<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="maro-etal-2024-common">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Common Ground inconsistencies in dialogue systems: conflict patterns implied by polar question forms</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Maria</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">Di</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Maro</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Antonio</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Origlia</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Francesco</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Cutugno</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2024-12</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <genre authority="bibutilsgt">journal article</genre>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Dialogue &amp; Discourse</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <originInfo>
            <issuance>continuing</issuance>
            <publisher>University of Illinois Chicago</publisher>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">Chicago, Illinois, USA</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
        <genre authority="bibutilsgt">academic journal</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>In linguistics, research on dialogue systems has accentuated the need to focus on various pragmatic aspects for their management and modelling. Among the most important pragma-linguistic speech acts in dialogue systems studies are Clarification Requests, corrective feedback that in some circumstances require access to the set of shared knowledge known as Common Ground. Regarding Common Ground management, pragmatic studies suggest differences in the type of polar questions that people prefer be used in Clarification Requests, where polar questions can have two possible answers: true or false. This preference appears to depend on the relationship between bias and contextual evidence. In this work, we show that varying the form of polar questions in a given pragmatic setting can influence the capability of people to track Common Ground inconsistencies. As a result, we demonstrate that using a negative polar question in Italian has functional consequences when communicating conflicting material in the Common Ground. This can improve the quality of human interactions with dialogue systems, in terms of an improved identification of the conflict. The results obtained in this work provide insights into design of error reporting approaches in natural interactions.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">maro-etal-2024-common</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.5210/dad.2024.204</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.dnd-15.1/</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2024-12</date>
        <detail type="volume"><number>15</number></detail>
        <extent unit="page">
            <start>113</start>
            <end>144</end>
        </extent>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Journal Article
%T Common Ground inconsistencies in dialogue systems: conflict patterns implied by polar question forms
%A Maro, Maria Di
%A Origlia, Antonio
%A Cutugno, Francesco
%J Dialogue & Discourse
%D 2024
%8 December
%V 15
%I University of Illinois Chicago
%C Chicago, Illinois, USA
%F maro-etal-2024-common
%X In linguistics, research on dialogue systems has accentuated the need to focus on various pragmatic aspects for their management and modelling. Among the most important pragma-linguistic speech acts in dialogue systems studies are Clarification Requests, corrective feedback that in some circumstances require access to the set of shared knowledge known as Common Ground. Regarding Common Ground management, pragmatic studies suggest differences in the type of polar questions that people prefer be used in Clarification Requests, where polar questions can have two possible answers: true or false. This preference appears to depend on the relationship between bias and contextual evidence. In this work, we show that varying the form of polar questions in a given pragmatic setting can influence the capability of people to track Common Ground inconsistencies. As a result, we demonstrate that using a negative polar question in Italian has functional consequences when communicating conflicting material in the Common Ground. This can improve the quality of human interactions with dialogue systems, in terms of an improved identification of the conflict. The results obtained in this work provide insights into design of error reporting approaches in natural interactions.
%R 10.5210/dad.2024.204
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.dnd-15.1/
%U https://doi.org/10.5210/dad.2024.204
%P 113-144

Markdown (Informal)

[Common Ground inconsistencies in dialogue systems: conflict patterns implied by polar question forms](https://aclanthology.org/2024.dnd-15.1/) (Maro et al., DND 2024)

• Common Ground inconsistencies in dialogue systems: conflict patterns implied by polar question forms (Maro et al., DND 2024)

ACL

• Maria Di Maro, Antonio Origlia, and Francesco Cutugno. 2024. Common Ground inconsistencies in dialogue systems: conflict patterns implied by polar question forms. Dialogue & Discourse, 15:113–144.