Speech Act Of Agreement

Another very influential view of speech acts was developed by Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores in their 1987 text “Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design.” Probably the most important part of their analysis is to be found in a state transfer diagram (in Chapter 5) which Winograd and Flores claim is the basis for the significant delocalutional (act) assertions of two parties that try to coordinate action between them (whether the agents involved are man-man, man-computer or computer). While unblocking acts refer more to the spokesperson, perlocutionary acts are centered around the listener. Perlocutionary acts always have a “perlocutionary effect”, which is the effect of an act of speech on a listener. This could affect the listener`s thoughts, emotions, or even physical actions. [16] One example might be someone saying the phrase “I`m hungry.” The perlocutionary effect on the auditor could be the effect of being convinced of the statement. For example, after hearing the statement, the listener might be persuaded to make a sandwich for the spokesperson. This transactional view of oral procedures has important applications in many areas where individuals (humans) have played different roles – for example, a patient and a doctor might meet at a meeting where the patient requests treatment, where the doctor responds with a counter-offer including a treatment he deems appropriate, and the patient may react. etc. Such a “Conversation for Action” can describe a situation in which an external observer (for example.B.

a computer or health information system) may be able to track the ILLOCUTIONARY (or Speech Act) STATUS of negotiations between the patient and the physician`s participants, even if there is no appropriate model of the disease or proposed treatments. The main finding of Winograd and Flores is that the transition diagram of social (delocative) negotiation between the two parties represents is in general much, much simpler than any model representing the world in which these parties claim; In short, the system that follows the status of “conversation for action” does not need to deal with modeling all the realities of the outside world. A discussion of action depends decisively on certain stereotypical claims about the status of the world made by both sides. Thus, a “conversation for action” can be easily tracked and facilitated by a device that has little or no ability to model real-world circumstances, apart from the ability to record the claims of certain agents via a domain. Multi-agent systems sometimes use voice act labels to express an agent`s intent when sending a message to another agent. For example, the intent “inform” in the message “inform (content)” can be interpreted as an invitation for the receiving agent to add the “content” element to its knowledge base; This contrasts with the “query (content)” message, which can be interpreted (depending on the semantics used) as a requirement to see if the item`s content is currently in the receiving agent knowledge base. . . .