David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
AI and Society 20 (2):125-137 (2005)
We have developed a broadcasting agent system, public opinion channel (POC) caster, which generates understandable conversational form from text-based documents. The POC caster circulates the opinions of community members by using conversational form in a broadcasting system on the Internet. We evaluated its transformation rules in two experiments. In experiment 1, we examined our transformation rules for conversational form in relation to sentence length. Twenty-four participants listened to two types of sentence (long sentences and short sentences) with conversational form or with single speech. In experiment 2, we investigated the relationship between conversational form and the userâs knowledge level. Forty-two participants (21 with a high knowledge level and 21 with a low knowledge level) were selected for a knowledge task and listened to two kinds of sentence (sentences about a well-known topic or sentences about an unfamiliar topic). Our results indicate that the conversational form aided comprehension, especially for long sentences and when users had little knowledge about the topic. We explore possible explanations and implications of these results with regard to human cognition and text comprehension
|Keywords||Agents Information providing Conversational form Comprehension Evaluative study|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Verena Gottschling (2004). Keeping the Conversational Score: Constraints for an Optimal Contextualist Answer? [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):295 - 314.
Mary Kate Mcgowan (2004). Conversational Exercitives: Something Else We Do with Our Words. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (1):93-111.
L. Jonathan Cohen (1994). Some Steps Towards a General Theory of Relevance. Synthese 101 (2):171 - 185.
Bence Nanay (2010). Imaginative Resistance and Conversational Implicature. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):586-600.
Rebecca Clift (1998). Lexical Misunderstandings and Prototype Theory. AI and Society 12 (3):109-133.
Alex Barber (2006). Testimony and Illusion. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (3):401-429.
Michael Blome-Tillmann (2013). Conversational Implicatures (and How to Spot Them). Philosophy Compass 8 (2):170-185.
Donald Nute (1980). Conversational Scorekeeping and Conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 9 (2):153 - 166.
Steffen Borge (2012). Communication, Cooperation and Conflict. Protosociology 29.
Andrei Marmor (2008). The Pragmatics of Legal Language. Ratio Juris 21 (4):423-452.
Alan Zemel (1998). The Passover Haggadah as Argument, Or Why Is This Text Different From Other Texts? Argumentation 12 (1):57-77.
Steffen Borge (2012). Communication, Conflict and Cooperation. Protosociology 29.
Matthew Stone, Crafting the Illusion of Meaning: Template-Based Speciﬁcation of Embodied Conversational Behavior.
Roberta Colonna Dahlman (2013). Conversational Implicatures Are Still Cancellable. Acta Analytica 28 (3):321-327.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads1 ( #438,823 of 1,101,150 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #290,630 of 1,101,150 )
How can I increase my downloads?