ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Automatic prediction of misconceptions in multilingual computer-mediated communication
Full text PdfPdf (3.23 MB)
Source International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces archive
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces table of contents
Sydney, Australia
SESSION: Natural language in the interface table of contents
Pages: 62 - 69  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-287-9
Authors
Naomi Yamashita  NTT Communication Science Labs., Soraku-gun Kyoto, Japan
Toru Ishida  Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku Kyoto, Japan
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 65,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1111449.1111469
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Multilingual communities using machine translation to overcome language barriers are showing up with increasing frequency. However, when a large number of translation errors get mixed into conversations, users have difficulty completely understanding each other. In this paper, we focus on misconceptions found in high volume in actual online conversations using machine translation. We first examine the response patterns in machine translation-mediated communication and associate them with misconceptions. Analysis results indicate that response messages to include misconceptions posted via machine translation tend to be incoherent, often focusing on short phrases of the original message. Next, based on the analysis results, we propose a method that automatically predicts the occurrence of misconceptions in each dialogue. The proposed method assesses the tendency of each dialogue including misconceptions by calculating the gaps between the regular discussion thread (syntactic thread) and the discussion thread based on lexical cohesion (semantic thread). Verification results show significant positive correlation between actual misconception frequency and gaps between syntactic and semantic threads, which indicate the validity of the method.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
2
 
3
Blakar, R. Toward a theory of communication in terms of preconditions: A conceptual framework and some empirical explorations. Recent Advances in Language, Communication, and Social Psychology, 1985, 10--40.
4
 
5
Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. E. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Elements of discourse understanding, 1981, 10--63.
 
6
Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1986, 1--39.
 
7
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E., Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 1991, 127--149.
 
8
Climent, S., More, J., Oliver, A., Salvatierra, M., Sanchez, I., Taule, M. and Vallmanya, L. Bilingual Newsgroups in Catalonia: A Challenge for Machine Translation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9, 1, 2003.
 
9
Danet, B. and Herring, S.C. Introduction: The Multilingual Internet, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol. 9, no. 1, 2003.
 
10
Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A. H., O'Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S. and Bruce, V. Face-to-face and video mediated communication: a comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 1997, 105--125.
11
 
12
Fussell, S. R. and Krauss, R. M. Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers' assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1992, 378--391.
13
 
14
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English, Longman, London, 1976.
 
15
 
16
Kim, K.J. and Bonk, C.J. Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8, 1, 2002.
 
17
Kraut, R. E., S. Lewis, S., and Swezey, L. Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation. Journal of Personality and Sociological Psychology, 43, 1982, 718--731.
 
18
19
20
21
 
22
Rogers, Y. Coordinating computer-mediated work, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 1, pp. 295--315, 1993.
 
23
Takano, Y. and Noda, A. A temporary decline of thinking ability during foreign language processing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 1993, 445--462.
 
24
25
 
26
Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, 1975, 41--58.
 
27
Ohno, F, Hamanishi, T, Kadokawa Thesaurus, Kadokawa Shoten, 1981.
 
28
Schegloff, E. A. and Sacks, H. Opening up closings. Semotica, 8, 1973, 289--327.
 
29
Yoshida, Y. and Ohga, J. Effect of S/N ratio on comfortableness of telephone dialog. Acoustic Conference, 2004.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Naomi Yamashita: colleagues
Toru Ishida: colleagues