Advertisement

Rhetorical Coding of Health Promotion Dialogues

  • Floriana Grasso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2780)

Abstract

Health promotion is a complex activity that requires both explanation and persuasion skills. This paper proposes a three-layered model of dialogue coding, based on a rhetorical argumentation model, and a behavioural model of change. The model was applied to the analysis of a corpus of 40 e-mail dialogue exchanges on healthy nutrition advice. Examples of analysis are given.

Keywords

Annotation Scheme Computational Linguistics High Level Goal Pragmatic Argument Unhealthy Snack 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fries, E., Croyle, R.: Stereotypes Associated with a Low-Fat Diet and their Relevance to Nutrition Education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 93, 551–555 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sadalla, E., Burroughs, J.: Profiles in Eating: Sexy Vegetarians and Other Diet- Based Social Stereotypes. Psychology Today 15, 51–57 (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., Jones, R.: Dialectical Argumentation to Solve Conflicts in Advice Giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 1077–1115 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cawsey, A., Grasso, F., Jones, R.: A Conversational Model for Health Promotion on the World Wide Web, vol  [25], pp. 379–388Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prochaska, J., Clemente, C.D.: Stages of Change in the Modification of Problem Behavior. In: Hersen, M., Eisler, R., Miller, P. (eds.) Progress in Behavior Modification, vol. 28, Sycamore Publishing Company, Sycamore (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prochaska, J.: Strong and Weak Principles for Progressing from Precontemplation to Action on the Basis of Twelve Problem Behaviors. Health Psychology 13 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cawsey, A., Grasso, F.: Goals and Attitude Change in Generation: a Case Study in Health Education. In: Jokinen, K., Maybury, M., Zock, M., Zukerman, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the ECAI 1996 Workshop on: Gaps and Bridges: New directions in Planning and NLG, pp. 19–23 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiter, E., Robertson, R., Osman, L.: Types of Knowledge Required to Personalize Smoking Cessation Letters, vol  [25], pp. 389–399Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reed, C., Norman, T. (eds.) Symposium on Argument and Computation: position papers (2000), http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~tnorman/sac/
  11. 11.
    Carenini, G., Grasso, F., Reed, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grasso, F.: Towards a framework for rhetorical argumentation. In: Bos, J., Foster, M., Matheson, C. (eds.) EDILOG 2002: Proceedings of the 6th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, Edinburgh, pp. 53–60 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication. In: Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollack, M. (eds.) Intentions in Communication, pp. 221–255. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Searle, J.: Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barrie, K.: Motivational Counselling in Groups. In: Davidson, R., Stephem, R., MacEwan, I. (eds.) Counselling Problem Drinkers, Tavistock/Routledge, London (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mann, W., Thompson, S.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text 8, 243–281 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reed, C., Long, D.: Generating the structure of argument. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL 1998), pp. 1091–1097 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stent, A., Allen, J.: Annotating Argumentation Acts in Spoken Dialog. Technical Report 740, The University of Rochester, Computer Science Department (TRAINS Technical Note 00-1) (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teufel, S., Carletta, J., Moens, M.: An Annotation Scheme for Discourse-Level Argumentation in Research Articles. In: Proceedings of EACL (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., Doherty Sneddon, G., Anderson, A.: The Reliability of a Dialogue Structure Coding Scheme. Computational Linguistics 23, 13–31 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Core, M., Allen, J.: Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation scheme. In: Traum, D. (ed.) AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fox, J., Das, S.: Safe and Sound: Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carletta, J.: Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: the kappa Statistic. Computational Linguistics 22, 249–254 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horn, P.W., Shahar, Y., Lindberg, G., Andreassen, S., Wyatt, J. (eds.): AIMDM 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1620. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floriana Grasso
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations