The user's perception of the interaction language: A two-level model

ABSTRACT

Users perceive consistency and inconsistency in syntax, and family resemblances among syntactic constructions. These factors are not captured in conventional BNF-like grammars. We argue that a generalised form of a two-level grammar is a better model of the user's perceptions, and show how the model relates to current psychological notions of organisation in recall and language learning. The model provides a unified interpretation of many previous results in HCI: we analyse here findings by Reisner (1981) and Barnard et al. (1981). Two preliminary experimental tests supporting the model are described.

REFERENCES

• 1: Barnard, P.J., Hammond, N.V., Morton, J. and Long, J. (1981) Consistency and compatibility in command languages. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15, 87-134.
• 2: Carroll, J.M., (1980) Learning, usign and designing command paradigms. Report No. RC 8141, IBM Watson Research Center, New York.
• 3: Clark, E.V. and Hecht, B.V. (1982) Learning to coin agent and instrument nouns. Cognition, 12, 1-24.
• 4: Cleaveland, J.C. and Uzgalis, R.C., (1977) Grammars for Programming Languages. New York: Elsevier.
• 5: Gazdar, G. (1982) Phrase structure grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G.K. (Eds.) The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Reidel.
• 6: Green, T.R.G. (1983) Learning big and little programming languages. In Wilkinson, A.C. (Ed.) Classroom Computers and Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press.
• 7: Moran, T.P. (1981)The command language grammar. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15, 3-50.
• 8: Neisser, U. and Weene, P. (1962) Hierarchies in concept attainment. Journal of Experimental Psychology,64, 6, 640-645.
• 9: Frank G. Pagen, Formal Specifications of Programming Language: A Panoramic Primer, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1981
• 10: Reber, A.S., Kassin, S.M., Lewis, S. and Cantor, G. (1980) On the relationship between implicit and explicit modes in the learning of a complex rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 5, 492-502.
• 11: Reisner, P. (1981) Formal grammar and design of an interactive system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 5, 229-240.
• 12: Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. (1979) Cognition and Categorisation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 13: Rosenberg, J.K. (1982) Evaluating the suggestiveness of command names. Behaviour and Information Technology, 1, 4, 371-400.
• 14: Treisman, A.M. (1965) Verbal responses and contextual constraints in language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 118-128.
• 15: Tulving, E. (1962) Subjective organisation in free recall of "unrelated" words. Psychological Review, 69, 344-354.
• 16: Tulving, E. and Donaldson, W. (Eds.) (1972) Organization and Memory. New York: Academic Press.
• 17: Tversky, A. (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
• 18: Tversky, A. (1979) Studies in similarity. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. (Eds.) Cognition and Categorisation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 19: van Wijngaarden, A. (1966) Recursive definition of syntax and semantics. In Steel, T.B. (Ed.) Formal Description Languages for Computer Programming. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
• 20: Terry Winograd, Language As a Cognitive Process: Syntax, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1982

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.4 MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND FORMAL LANGUAGES
      F.4.3 Formal Languages
          Subjects: Classes defined by grammars or automata (e.g., context-free languages, regular sets, recursive sets)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.7 Natural Language Processing

General Terms:
Human Factors, Languages, Management