The use of demonstratives was investigated in two different types of Dutch spoken dialogues. The first type of dialogue was same place, same time, the second type was different place, same time (telephone conversation). In the second type no difference between proximal and distal use was measured with respect to the distribution of distances to the reference .
Proximal and distal demonstratives in Dutch spoken dialogues
1. Proximal and Distal demonstratives in Dutch spoken dialogues Robbert-Jan Beun and Paul Piwek 1
2. Denk: Basic Model Domain Physical interaction Agent 2 Agent 1 Symbolic interaction Computer system User 2
3. Search spaces in DENK private beliefs Computer ‘Referring expression’ shared beliefs User: goals discourse pending 3
4. Search Space for referents Driven by ‘accessibility markers’ def articles, demonstratives, pronouns, … A: blablablablablabla The driver drinks. The policeman observes him/himself. cognitive state (beliefs, goals, …) 4
5. Priority Space for referents A:Is this block heavy? B:Yes A1:Remove it/?that/?this! A2:Remove that/?this one! A3:Remove the/that/?this block! 5
6. Would we be able to refine the rules that guide the search and the generation process for demonstrative noun phrases, in particular the difference between proximals and distals? 6
7. DemonstrativesTraditional viewpoints Demonstratives indicate relative distance of a referent in the speech situation Deictic center (origo): usually the speaker Reference to nearby-faraway distance: proximal: ‘dit/deze’ (‘this/these’) distal: ‘dat/die’ (‘that/those’) faraway 54% of the languages express a two-way contrast Distance- and person-oriented systems Anaphoric use is derived from situational use 7
14. Other proposals Based on notions such as: importance, focus, given/new, background/foreground, force to seek the antecedent, intensity of indicating, accessibility, prominence, distance, (degree of) attention, familiarity, shared knowledge, contrast, presupposed vs. predicted, ... Hard to quantify! 9
17. If accessibility is low, then give more force If importance is high, then give more force Applied to demonstratives (Kirsner, 1979) proximals strong indicating distals neutral indicating 12 Intensity of indicating
18. Findings by kirsner (1979) Accessibility proximals used over longer distances proximals are related with low accessibility Importance proximals more often used: to refer to humans, (named) individuals to refer to individual referents (as opposed to plural) in subject position proximals are related with high importance 13
19.
20. Nr. of words: ~5000 Domain of discourse: blocks world Channel: spoken Goal: make building like example Builder: B, Instructor: I 14
22. Example (original in dutch) I: Well J. B: Yes I: Let’s see …uh, do you have a red square? B: Yes I: Well, for a start, you have to … put that on the horizontal … beam v- uh, the bleu one, two by six B: yes I: in the front B: over here? I: yes, a little more to the front side B: like this? I: yes, like that, that is the first change, and then, uh, let’s see, what is the old one … (2.0) yes, then you have to put that block, in the middle, that one with yellow, that one has to be removed B: this? I: take it away 16
23. hypothesis The use of a proximal vs. distal is related to the intensity of indicating: If accessibility is low use proximal If importance is high use proximal Else use distal 17
24. results Accessibility and importance in terms of focus of attention and task at hand (manipulation) If low accessibility then proximal yes (χ²=6.76, p<0.01) If high importance then proximal no significant result 18
25. SOME remarks We investigated only situational reference i.e. first reference to physical objects Proximals were always (except one) accompanied by pointing Operational criteria of accessibility and importance are disputable (also in Kirsner’s proposal) 19
26. So, … Intuitively a proximal refers to nearby, more accessible information, but … Observations showed that proximals refer to less accessible information reference over longer distances (Kirsner) reference to objects that were not directly in the focus of the speaker’s attention (Piwek, et al) 20
27. Corpus 2 Dutch dialogue Domain of discourse: computer, telephone, internet Channel: spoken, phone Goal: solving problems with computer Client: C, Helpdesk agent: A Nr. of words: ~30000 21
28. Example (original in dutch) A: I understand from a colleague that you have a problem with your phone C: yes, I am now on the phone for almost one hour and I want … A: hmmh C: and I am phoning that oneon the phone, a P. or a P. … A: hmmh C: from the helpdesk, that onewas helping me, I had to reset … that is what I did, and then, the phone, well, it disappeared, the signal,… A: ok C: then I tried again, but couldn’t get him, I phoned several times … A: yes C: and that didn’t work and now, I did, uhh, well, uhh … A: ok, so you are phoning with a mobile phone now? C: yes, … 22
32. Exophoric (new) 7.84 K: Ik kan even geen ‘servers’ vinden, eh … , dan moet ik even dit aanklikken K: I cannot find ‘servers’, uh … , then I have to click this. 10.108 K:Dus, sluiten met die x in de rechterbovenhoek? K: So, closing with that x in the upper right corner? 26
33. Associative anaphor (new) 1.36 A:Telefoneren is wel goedkoop, maar ik telefoneer zo dikwijls dat ik dat weer kwijt ben aan mijn mobiele telefoon. A: Phoning may be cheap, but I am phoning so often that I am loosing that with my mobile phone. 4.17 A:U zult merken dat uw verbinding weer werkt als dat rode lampje uitgaat. A: You will notice that your connection works again if that red light is off. 27
38. No difference in distance distribution between proximal and distal reference 32
39. No difference in distance distribution between proximal and distal reference But how then could we measure a difference in accessibility in the first corpus? 33
40. No difference in distance distribution between proximal and distal reference But how then could we measure a difference in accessibility in the first corpus? Because people pointed to important and faraway objects. Pointing brings the object in focus and therefore nearby use a proximal Distinguish between the act of reference and the act of focusing. 34
41.
42. But suppose proximals are more near or in focus, then why didn’t we measure a difference in the distance distribution? 36
43. Substructures in discourse 6.15 K: I want to remove my email address 6.19 A: You cannot remove this email address 6.20 K: That is a problem 6.29 A: Do you use this email address? 37 substructure substructure
54. conclusion The traditional classification of near and faraway could be restored We found no difference in distance (distribution) between proximal and distal use in number of turns Distance in turns or words is not (always) an adequate measure for accessibility or nearness degree of focus in perceivable world (situation) related to structure in discourse (domain model, task) A clear distinction should be made between the act of bringing an object into focus and the act of reference Conversational setting should be described very carefully 44
Hinweis der Redaktion
I am not a linguistI am in ‘computational communication’, in particular the combination of symbols and the perceivable worldWe are trying to develop computer programs that model aspects of multimodality‘This overhead projector’ is an exampleThat demonstrative was another oneGoal: cooperative computer interfaceNatural language Visual access of electron microscope
Journal of Pragmatics
Accessibility in terms of domain focus:1. adjacent to object that was previously mentioned2. in area to which the speaker explicitly directed the attentionImportance:Only referred blocks that have to be manipulated(in contrast to e.g. objects used for identification of other objects)
Start from scratch, no hypothesis, only observationsFocus only discourse reference, not on situational reference
Majority is normal anaphoric reference
Last case is interesting. Not real deictic. There was no previous introduction of this red light, but it seems obvious from the perceptual abilities of the interlocutors. A assumes that K can observe a red light on the modem if he would see the modem. Still, I am not sure of the correct use, but that doesn’t seem to be important. It is more important that A uses a distal instead of a definite (the red light). In other words, there seem to be a gradual transition where the speaker may choose one of the two forms. Note that the use of ‘this’ would be inappropriate, because there is no observable red light and the light was not introduced before.
It seems that proximal is more ‘nearby’ than distalHowever …!
Synchronization of act of reference and the act of bringing into focus.In the combination of text and perception in parallel.In text (speech) only: parallel in volume, tone, accentuationserial, see the next slide
Synchronization of act of reference and the act of bringing into focus.In the combination of text and perception in parallel.In text (speech) only: parallel in volume, tone, accentuationserial, see the next slide
Synchronization of act of reference and the act of bringing into focus.In the combination of text and perception in parallel.In text (speech) only: parallel in volume, tone, accentuationserial, see the next slide
Textual first introduction: definite is also possible, but distal sounds strange.Deictic first: we would expect some action or pointing at that particular location Himmelman: ‘Deixis am Phantasma’, to pretend that the narrated event is actually happening in front of the narrator and the audience
Gricean quantity implicature other emails addresses can be removedSee also 8.91
p nogcontroleren
Significant difference in the use of extra information related to the distance of the antecedent.