Scripting Humour in Conversational Agents: Improvisation and Emergence of Humorous Interchanges

In SocietyTHE ARTS

www.Arts-Journal.com

JOURNALTHE INTERNAT IONAL

of

Volume 5, Number 5

Scripting Humour in Conversational Agents:Improvisation and Emergence of Humorous

Interchanges

Michael M. Meany and Tom Clark

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY http://www.arts-journal.com First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2011 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>. ISSN: 1833-1866 Publisher Site: http://www.Arts-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Scripting Humour in Conversational Agents:Improvisation and Emergence of HumorousInterchangesMichael M. Meany, The University of Newcastle, NSW, AustraliaTom Clark, Victoria University, Victoria, Australia

Abstract: This paper describes a creative project that will develop a pair of online computer-basedconversational agents to interact as ‘comedian’ and ‘straight man’. The project will interrogate thescriptwriting process as it is applied in a new media environment at the confluence of human and non-human agency. In the context of this paper the term ‘scriptwriter’ carries two inter-related definitions:first, as a producer and crafter of dialogue for a character; and second, as a developer of computerscript to guide the interactions of the conversational agents. It can be argued that the scriptwriter (inboth guises) is part of a larger system of circular causality and is thus embedded within structuresthat both constrain and enable their actions (Boden 1994, 2004; Bourdieu 1993; Giddens 1979) andmakes intentional choices to achieve particular aims or outcomes. The interaction of the conversationalagents is a result of a creative practice that allows for the emergence of improvised responses basedon scripted dialogue choices. This paper will explore the inter-related issues of scriptwriting, emergence,and improvisation in a new media environment.

Keywords: New Media, Conversational Agents, Artificial Intelligence, Emergence, Humour,Scriptwriting

Introduction

THIS PAPER DESCRIBES a research project that will develop a pair of onlinechatbots to interact as ‘comedian’ and ‘straight man’ when a human user delivers atopic. A chatbot (chatter-robot, talk-bot, or simply, bot) is a computer-based conver-sational agent that simulates natural language conversation. This project integrates

human agency (the scriptwriter and the scriptwriting process) with the non-human agencyof the artificial intelligence of chatbots (the interface and the scripted processes). This integ-ration of roles is also an integration of ‘old’ and ‘new’ media forms – improvised dialoguein an online environment. The following sections will describe the roles and interactions ofthe human and non-human agents. It will also discuss the relationship between technology,anxiety and humour. Henri Bergson in his seminal essay on laughter stated a “new law” ofhumour, “We laugh every time a person gives us the impression of being a thing” (Bergson2005, p.28, Original Publication 1911). This project tests if Bergson’s law will stand if it isinverted; will we laugh every time a thing gives the impression of being a person? Finally,the paper will discuss if this system could be considered an example of creative emergence.

The International Journal of the Arts in SocietyVolume 5, Number 5, 2011, http://www.arts-journal.com, ISSN 1833-1866© Common Ground, Michael M. Meany, Tom Clark, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]

Scriptwriter–Technology and DialogueThe online computer-based conversational agents (chatbots) used in this project are basedon Dr. Richard Wallace’s A.LI.C.E. Project (Wallace 2003). Chatbots based on A.L.I.C.Eare generically called Alicebots (A.I.Nexus 2007). An Alicebot can be conceived of as havinga ‘brain’ and a ‘mind’. The ‘brain’, or engine, is the software program at the core of thesystem. It contains a complementary set of pattern-matching algorithms that match the user’sinput to an appropriate output. The process of searching for the output follows a set of rulesanalogous to searching a dictionary for a word. By analysing the string of input text the enginestarts with the first character, goes to that section, then proceeds by adding characters orwords to further refine the search until a match for the input is found (Wallace 2003, p.23).In the ‘alphabet’ used by an Alicebot there are two special characters that act as wildcards– ‘_’ (underscore) and ‘*’ (asterisk). The importance of these will be explained more fullyin the following section. For this project, the same Alicebot ‘brain’ will be used for bothcharacters. It is the ‘mind’ that provides the individual character and personality for eachchatbot.

The Alicebot ‘mind’ is housed in a data structure called Artificial Intelligence MarkupLanguage (AIML). This is a text-based markup language that contain a set of tags, or units,that provide instruction about how the information they contain should be used or displayed.For example, your web browser is instructed to display elements in a particular way by Hy-pertext Markup Language (HTML). AIML is a language that stores the Alicebot’s knowledge.Individual units of knowledge are held in a container, a tag, called a category. Within thiscontainer are two other tags. The pattern tag contains a simple pattern that matches whatthe user’s input. The template tag contains the response to the user’s input. The examplebelow illustrates the use of angle brackets to separate tags from textual content in the overallstructure of a category.

<category><pattern> WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF FRANCE </pattern><template> The capital of France is Paris. </template></category>

In this example, the user has typed in ‘What is the capital of France?’ and the Alicebot ‘brain’would search the available knowledge base stored in the AIML to find an appropriate answer.The search for this answer can be made more efficient by the use of the ‘_’ character in thepattern. The pattern-matching algorithm, when encountering the ‘_’ character is able tomatch a variety of questions to the template, for example, the user may have typed in ‘Whatcity is the capital of France?’ or simply ‘Capital of France?’. The ‘_’ character holds preced-ence over all other characters in the ‘alphabet’.

<category><pattern> _ CAPITAL OF FRANCE </pattern><template> The capital of France is Paris. </template></category>

For the scriptwriter the ability to match multiple variations of the same question to an appro-priate response removes the need to produce exactly every possible question. However, the

226

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY

ability to pin exact matches together also creates the opportunity for developing characterand personality in the chatbot. A chatbot with a comic, pedant personality could be made torespond to the input ‘What is the capital of France?’ with the template ‘I think you’ll find Fis capital of France’. To further develop this character a set of randomly selected templatescan be assigned to a pattern. Below one of the outputs is in French as an example that anytext can be employed (Quelle mouche t’a piqué? – What’s biting/eating you?).

<category><pattern> _ CAPITAL OF FRANCE </pattern><template><random><li> I think you’ll find F is capital of France.</li><li> Go mad! Look it up in a book! </li><li> Are you doing your geography homework? </li><li> Quelle mouche t’a piqué? </li></random></template></category>

Added to these abilities is a powerful tag that allows the chatbot deal with synonyms, spellingand grammar correction and responds to particular keywords. The tag, <srai>, may thoughtof as an acronym for Symbolic Reduction Artificial Intelligence – actually there is littleagreement on the precise acronym (Wallace 2003, p.33). This tag allows the chatbot to respondsimilar inputs with a unified response. In the example below all of the variations of the sa-lutation ‘Hello’ are symbolically reduced to produce one template response.

<category>

<pattern> HELLO </pattern><template> Hi there! </template>

</category><category>

<pattern> Hi </pattern><template><srai> HELLO </srai></template>


<pattern> HOWDY </pattern><template><srai> HELLO </srai></template>


<pattern> G’DAY </pattern>

227

MICHAEL M. MEANY, TOM CLARK

<template><srai> HELLO </srai></template>

</category>

Regardless of the actual input, the chatbot responds to the pattern for ‘Hello’ as if the inputinitially entered was ‘Hello’. In a similar fashion, the <srai> tag can be used to normalizeEnglish expression. A user may type in ‘Your a *’, using symbolic reduction this can beconnected to the correct pattern for ‘YOU ARE A *’. The asterisk here indicates a wildcard– anything can follow the initial words and template will be found based on the words pre-ceding the asterisk.

The use of the wildcard characters and the <srai> allows for the definition of keywords.This represents a powerful tool in the development of character. A character fixated on aparticular topic or expression would respond to that expression regardless of context. In theexample below the character is fixated on the word ‘mother’.

<category>

<pattern> MOTHER </pattern><template> Seen Blade Runner? Don’t ask about my mother. </template>


<pattern> _ MOTHER </pattern><template><srai> MOTHER </srai></template>


<pattern> MOTHER _ </pattern><template><srai> MOTHER </srai></template>


<pattern> _ MOTHER * </pattern><template><srai> MOTHER </srai></template>

</category>

‘The second category detects the keyword as the suffix of a sentence. The third detects it asthe prefix of an input sentence, and finally the last category detects the keyword as an infix’(Wallace 2003, p.17). The initial template response could also include a random set of sim-ilar expressions to catch the user who insists on asking about ‘mother’.

The theories of humour that focus on the juxtaposition of ideas and emotions such as In-congruity Theory, Surprise Theory, Ambivalence Theory, and Configurational Theory(Goldstein and McGhee 1972) accept that comedy is inherently structured. These structures

228


can be implemented in AIML by employing both the fixed relationship possible betweeninput and output, and more importantly, the dynamic and random relationships that can beachieved using wildcard elements. Further, character and personality can be developed foreach individual chatbot by the careful scripting of their individual AIML sets.

Scriptwriter–Dialogue and CharacterNo discussion of the development of dialogue and character should fail to account, at leastin some measure, for its Aristotelian genesis. Stephen Halliwell in the introduction to histranslation of the Poetics argues ‘The Poetics … represents something in the nature ofteaching materials or ‘lecture notes’, produced not as a text for private reading by anyoneinterested, but for instructional use in an educational context’ (Halliwell in Aristotle 1995,p.4). Positioning the Poetics in this manner does nothing to undermine the value of the workor to lessen its contribution as ‘effectively inaugurating an entire tradition of literary theoryand criticism’ (Halliwell in Aristotle 1995, p.3). Rather, this context provides a rationale forAristotle’s structures, arguments and examples, making the work more accessible. Part ofthe challenge of referencing the Poetics is the negotiation of various translations and its ‘useand abuse’ in neo-Aristotelian adaptations (Halliwell in Aristotle 1995, p.4). For this reasonsthe following description employs the terms used in Halliwell’s translation but adds paren-thetical terms used by other writers, particularly, Brenda Laurel (1993) and Roger Hall(1991).

In the Poetics, Aristotle identifies six qualitative elements of poetry (drama): plot (action);agents (characters); thought (cognition, emotion, moral choice); diction (language); lyricpoetry (melody or pattern of speech); and, spectacle (enactment) (Aristotle 1995, pp.53-55,Poetics, VI, 1450b, lines 1-20). The hierarchy of elements in the list is presented in a relativeorder of importance. Aristotle explains that character is subordinate to action—only actionis truly necessary, and action reveals character—a principle that attaches importance to theway the incidents are structured. Neo-Aristotelian writers have drawn formal and materialcausative relationships between the elements of the hierarchy that, ‘although not apocryphal’(Laurel 1993), are based on inference rather than overt statement from the Poetics. Laurel’swork, Computers as Theatre, is of particular value to this project as it too draws togetherthe theatrical elements of dialogue, character and performance and the computing elementsof scripting and designing interaction. The following table, based on Laurel’s analysis (1993,pp.50-51), illustrates these causative relationships. In a material sense drama is first experi-enced, everything that is seen and heard leads to inferences about thought and characterwhich in turn lead to an understanding of the plot or action. In contrast, the form of dramafollows the structure of the Poetics where everything is predicated on action.

229


Table 1: Material and Formal Causative Relationships (Based on Laurel 1993, pp.50-51)

This analysis of material and formal causative relationships can be seen as representing thedifference between how a user may perceive an interaction with the interface, as a temporal,physical experience, and how the scriptwriter conceives the same interaction. The undeniablelink between dialogue and character, particularly in comedy, is illustrated by the reality thatactors can only act actions – emotions, desires, motivations are all invisible until the actorbrings them forth and makes them visible through action and expressed in dialogue. Thisposition, from the material perspective, suggests that dialogue and character are somewhat‘chicken and egg’; one cannot proceed without the other (Hall 1991; Smiley 1971). In ex-tremis, this position results in an inverting of Aristotle’s formal structure where thought, thepsychological drives of the character, is seen as being the prime motivator of the dialogue(Greig 2005; Halperin 1996). This psychological reductionist position generates the circularargument that only a particular sort of character would use that particular phrase or dialogueand any actor (human or non-human) using that dialogue would be perceived as having thatparticular character.

For the scriptwriter, this circular causality is as enabling as it is constraining. It can beargued that the scriptwriter (in both guises) is part of a larger system of circular causalityand is thus embedded within structures that both constrain and enable their actions (Boden1994; Bourdieu 1993; Giddens 1979). The agency of the scriptwriter is expressed throughthe intentional choices made to achieve particular aims or outcomes.

Scriptwriter–Technology, Anxiety and HumourThe writing of comedy has been considered in a raft of ‘how-to’ books that suggest strategies,structures and rules of comedy (Halperin 1996; Vorhaus 1994). Frequently, these texts offerlittle more than heuristic descriptions of techniques rather than engaging in any discussion

230


of the theoretical underpinning of these techniques. The theoretical approach to humour thatis of particular use to this discussion is the 1911 work of Henri Bergson, Laughter: An essayon the meaning of the comic. In this essay Bergson proposes a ‘new law’ of humour, “Welaugh every time a person gives us the impression of being a thing” (2005, p.28). In thisproject this ‘law’ will be tested by inversion; will we laugh every time a thing gives us theimpression of being a person? Further, will the incongruity of our impression oscillatingbetween the human and the non-human call forth a shared anxiety that we have about mediatechnology?

Waldeck argues, like Freud, that the psychological value of humour is the reduction ofanxiety. Where they differ is that Waldeck argues that ‘the comic experience is closely linkedwith the reduction of low level anxiety’ (1989, p.68) where elevated levels of anxiety ‘greatlyimpair the ability to appreciate humor [sic]’ (1989, p.66). This in some measure explainsindividual responses to comedy; that which one individual finds humorous, others find hu-mourless, if not offensive. The relationship between humour and anxiety is a useful instrumentfor the scriptwriter attempting to write humorous dialogue.

Part of the task for the scriptwriter then is to identify a source of anxiety that is common,if not ubiquitous, in the society that will form the audience. This is not to suggest that thistask is carried out on a purely conscious level, rather, when the scriptwriter finds a line orinteraction humorous its source can identified and built upon. This is where the heuristicstructures of comedy are employed to generate ‘repetitions, inversions and the reciprocalinterference of series’ (Holland 1982; Vorhaus 1994; Waldeck 1989, p.51).

Our relationship with media technologies has been described in terms of bodily extensions,exterior aids or prostheses by commentators like Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, and Jean-Francois Lyotard (Landow 1997, p.274). Landow argues that the use of the term prostheticleads to connotations of the media filling some severe need or overcoming some lack orshortcoming. In addition, all these descriptions lead to the recognition that these ‘technologiesare not mere exterior aids but also interior transformations of consciousness’ (Ong 1982,p.82). These transformations carry with them ‘resentment of the device one needs, resentmentat one’s own need and guilt, and a Romantic dislike of the artificiality of the device that an-swers one’s needs’ (Landow 1997, p.275). In short, for our purposes, our relationship withmedia technologies generates anxiety. Evidence for this can be found in the popular press,the multitude of the articles that question the moral safety of the Internet, security and privacyissues that support the almost pathological drive to remain ‘connected’, and the need toconstantly monitor a flood of communication. David Shenk, inData Smog (1997), elaboratedthese issues in relation to communication, work, social interactions, and surveillance. Like-wise, but in a less impassioned manner, John Nieuwenhuizen’s Asleep at the Wheel (2001)and David Brown’s Cybertrends (1998) both offer dystopian views of our existence in anincreasingly technological future.

The crucial point is that we are dealing with technologies that create internal transforma-tions and we are bonded to these technologies – to distrust them is akin to distrusting oneof our hands. This feature has found use as an allegorical device in works ranging from theBible (If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away – Matthew18:8) through Dr Strangelove (Kubrick 1963) to Star Wars (Luke’s prosthetic hand repres-enting the dark path his father followed) (Lucas 1977). The anxiety springs from ‘one’s ownneed and guilt’, in Freudian terms, it is a neurotic anxiety based on ‘fear of punishment likelyto ensue from instinctual gratification’ (Hall and Lindzey 1978, p.48). The instinctual reaction

231


is to remove or distance us from the prosthetic technology; however, the punishment fordoing so is perceived as disconnection and social isolation. The link between anxiety andcomedy is exemplified in Dr Strangelove (Kubrick 1963). A generalised anxiety about the‘bomb’, about military solutions, and the government in general, all contribute to humour.In a similar manner, the growth of the Internet and media technologies suggest that the sharedlevel of anxiety within our society is not at a high enough level to for us to willingly engagein technological amputation – we want our extended appendages even if they make us feela little anxious. This anxiety can be employed within the context of the characters andwithin the context of their human/non-human representation.

Having established that we share a background, low-level anxiety about media technologiesall that remains is to call on this anxiety for comic effect. The focus of anxiety needs to bealluded to and then discharged. ‘A joke seems funny only if it arouses anxiety and at thesame time reduces it’ (Waldeck 1989, p.66). The user’s interaction with the conversationalagents will call forth this anxiety. Then through the recognition of the incongruity of thesituation, where the human is encrusted on the mechanical and the mechanical is encrustedon the human, the anxiety can be discharged to humorous effect.

EmergenceThis project draws together the agency of the scriptwriter (in the theatrical sense), thescriptwriter (in the programming sense), and agency of the ‘brain’ and ‘minds’ of the chatbotsinto a new media performance of humour. A fruitful starting point for discussing the prospectof emergence and improvisation is the domain of game design. The concepts of emergenceand improvisation will then be expanded to consider their application in a collaborativecontext.

Sweetser and Wiles offer a description of two contrasting approaches to designing gameenvironments. The first, referred to as scripting, requires developers to anticipate, handcraftand script specific game objects, events and player interactions. The second, known asemergence, involves defining general, global rules that interact to give rise to emergentgameplay (Sweetser and Wiles 2005). These approaches mirror the agency of the humanand non-human actors in this project. The human agency ‘hand-crafts’ specific interchangesfollowing largely traditional theatrical codes. The non-human agency depends on the under-lying structure of AIML and the Alicebot engine to allow for unpredictability, riskiness,variability, and opens the possibility of emergence. The distinction between the approachessuggested by Sweetser and Wiles can be conceived of as representing a narrative approach,where like a film or a novel, all the possible paths are mapped and defined and a ludologicalapproach which would be more concerned with structures, rules and interaction of the gameplay. Sweetser and Wiles argue for an integrated approach that ‘needs to be a compromisein which the boundaries of action (such as story and game objectives) can be hard-codedand non-scripted behaviors (such as interactions and strategies) are able to emerge withinthese boundaries’ (Sweetser and Wiles 2005, p.1). However, simply suggesting these twoapproaches hints that there is some tension between narratologists and ludologists. The ideathat there was a ‘debate’ between proponents of these theoretical approaches is disputed byGanzalo Frasca who argues there is, and always was, a significant degree of congruity inthese approaches (2003).

232


This combination of narrative and ludological approaches mirrors the approach taken inthis project where, due the individual agency of the human and non-human actors, there isan admixture of predictable and unpredictable conversational interchanges. Further, thiscollaboration of human and non-human actors leads to the possibility of creative emergence.Traditionally, ‘Psychologists have tended to view creativity as an individual level phenomen-on. That is, they have tended to concentrate on the cognitive processes, personality traits,and developmental antecedents associated with individual creators’ (Simonton 2003, p.304).This psychological reductionist perspective does little to explain the social and cultural aspectsof the creative process. The following definition draws attention to key elements of the cre-ative process such as the social value judgment of the ‘unique and valuable’ and the import-ance of cultural ‘antecedent conditions’ to the ‘conditioned agency’ of the agent. “Creativityis seen as an activity where some process or product, one that is considered to be unique andvaluable, comes about from a set of antecedent conditions through the conditioned agencyof someone” (McIntrye 2006, p.2). The mapping of the emergence of creativity in a collab-orative environment requires a method that deals with the complex interactions of the ‘con-ditioned agency’ of all of the agents. R. Keith Sawyer, taking the improvisational dialogueof a theatre company as his case study, provides the following attributes of collaborativeemergent systems.

1. Unpredictability - ‘Each turn is unpredictable and novel, accumulating to result in acollaboratively created, novel performance’.

2. Non-reducibility to models of participating agents – ‘An actor’s intention for an utteranceis not necessarily the eventual meaning of the utterance… No single actor can decidethe direction the scene will take’. This point also rejects the psychological reductionistapproach to creativity.

3. Processual intersubjectivity – ‘Although each actor may have a different interpretationof where the scene might be going, they can nonetheless proceed to collectively createa coherent dramatic frame’.

4. A communication system that can refer reflexively to itself, and within which the pro-cesses of communication themselves can be discussed.

5. Individual agency and creative potential on the part of individual agents (Sawyer 1999,pp.453-457).

Sawyer employs these attributes to argue that many computational models of emergencelack complexity in communication, intersubjectivity and reflexivity evident in his case studyof improvisational theatre. This establishes the benchmark for any claims to emergence forthe system of human and non-human agents in this study. It is true that the non-human ele-ments are ‘simple units’ devoid of the human attributes of ‘complex, creative units’ (Sawyer1999, p.458). However, the integration of the agency of the human scriptwriter mitigates,to a degree, this lack. The lack of intention on the part of the non-human agents (a desirablefeature in improvised performances) does suggest that the activity of the system cannot bereduced to simple descriptions of the agents. Their interactions; the multiple roles of thescriptwriter, the flexible nature of the chatbot’s use of natural language, and interaction withan audience may be sufficient to create an illusion of emergence. This illusion is akin to theillusions of intelligence, character, intention and personality that seems to aggregate aroundsystems that employ natural language (Reeves and Nass 1996).

233


ConclusionThe arguments presented in this paper can be summarised in the following way. The Alicebot‘brain’ and the structured and procedural methods of the AIML ‘mind’ allow the computerscriptwriter to develop dialogue that can be hard-coded and fixed as well as recursive andrandom. Using traditional structures of humour, within the constraints of the chatbot, thetheatrical scriptwriter can develop comic dialogue. This humour would be based on a back-ground anxiety of media technologies. Moreover, following Bergson’s conception, thisanxiety is called forth by presenting the mechanical encrusted on the human and the humanencrusted on the mechanical. The resolution of this deep incongruity will oscillate betweenthe human and the non-human. Finally, whether the output of this system of human and non-human agents can be considered an example of emergent creativity may be moot point as itmay be sufficient to create the illusion of emergence.

ReferencesA.I.Nexus. 2008. A.I. NEXUS: A Showcase for Alicebots on the Internet 2007 [cited 21 August 2008].

Available from http://www.ccdevnet.org/www.knytetrypper.com/ain.html.Aristotle. 1995. Poetics. Translated by S. Halliwell. Second Edition ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.Bergson, Henri. 2005. Laughter: An essay on the meaning of the comic. Translated by C. Brereton and

F. Rothwell. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. Original edition, 1911, TheMacmillan Company, New York.

Boden, Margaret, ed. 1994. Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: essays on art and literature. Edited by R.

Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press.Brown, David. 1998. Cybertrends: Chaos, Power and Accountability in the Information Age. London:

Penguin.Frasca, Gonzalo. 2003. Ludologists love stories, too: notes from a debate that never took place. In

Digital Games Research Conference. University of Utrecht, The Netherlands: Digital GamesResearch Association.

Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: action, structure, and contradiction insocial analysis. London: Macmillan.

Goldstein, Jeffrey H., and Paul E. McGhee, eds. 1972. The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Per-spectives and Empirical Issues. New York: Academic Press.

Greig, Noel. 2005. Playwriting: A Practical Guide. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.Hall, Calvin S., and Gardner Lindzey. 1978. Theories of Personality. Third Edition ed. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.Hall, Roger A. 1991. Writing your first play. Boston: Focal Press.Halperin, Michael. 1996. Writing Great Characters: The psychology of character development in

screenplays. Los Angeles.: Lone Eagle Publishing Co.Holland, Norman N. 1982. Laughing, a psychology of humor. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Kubrick, Stanley. 1963. Dr. Strangelove, or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. U.S.A.:

Columbic Pictures.Landow, George P. 1997. Hypertext 2.0. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Laurel, Brenda. 1993. Computers as theatre. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Lucas, George. 1977. Star Wars. U.S.A.: 20th Century Fox.McIntrye, Phillip. 2007. Creative Practice as Research: ‘Testing Out’ the Systems Model of Creativity

through Practitioner Based Enquiry. Queensland University of Technology. 2006 [cited 14July 2007]. Available from http://www.speculation2005.qut.edu.au

234


Nieuwenhuizen, John. 2001. Asleep at theWheel: Australia on the Superhighway. Sydney: ABC Books.Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen.Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: how people treat computers, television,

and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.Sawyer, R. Keith. 1999. The emergence of creativity. Philosophical Psychology 12 (4):447 — 469.Shenk, David. 1997. Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut. London: Abacus.Simonton, Dean Keith. 2003. Creative Cultures, Nations and Civilisations: Strategies and Results. In

Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, edited by P. Paulus and B. Nijstad.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smiley, Sam. 1971. Playwriting: The Structure of Action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Sweetser, P, and J. Wiles. 2005. Scripting versus Emergence: Issues for Game Developers and Players

in Game Environment Design. International Journal of Intelligent Games and Simulations4 (1):1 - 9.

Vorhaus, John. 1994. The comic toolbox: how to be funny even when you’re not. St. Leonards N.S.W.:Allen & Unwin.

Waldeck, Peter B. 1989. Weighting Delight and Dole: a study of comedy, tragedy, and anxiety. NewYork: P. Lang.

Wallace, Richard S. 2003. Elements of AIML Style. San Francisco: A.L.I.C.E. Artificial IntelligenceFoundation, Inc.

About the AuthorsMichael M. MeanyMichael Meany is a lecturer in communication at the University of Newcastle, Australia.Michael’s background includes careers as a freelance writer; a typesetter and publicationdesigner; and as a playwright. From these varied careers, Michael brings to his research aneclectic mix of skills. His research interests include: script writing, virtual environments andnarrative/interactive media design.

Dr. Tom ClarkTom Clark has worked in a range of fields, including political advisory roles and studies inmedieval Germanic poetry. He completed his PhD in the Department of English at the Uni-versity of Sydney, awarded in 2003, which comprised a study of irony in the Old Englishpoem Beowulf. He has published refereed articles on higher education policy, as well as amonograph version of his PhD thesis. He is currently developing a comparative internationalresearch project to examine improvised and semi-improvised public language in the fieldsof sport, politics, business, and satire.

235


EDITORS

Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Caroline Archer, UK Type, Birmingham, UK. Robyn Archer, Performer and Director, Paddington, Australia. Mark Bauerlein, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C., USA. Tressa Berman, BorderZone Arts, Inc., San Francisco, USA; University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; California College of the Arts, San Francisco, USA. Judy Chicago, Artist and Author, New Mexico, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Nina Czegledy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. James Early, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. Mehdi Faridzadeh, International Society for Iranian Culture (ISIC), New York, USA, Tehran, Iran. Jennifer Herd, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Fred Ho, Composer and Writer, New York, USA. Andrew Jakubowicz, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Gerald McMaster, Curator, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, Canada. Mario Minichiello, Birmingham Institute of Art and Design, Birmingham, UK. Fred Myers, New York University, New York, USA. Darcy Nicholas, Porirua City Council, Porirua, New Zealand. Daniela Reimann, Institute of Media in Education, University of Education, Freiburg, Germany; University of Art and Industrial Design, Linz, Austria. Arthur Sabatini, Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA. Cima Sedigh, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, USA. Peter Sellars, World Arts and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Ella Shohat, New York University, New York, USA. Judy Spokes, Arts Victoria, South Melbourne, Australia. Tonel (Antonio Eligio Fernández), Artist and Art Critic, Havana, Cuba. Marianne Wagner-Simon, World Art Organization, Berlin, Germany.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Arts-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com

www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com

www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com

www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com

www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com

www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com

www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com

www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com

www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

[email protected]

Scripting Humour in Conversational Agents: Improvisation and Emergence of Humorous Interchanges

Documents

Transcript of Scripting Humour in Conversational Agents: Improvisation and Emergence of Humorous Interchanges