1753846.1754079

[6]

Sharpanskykh, A., and Treur, J. (2008, January 16–19). An Ambient Agent Model for Automated Mindreading by Identifying and Monitoring Representation Relations. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA’08), Athens, Greece. 10.1145/1389586.1389689

[7]

Gratch, J., Young, M., Aylett, R., Ballin, D., and Olivier, P. (2006). “What Would You Like to Talk About?” An Evaluation of Social Conversations with a Virtual Receptionist. Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer. 10.1007/11821830

[8]

Ludwig "Untangling a Web of Lies: Exploring Automated Detection of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication" J. Manag. Inf. Syst. (2016) 10.1080/07421222.2016.1205927

[9]

Austin, J.L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words, Harvard University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001

[10]

Dignum "Trends in Agent Communication Language" Comput. Intell. (2002) 10.1111/1467-8640.00184

[11]

Ferguson "Mixed-Initiative Dialogue Systems for Collaborative Problem-Solving" AI Mag. (2007)

[12]

van Luin, J., op den Akker, R., and Nijholt, A. (April, January 31). A Dialogue Agent for Navigation Support in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’01), Seattle, WA, USA.

[13]

Miao, Y., Hoppe, U., and Pinkwart, N. (2006, January 5–7). Naughty Agents Can Be Helpful: Training Drivers to Handle Dangerous Situations in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06), Kerkrade, The Netherlands.

[14]

Traum, D., Rickel, J., Gratch, J., and Marsella, S. (2003, January 14–18). Negotiation over Tasks in Hybrid Human-Agent Teams for Simulation-Based Training. Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 10.1145/860575.860646

[15]

Nijholt, A. (2002, January 14–18). Issues in Multimodal Nonverbal Communication and Emotion in Embodied (Conversational) Agents. Proceedings of the 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Volume II: Concepts and Applications of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, Orlando, FL, USA.

[16]

Monard, M., and Sichman, J. (2000). A Multiagent Systems Theory of Meaning Based on the Habermas/Bühler Communicative Action Theory. Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Springer. 10.1007/3-540-44399-1

[17]

Beer, M., Brom, C., Worth, F., and Soo, V.-W. (2012). Inferring Pragmatics from Dialogue Contexts in Simulated Virtual Agent Games. Agents for Educational Games and Simulations, Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-32326-3

[18]

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cbo9781139173438

[19]

Eppler "The Concept of Information Overload-A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines" Inf. Soc. (2004) 10.1080/01972240490507974

[20]

Rose "Speech Acts and Questionnaires: The Effect of Hearer Response" J. Pragmat. (1992) 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90028-a

[21]

Richetti, P.H.P., de ARGonçalves, J.C., Baião, F.A., and Santoro, F.M. (2017). Analysis of Knowledge-Intensive Processes Focused on the Communication Perspective. Business Process Management, Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_16

[22]

Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., and McEntire, R. (December, January 29). KQML as an Agent Communication Language. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

[23]

Shoham "Agent-Oriented Programming" Artif. Intell. (1993) 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90034-9

[24]

Sidner, C.L. (1994, January 1–4). An Artificial Discourse Language for Collaborative Negotiation. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, USA.

[25]

Jeffrey, M.B. (1997). Communicative Actions for Artificial Agents. Software Agents, MIT Press.

[26]

Cohen "Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts" Cogn. Sci. (1979)

[27]

Sakama, C., Sardina, S., Vasconcelos, W., and Winikoff, M. (2012). Speech-Act Based Communication: Progress in the Formal Semantics and in the Implementation of Multi-agent Oriented Programming Languages. Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies IX, Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-29113-5

[28]

Kullu "ACMICS: An agent communication model for interacting crowd simulation" Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. (2017) 10.1007/s10458-017-9366-8

[29]

Jiang, W., and Zhou, X. (2008, January 12–14). Research on a Novel Multi-Agent System Negotiation Strategy and Model. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM’08), Dalian, China. 10.1109/wicom.2008.1365

[30]

Panayiotopoulos, T., Gratch, J., Aylett, R., Ballin, D., Olivier, P., and Rist, T. (2005). Social Situated Agents in Virtual, Real and Mixed Reality Environments. Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer. 10.1007/11550617

[31]

Huget, M.-P. (2003). Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts. Communication in Multiagent Systems, Springer. 10.1007/b12446

[32]

Traum, D.R., and Allen, J.F. (1992, January 12–16). A Speech Acts Approach to Grounding in Conversation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP’92), Banff, AB, Canada. 10.21437/icslp.1992-41

[33]

McRorie "Evaluation of Four Designed Virtual Agent Personalities" IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. (2012) 10.1109/t-affc.2011.38

[34]

Dybkjær, L., Hemsen, H., and Minker, W. (2007). Modelling and Evaluating Verbal and Non-Verbal Communication in Talking Animated Interface Agents. Evaluation of Text and Speech Systems, Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4020-5817-2

[35]

Bunt, H., and Beun, R.-J. (2001). Cooperation and Flexibility in Multimodal Communication. Cooperative Multimodal Communication, Springer. 10.1007/3-540-45520-5

[36]

Eysenck, H.J. (1976). The Measurement of Personality, University Park Press. 10.1007/978-94-011-6168-8

[37]

Fabri, M., Elzouki, S.Y.A., and Moore, D. (2007, January 22–27). Emotionally expressive avatars for chatting, learning and therapeutic intervention. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Intelligent Multimodal Interaction Environments, Beijing, China. 10.1007/978-3-540-73110-8_29

[38]

Faizin, B., Ramdhani, M.A., Gunawan, W., and Gojali, D. (2018). Speech Acts Analysis in Whatsapp Status Updates. International Conference on Media and Communication Studies (ICOMACS 2018), Atlantis Press. 10.2991/icomacs-18.2018.46

[39]

Vosoughi, S., and Roy, D. (2016, January 17–20). Tweet Acts: A Speech Act Classifier for Twitter. Proceedings of the 10th AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2016), Cologne, Germany.

[40]

Hanna, N., Richards, D., and Jacobson, M.J. (2012). Automatic Acquisition of User Models of Interaction to Evaluate the Usability of Virtual Environments. Knowledge Management and Acquisition for Intelligent Systems-12th Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW’12), Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 10.1007/978-3-642-32541-0_4

[41]

Nishio "Attitude Change Induced by Different Appearances of Interaction Agents" Int. J. Mach. Conscious. (2011) 10.1142/s1793843011000637

[42]

Noordzij "Exploring the Brain Basis of Joint Action: Co-ordination of Actions, Goals and Intentions" Soc. Neurosci. (2007) 10.1080/17470910701224623

[43]

Shumaker, R. (2013). What Will You Do Next? A Cognitive Model for Understanding Others’ Intentions Based on Shared Representations. Virtual Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Augmented and Virtual Environments, Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-39405-8

[44]

Conigliaro, J. (2014). Teamwork and communication. Patient Safety, Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7419-7_2

[45]

Walther "Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration" Hum. Commun. Res. (1997) 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00400.x

[46]

Hirokawa "The Role of Communication in Group Decision-Making Efficacy: A Task-Contingency Perspective" Small Group Res. (1990) 10.1177/1046496490212003

[47]

Jarvenpaa "Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams" Inf. Sys. Res. (2004) 10.1287/isre.1040.0028

[48]

Halpern "Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment" J. ACM (1990) 10.1145/79147.79161

[49]

Traum, D.R. (1999). Speech Acts for Dialogue Agents. Foundations of Rational Agency, Springer. 10.1007/978-94-015-9204-8_8

[50]

Cannon-Bowers, J.A., and Salas, E. (1998). Measuring Team-Related Expertise in Complex Environments. Decision Making under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training, American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10278-000

Showing 50 of 52 references

Metrics

10

Citations

52

References

Details

Published: Apr 17, 2019
Vol/Issue: 12(4)
Pages: 79
License: View

Authors

N

Nader Hanna

Department of Computing, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia

D

Deborah Richards

Department of Computing, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia

Cite This Article

Nader Hanna, Deborah Richards (2019). Speech Act Theory as an Evaluation Tool for Human–Agent Communication. Algorithms, 12(4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/a12040079

Speech Act Theory as an Evaluation Tool for Human–Agent Communication

You May Also Like