Dialogue Macrogame Theory Part IV: Approaches to dialogue Peter Kühnlein.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Part IV: Approaches to dialogue Peter Kühnlein

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. M02, 1:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. Some dialogues can be analyzed with DMT; some cannot. M02, 1:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. Some dialogues can be analyzed with DMT […]. Where it fits, DMT gives a partial technical characterization of the classes of dialogues represented in the analysis. M02, 1:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. […T]his paper introduces a new term, Dialogue Macrogame, which represents some structures that resemble the dialogue games of the predecessor model. M02, 1-2:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. M02, 1,3:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. […] The assumptions of DMT include saying that not all dialogues are alike, and that the differences between dialogue situations affect the dynamics of the dialogues which occur in them. M02, 1,3:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. […] The assumptions of DMT include saying that not all dialogues are alike, and that the differences between dialogue situations affect the dynamics of the dialogues which occur in them. We therefore […] seek to find a set of theories that can jointly account for the coherence of dialogues that arise in different kinds of situations. M02, 1,3:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Dialogue Macrogame Theory is designed to enable analysis of particular natural language dialogues. […] A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. […] The assumptions of DMT include saying that not all dialogues are alike, and that the differences between dialogue situations affect the dynamics of the dialogues which occur in them. We therefore […] seek to find a set of theories that can jointly account for the coherence of dialogues that arise in different kinds of situations. […] DMT is designed to be one such theory. M02, 1,3:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. M02, 3:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent if a person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impression that every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalently that there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained. M02, 3:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent if a person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impression that every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalently that there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained. M02, 3: Mann points out that it is researchers’ impressions that count as evidence for the coherence of dialogues, not those of participants.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent if a person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impression that every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalently that there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained. M02, 3-4: Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of the dialogue participants.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent if a person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impression that every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalently that there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained. M02, 3-4: Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of the dialogue participants. It arises especially from the way that the conventions of dialogue cause the participants to adopt and dismiss groups of intentions.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent if a person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impression that every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalently that there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained. M02, 3-4: Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of the dialogue participants. It arises especially from the way that the conventions of dialogue cause the participants to adopt and dismiss groups of intentions. Grouping of intentions is the foundation for coordination of the activities of dialogue participants.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory A major goal of [DMT] is to provide a descriptive account for the coherence of a wide diversity of natural dialogues. A dialogue is said to be coherent if a person who has good access to the dialogue is left with the impression that every part of the dialogue contributed to the remainder, or equivalently that there are no parts whose presence is not easily explained. M02, 3-4: Dialogue coherence arises from the intentions (also called goals) of the dialogue participants. It arises especially from the way that the conventions of dialogue cause the participants to adopt and dismiss groups of intentions. Grouping of intentions is the foundation for coordination of the activities of dialogue participants. How is this expressed by DMT?

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. M02, 4:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of three goals: M02, 4: 1.A goal of the initiator 2. 3.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of three goals: M02, 4: 1.A goal of the initiator 2.A goal of the responder 3.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of three goals: M02, 4: 1.A goal of the initiator 2.A goal of the responder 3.A joint goal This is very similar to what is known from Dialogue Games Theory

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of three goals: M02, 4: 1.A goal of the initiator 2.A goal of the responder 3.A joint goal When a game is used, the goal of the initiator and the joint goal will be in the memory of the initiator as commitments. (DMT does not constrain the relationship of these two.)

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of three goals: M02, 4: 1.A goal of the initiator 2.A goal of the responder 3.A joint goal When a game is used, the goal of the initiator and the joint goal will be in the memory of the initiator as commitments. […] Similarly, the goal of the responder and the joint goal will be in the memory of the responder as commitments.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory The major construct of Dialogue Macrogame Theory is, of course, the dialogue macrogame. A (dialogue macro)game is defined as a set of three goals: M02, 4: 1.A goal of the initiator 2.A goal of the responder 3.A joint goal In each memory, the two goals are committed and uncommitted simultaneously, and at the same time each person’s knowledge of the other’s commitments is adjusted.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 4: One of the games is the Information Offering game.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 4: One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, a single occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long interval of interaction.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 4: One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, a single occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long interval of interaction. Currently in DMT there are about 19 defined games.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R)

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Seeking (IS) I knows the information that is sought I has identified to R the information that is sought R has provided the information that is sought

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Seeking (IS) I knows the information that is sought I has identified to R the information that is sought R has provided the information that is sought Information Offering (IO) R comes to know the information that is offered I has provided the information that is offered R has identified the information that is offered

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Seeking (IS) I knows the information that is sought I has identified to R the information that is sought R has provided the information that is sought Information Offering (IO) R comes to know the information that is offered I has provided the information that is offered R has identified the information that is offered Action Seeking (AS) R knows what action A I wants R to do (or what outcome O that I wants R to accomplish) I has identified to R the action A or outcome O R has decided whether to commit to doing A or seeking to accomplish O

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Seeking (IS) I knows the information that is sought I has identified to R the information that is sought R has provided the information that is sought Information Offering (IO) R comes to know the information that is offered I has provided the information that is offered R has identified the information that is offered Action Seeking (AS) R knows what action A I wants R to do (or what outcome O that I wants R to accomplish) I has identified to R the action A or outcome O R has decided whether to commit to doing A or seeking to accomplish O Action Offering (AO) R knows what action A I is offering to do for R (or what outcome O that I is offering to seek to accomplish) I has identified to R the action A or outcome O that is offered R has decided and expressed to I whether R accepts I’s offer to do A or seek to achieve O

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Permission Seeking (PS) Determine whether R gives permission to I to do a particular action A or seek a particular outcome O of action I has identified to R the action A or outcome O for which permission is sought R has decided whether R grants permission to I to do A or seek to achieve O

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Probe (IP) I knows whether R knows particular information (inf) which R could already know based on prior experience I has identified inf to R R has exhibited R’s own knowledge of inf

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Probe (IP) I knows whether R knows particular information (inf) which R could already know based on prior experience I has identified inf to R R has exhibited R’s own knowledge of inf Socratic Challenge (SC) I knows whether R can construct particular information (inf) which R plausibly is able to construct based on prior experience I has identified inf to R R has exhibited R’s own knowledge of inf

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Information Probe (IP) I knows whether R knows particular information (inf) which R could already know based on prior experience I has identified inf to R R has exhibited R’s own knowledge of inf Socratic Challenge (SC) I knows whether R can construct particular information (inf) which R plausibly is able to construct based on prior experience I has identified inf to R R has exhibited R’s own knowledge of inf The difference reduces to IP testing knowledge while SC tests inference capabilities

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Clarification Seeking (CS) I and R come to have compatible views of U I expresses an uncertainty about U R reduces the uncertainty of I about U

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Clarification Seeking (CS) I and R come to have compatible views of U I expresses an uncertainty about U R reduces the uncertainty of I about U Suggestion Offering (SO) R knows an idea (possibly hypothetical or conjectural) S of I I has expressed SR has expressed the adequacy of R’s knowledge of S

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Clarification Seeking (CS) I and R come to have compatible views of U I expresses an uncertainty about U R reduces the uncertainty of I about U Suggestion Offering (SO) R knows an idea (possibly hypothetical or conjectural) S of I I has expressed SR has expressed the adequacy of R’s knowledge of S Response Seeking (RS) I comes to know R’s view of S I knows R’s view of S R has expressed a personal view of S

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Clarification Seeking (CS) I and R come to have compatible views of U I expresses an uncertainty about U R reduces the uncertainty of I about U Suggestion Offering (SO) R knows an idea (possibly hypothetical or conjectural) S of I I has expressed SR has expressed the adequacy of R’s knowledge of S Response Seeking (RS) I comes to know R’s view of S I knows R’s view of S R has expressed a personal view of S Plan Making (PM) Create a plan to achieve a state described by S Contribute to a plan to achieve a state described by S

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Conversation Seeking (CS) I and R interact in dialogue I initiates the interaction with R R interacts with I All DMGs except this one can be embedded in one another

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Conversation Seeking (CS) (not recursive) I and R interact in dialogue I initiates the interaction with R R interacts with I

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of GameJoint GoalGoal of Initiator (I)Goal of Responder (R) Conversation Seeking (CS) (not recursive) I and R interact in dialogue I initiates the interaction with R R interacts with I Unidentified Game (UG) ---

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 4: One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, a single occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long interval of interaction. Currently in DMT there are about 19 defined games.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 4: One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, a single occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long interval of interaction. Currently in DMT there are about 19 defined games. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm:: The set of dialogue games is open in principle. Researchers can add or modify definitions to fit their perceptions and purposes.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 4: One of the games is the Information Offering game. Like all other games, a single occurrence of this game can account for an indefinitely long interval of interaction. Currently in DMT there are about 19 defined games. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm:: The set of dialogue games is open in principle. […] More basically, the set is open in principle because the macrogames are seen as cultural conventions. This reflects Mann’s original intention to parallel Wittgenstein’s “Sprachspiele” with “dialogue games”

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. These actions are almost always implicit, but certain situations (especially the diagnosis of misunderstanding) can cause them to become explicit.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebg

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebg accept a gameag

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebg accept a gameag reject a gamerg

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dgamedefs.htm: Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebgbid termination of a game bt accept a gameagaccept termination of a game at reject a gamergreject termination of a game rt

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. If a game has been bid and the bid has been accepted the game is open. Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebgbid termination of a game bt accept a gameagaccept termination of a game at reject a gamergreject termination of a game rt

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. [...] The scope of a game is the entire interval during which it is in use, including the initial bid of the game […] Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebgbid termination of a game bt accept a gameagaccept termination of a game at reject a gamergreject termination of a game rt

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. [...] The scope of a game is the entire interval during which it is in use, including the […] final acceptance of termination Name of Game ActAbbreviationName of Game ActAbbreviation bid a gamebgbid termination of a game bt accept a gameagaccept termination of a game at reject a gamergreject termination of a game rt

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: The course of a dialogue between peers is generally under the control of both participants. They coordinate and jointly control by means of particular kinds of actions. DMT uses a negotiation metaphor to describe this. A game is bid by the initiator, and the responder accepts or rejects the bid. […] Similarly, games terminate by negotiation. […] Since DMT applies to entire dialogues, it supplements views of sentences, turns or inherently small collections of turns in dialogue. Up to this point, besides the definition of the scope of a game everything seems to be just like good old dialogue games theory (Mann 1982)

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. It has been one of the shortcomings of DG theory that it was not possible to treat speech-action pairs. Unilaterals promise to remedy this problem.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples TellProvide informationDoctor announces a diagnosis Remember: To provide information is the purpose of the information offering (IO) game, too. The relation between DMGs and Unilaterals will be discussed shortly.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples TellProvide informationDoctor announces a diagnosis DirectRequest actionScalpel. Go. Buy it. Again, to request action is the purpose of the action seeking game.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples TellProvide informationDoctor announces a diagnosis DirectRequest actionScalpel. Go. Buy it. ActionPerform an action during the dialogue turn on a light “Action” is a Unilateral that has no parallel in DGT

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples AssessExpress attitudes or evaluations of situations Wonderful. That’s a new threat. This, in turn, could be a case of information offering (IO)

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples AssessExpress attitudes or evaluations of situations Wonderful. That’s a new threat. SuggestionPropose an idea for consideration Maybe you could take a pill before you go to dinner. There is a DMG called “Suggestion Offering” defined above

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples AssessExpress attitudes or evaluations of situations Wonderful. That’s a new threat. SuggestionPropose an idea for consideration Maybe you could take a pill before you go to dinner. PromiseCommit to a future action or to create a future condition I’ll pay you the rest of it tomorrow. How about the action offering (AO) game, here?

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples Rhetorical Question Raise a question without indicating expectation of an answer Are presidents saints? Maybe cases of information probing (IP) or socratic challenge (SC) games?

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples Rhetorical Question Raise a question without indicating expectation of an answer Are presidents saints? RepairRevise a prior expressionA: I need three feet of canvas. B: OK. A: Make that three yards. This seems okay as a Unilateral.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of UnilateralDefining FunctionExamples Rhetorical Question Raise a question without indicating expectation of an answer Are presidents saints? RepairRevise a prior expressionA: I need three feet of canvas. B: OK. A: Make that three yards. CompletionProvide an ending for something being said by another A: A stitch in time is worth --- B: --- two in the bush.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. It is about time to have a look at the relation between DMGs and Unilaterals. Here is what Mann explains.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use (We are presented with a table, again.)

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Unilateral

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant

Dialogue Macrogame Theory This characterization of Unilaterals seems at least doubtful. How about the Completion? From our own corpus Inst: Now you take Const: a screw should count as a completion, yet is uttered in the pursuit of a joint goal. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant

Dialogue Macrogame Theory This characterization of Unilaterals seems at least doubtful. How about the Direct? As introduced, there seems to be no difference between it and the bid of an Action Seeking game. (This idea will be elaborated a little more in a minute.) http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant

Dialogue Macrogame Theory This characterization of Unilaterals seems at least doubtful. How about the Direct? As introduced, there seems to be no difference between it and the bid of an Action Seeking game. Besides this, the latter could be used in pursuit of just the initiator’s intention. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2 UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1

Dialogue Macrogame Theory How about the Completion, again? By definition, Completion provides an ending for something being said by another. So it necessarily involves two participants. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2 UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2 UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2yes UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1no

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Not all of the DMGs are recursive: Conversation Seeking (CS) notably and explicitly can not be embedded: It is marked as “not recursive”. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2yes UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1no

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Not all of the DMGs are recursive: Conversation Seeking (CS) notably and explicitly can not be embedded. The Unilateral Suggest, on the other hand, can surely be embedded. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2yes UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1no

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2yes UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1no

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dg-parts.htm: NameFunctionNumber of Participants Recursive?Example of Use Dialogue Macrogame Jointly pursue the goals of the Participants 2yes[Given elsewhere] UnilateralPursue one or more goals of One Participant 1noI’ll do that. It’s done.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Mann’s opinion, in short: Unilaterals are actions that are part of the interaction, performed by only one of the participants, that distinctively do not involve collaboration or joint goals.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large really are (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation?

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at the categories of Unilaterals.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. The example (“Thank you”) could very well be the acceptance of an action offering (AO) game.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. What makes it a “polite” speech act is the Searle & Vandervekian (1992) “mode of achievement”

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. AcknowledgeExpress clear hearing, agreement, willingness to comply with requests,… OK. Yes. Roger. Here is quite a hotchpotch of “defining functions”; but acts (1) and (2) look like answers to previous utterances.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. AcknowledgeExpress clear hearing, agreement, willingness to comply with requests,… OK. Yes. Roger. Here is quite a hotchpotch of “defining functions”; (3) seems to be a case of meta-communication

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. AcknowledgeExpress clear hearing, agreement, willingness to comply with requests,… OK. Yes. Roger. Media Mgt.Establish, maintain, terminate communication media Hello. Over. Have a nice day. Utterances (1) and (3) seem to be paradigm cases of (1) conversation seeking and (3) bid of termination of CS or acceptance thereof.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. AcknowledgeExpress clear hearing, agreement, willingness to comply with requests,… OK. Yes. Roger. Media Mgt.Establish, maintain, terminate communication media Hello. Over. Have a nice day. Utterance (2) seems to be meta-communication.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/dialogue/dmtunilaterals.htm Name of Category of Unilaterals Defining FunctionExamples PolitenessActs of respect, honor, gratitude… Thank you. AcknowledgeExpress clear hearing, agreement, willingness to comply with requests,… OK. Yes. Roger. Media Mgt.Establish, maintain, terminate communication media Hello. Over. Have a nice day. These two cases – obviously meta-communication - remain.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at the categories of Unilaterals.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at the categories of Unilaterals. The “defining functions” and the examples support the suspicion that Unilaterals by and large should count not as a new type of entity in DMT.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at the categories of Unilaterals. The “defining functions” and the examples support the suspicion that Unilaterals by and large should count not as a new type of entity in DMT. Rather, they should be characterized as indicated.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Proposal: The Unilaterals of DMT by and large are really (complex) speech acts that constitute either bid or acceptance of a good old DG – plus non-linguistic action and meta-communication. Is there a way to support this interpretation? Let’s have a look at the categories of Unilaterals. The “defining functions” and the examples support the suspicion that Unilaterals by and large should count not as a new type of entity in DMT. Rather, they should be characterized as indicated. The meta-communicative acts should be taken to be explicit bids or acceptances plus turn-taking signals.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Summary: DMT is a partially refined version of DGT.

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Summary: DMT is a partially refined version of DGT. The inventory of DGT comprises the inventory of DMT (with a changed definition of the scope of a DG).

Dialogue Macrogame Theory M02, 5: It turns out that most dialogues do not consist entirely of goal pursuit that could be represented by dialogue macrogames. Other things happen, even when the major activity is joint goal pursuit. DMT has a class of actions that do not involve joint goals and that are generally confined to a single turn. They are called Unilateral Actions or Unilaterals. Summary: DMT is a partially refined version of DGT. The inventory of DGT comprises the inventory of DMT (with a changed definition of the scope of a DG). Unilaterals are in fact already implicit in DGT, except (1) actions and (2) meta-communicative acts.

Two Ss, instructor and constructor cooperate in building a toy airplane Dialog example & situation

Previous step  : highest coordination peak point   Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst:So, jetzt nimmst du Well, now you take Cnst:eine Schraube a screw. Inst:eine orangene mit einem Schlitz. an orange one with a slit Cnst:Ja. Yes Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst:So, jetzt nimmst du Well, now you take Cnst:eine Schraube a screw. Inst:eine orangene mit einem Schlitz. an orange one with a slit Cnst:Ja. Yes Available Bolts Dialog example & situation

(B) Inst: Und steckst sie dadurch, also And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: Von oben. From the top. Inst: Von oben, daß also die drei festgeschraubt werden dann. From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst: Ja. Yes. Intended Junction Intended Result Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take Cnst: a screw. Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take Cnst: a screw. Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation Assume that you are left with the impression that this discourse is coherent.

(A) Inst: Well, now you take Cnst: a screw. Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation Assume that you are left with the impression that this discourse is coherent. How can it be annotated using DMT?

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation This is fairly straightforward.

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag ? Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation Of course, constructor accepts the bid; but the utterance can be classified in various ways…

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. Completion? Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation Of course, constructor accepts the bid; but the utterance can be classified in various ways…

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit SO, bg ? Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit IO, bg ? Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair ? Cnst: Yes. (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bg Cnst: From the top. Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bg Cnst: From the top. Completion ? Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bg Cnst: From the top. CS, bg ? Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bg Cnst: From the top. CS, bg Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bg Cnst: From the top. CS, bg Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. CS, ag Cnst:Yes. Dialog example & situation

(A) Inst: Well, now you take AS, bg Cnst: a screw. AS, ag Inst:an orange one with a slit Repair Cnst: Yes. AS, bt (B) Inst: And you put it through there, let’s see AS, bg Cnst: From the top. CS, bg Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed. CS, ag Cnst:Yes. AS, bt Dialog example & situation

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Part IV: Approaches to dialogue Peter Kühnlein.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dialogue Macrogame Theory Part IV: Approaches to dialogue Peter Kühnlein."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Dialogue Macrogame Theory Part IV: Approaches to dialogue Peter Kühnlein.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dialogue Macrogame Theory Part IV: Approaches to dialogue Peter Kühnlein."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback