Clarification on Uptake Level

Typically, research in clarification requests has focussed on the communicative categories of perception and understanding: An addressee can fail to perceive an utterance sufficiently, ask for repetition, and the speaker can then try to be more articulate; or an addressee can fail to understand the intended meaning of an utterance, ask for elaboration, and the speaker can offer a more perspicuous reformulation.

However, inspired by Clark’s hierarchy of grounding, Schlangen (2004) has devised an annotation scheme for clarification requests that does include level 4 clarification requests under the labelrecognizing and evaluating speaker intention. Naturally, the distinction between strong and weak uptake has not been made in this work. Rodr´ıguez and Schlangen (2004) have annotated a German language corpus of task-oriented dialogue with this annotation scheme; the corpus consists of dialogues where an instructor I explains a constructor K how to assemble a paper airplane.4 The examples5 (1) and (2) below are from this corpus and both have been annotated as referring to a communicative problem on the level of uptake. However, one of them seems to refer to weak uptake and the other to strong uptake.

(1) K: [. . . ] okay , nochmal von vorne K: okay, again from the top I: ganz von vorne? I: from the very top?

K: nein , also [I: mhm] ich habe jetzt das sechs Dinger lang. K: no, well, [I: mhm] I got the six things long now

3_{A strict reading of KoS’s approach only considers the Facts field common ground.} However, the Questions Under Discussion are also mutual knowledge of the dialogue par- ticipants, and certainly influence their conversational obligations; QUD may be reasonably called part of the common ground as well.

4_{I thank the authors for providing me with their corpus for my research.} 5

3. Clarification Background

In the example (1) communication fails on the level of weak uptake. K requests I to start over, but I isn’t sure what exactly is asked of him: Where should he start repeating? In terms of project obligations, I is unable to determine what obligation it is that the proposed project would impose on him. To clarify, K repeats the last instruction she understood, so that I can start over from that point precisely.

As described in chapter 2, the domain of clarification requests on uptake level contains questions that indicate a general reluctance to complete strong uptake. The next example is another instance of this.

(2) K: das ist zwar bei mir dadrunter, aber gut, ist egal

K:for me that is in fact below this, but well, doesn’t matter I:wieso dadrunter?

I:why below?

K: ja, die kommt dahin, ist gut.[. . . ] K:yes, it belongs there, all okay.

In example (2), K voices a belief that something is on the wrong side of the airplane. Instead of committing to this assertion, I asks why K would propose this—clarifying towards the proposer reason project felicity condition. After K cannot supply a good reason, she relents and abandons her project.

In related work, Rieser and Moore (2005) have adapted the annotation scheme of (Schlangen, 2004) to annotate the Carnegie Mellon Communicator Corpus (Bennett and Rudnicky, 2002) containing dialogues of a (travel) agent with a customer. They include the novel categoriescontradicting belief (as in example (3)) and ambiguity refinement (as in example (4)) as sources for clarification requests at uptake level; both examples are cited from their paper. In my terminology, ambiguity refinement happens on the level of weak uptake—an unresolved ambiguity in the project proposal precludes a joint construal of the project itself. On the other hand, as already remarked in chapter 2, contradicting belief is a special case of addressee reason project felicity: Holding an inconsistent belief is a reasonnot to adopt an asserted belief as joint.

(3) A: You need a visa. C:I do need one?

Failure of Strong Uptake 3. Clarification

(4) A: Okay I have two options: with Hertz . . . if not they do have a lower rate with Budget and that is fifty one dollars.

C: Per day?

Furthermore, Benotti (2009) has worked specifically on clarification requests that are generated by a problem beyond mere understanding. The focus of her investigation lies on planning: Once the addressee of some instruction has understood the speaker’s intention, he needs to come up with a plan to execute this instruction. Over the course of this planning process, issues might arise that prompt clarification requests. Further clarifications can arise during the execution of the plan. The following example is cited by Benotti (2009) as a typical clarification on planning-level.

(5) A: Turn it on.

B: By pushing the red button?

In this example, B has understood the speakers intention, namely that B is asked to turn the machine on. Apparently, B has completed weak uptake and is now preparing to execute the joint project; as I have argued in the definition of strong uptake, I consider planning as part of this preparation to complete strong uptake. In contrast, clarification requests that happen during execution of a joint project don’t seem to be part of the grounding

process itself, but rather part of the coordination devices of the project.