Category: Dialogue

ABSTRACT

In recent times, with the increasing interest in conversational agents for dialog systems are being actively researched. A dialogue system consists of different components. Dialogue manager is the core component of every dialogue system. A dialogue management system can manage a dialogue between two or more agents, be they human or computer. The Dialogue Manager (DM) is the program which coordinates the activity of several subcomponents in a dialogue system and its main goal is to maintain a representation of the current state of the ongoing dialogue. This paper provides an overview of wide range of techniques applied for developing dialogue manager components. A classification for current approaches applied for dialogue management task is presented. Also we analytically discuss the properties of each approach.

INTRODUCTION

Conversational agents have been designed with the aim to converse with a human applying natural language processing. These systems are software program which receive users’ statements, interpret them using computational linguistics and provide responses according to users’ requirements. In recent decades, conversational agents have attracted increasing attention and have become a part of many information systems.

Interactive conversational agent has been applied in various domains such as Search and Recommender system, Spoken Dialog system, Chat bots, Task Oriented dialogue agents and Question Answering. Conversational agents can be divided into three main categories including: Question Answering, Task Oriented Dialogues and Social Chatbots [1]. Question Answering systems provide answers to user queries, Task Oriented Dialogue models attempt to execute users’ task and Social Chatbots agents are developed in order to converse with their users. Herein, the dialogue system which accomplish tasks like; ticket-booking, movie-booking is considered. Hulstijn [2] defines the dialogue system as follows:

“A dialogue system is a computer system that is able to engage in an interactive dialogue with a human user about a particular topic. Usually it is designed to help the user of the system to performher1task.”

In terms of task domain, the dialogue systems can be investigated in open domain or goal oriented dialogue systems [5]. They expressed goal oriented (or task based) systems as domain dependent systems which track a specific goal whilst open domain or non-task oriented system converse with human.

Based on the selecting the responses to the user dialogue system either follow single-turn or multi-turn response selection [6]. Single-turn models just consider the last utterance of user in order to opt for the response whereas multi-turn systems work on whole context for selecting the response.

Different approaches have been proposed for constructing dialogue management component. Most methods work based on handcrafted rules. Recently probabilistic methods draw extensive attraction. In this paper we briefly review methods applied for dialogue management component of dialogue system. The classification of methods is represented and the qualitative analyzes is expressed.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2 different components of a dialogue system is introduced. In section 3 the related studies including the earliest one to the most state-of-the-art work are reported. Section 4 presents the classification for dialogue manager. Section 5 represents the analysis and section 6 remarks conclusions and future work.

Dialogue System

A modular dialogue system usually consists of input unit, Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Dialogue Manager (DM), Natural Language Generation and response units, in which each module is trained separately. Dialogue systems according to the architecture applied in learning their components, can be categorized into pipeline and end-to-end strategies [5].

Input Unit

Depending on user input types a system can be in form of Spoken dialogue system, text based dialogue system and Multimodal dialogue system. In Spoken dialogue system, automatic speak recognition (ASR) unit is the first component of dialogue system while in text based dialogue system, inputs are in form of raw text. A multimodal interactive system by Bernsen [3] is defined as follows:

“A multimodal interactive system is a system which uses at least two different modalities for input and/or output.”

Considering this definition [4] defines multimodal dialogue system (MDS) as the dialogue systems which applied two or more different modalities. For example, a mixture of speech, gestures, touches, etc. Strategies developed for text based dialogue system can be adjusted for spoken dialogue system as well, and reverse.

Natural Language Understanding

Spoken language understanding or natural language understanding is the second part of a dialogue system. This component receives utterance as input. First the domain of utterance is determined and intent of user is detected, then slots are tagged. Semantic utterance classification is offered as solution to domain and intent detection [9]. Predefined slots are filled by values in semantic frames throughout input’s information [10]. Slot filling usually is considered as sequence labeling task. Generative and discriminative approaches have been used for slot filling [11].

Dialogue Manager

In order to converse with user this part manages the dialogue flow. Dialogue manger is made of two sub modules including: Dialogue State Tracker and Policy Learning, which both are trainable. A policy learning is responsible to map a dialogue state to a dialogue act. Standard approaches to learning policy include: handcrafted rules, supervised machine learning and reinforcement learning (online and batch).

Natural Language Generation

The natural language generator (NLG) receives the specification of a communicative act from the DM and generates a matching textual representation. The system responses are typically generated as natural language with a list of content items from a part of the external knowledge database (e.g., restaurant database) that answers the specific user query or request.

Output Units

This unit is responsible to conveying the output of the response generated in the NLG to the user. The output can be in form of text or speech. The system output can be visualized on a display if available or synthesized by a text-to-speech (TTS) module or pre-recorded audio. For speech it can be fulfilled in terms of two processes: text analysis, a mapping of the text to their matching phoneme representations—including an analysis of linguistic structure and prosodic mark-up, and speech generation—whereby the annotated speech act is finally vocalised to the user.

Related Work

In [&] authors list five key capabilities that a dialogue manager fulfils: first supports mixed-initiative system by fielding spontaneous input from either participant and routing it to the appropriate components. second Supports non-linguistic dialogue ‘events’ by accepting them and routing them to the Context Tracker (below). Third increases overall system performance. For example, awareness of system output allows the Dialogue Manager to predict user input, boosting speech recognition accuracy. Similarly, if the back-end introduces a new word into the discourse, the Dialogue Manager can request the speech recognizer to add it to its vocabulary for later recognition. Forth supports meta-dialogues between the dialogue system itself and either participant. An example might be a participant’s questions about the status of the dialogue system. fifth acts as a central point for dialogue troubleshooting, after. If any component has insufficient input to perform its task, it can alert the Dialogue Manager, which can then reconsult a previously invoked component for different output.

A dialogue manager component is consisting of dialogue state tracking (DST) and policy learning. The DST holds the current state of dialogue and next possible states. Policy learning selects the next dialogue act. In [12] authors demonstrated contextual interpretation, domain knowledge management and Action selection duties as the common tasks of the dialogue manager.

In [13] authors candidate three approaches for dialogue management including: finite state, form-filing and information state update. Another classification for dialogue manger is suggested in [14] in which strategies are divided into three main categories including Handcrafted approaches, probabilistic methods and hybrid techniques. In this grouping Handcrafted algorithms includes finite-state automata, frame-based dialogue and model based. Example-based, Markov Decision Processes (MDP) and memory neural based are belong to probabilistic methods. In [15] Finite State Automata, Form-filling Approach, Agent-based Approach and Information State Update are introduced as the main approaches to dialogue management. Another classification suggested in [16] including: Integrated (tree-based), Finite-state, Frame-based, Plan-based and Agent-based (BDI) models. In addition to aforementioned strategies several methods are based on Agenda and Ontology. In [24] authors categorized dialogue systems into Finite State Automata, Form-filling Approach, Agent-based Approach, plan based, rule based and Information State Update as a subgroup of handcrafted and Neural Networks, Bayesian Networks and Markov Decision Process as sub approaches to machine learning methods. In [25] models are divided into plan based approaches and collaborative. In [26] The approaches are categorized into finite state/dialogue grammars, plan-based and collaborative. In [1] authors group conversational systems into three categories: question answering agents, task-oriented dialogue agents, and chatbots. For each category, they present a review of state-of-the-art neural approaches.

Classification of Dialogue Management

In following descriptions for different approaches to dialogue manger are presented.

Handcrafted Approaches

This group of models refers to strategies in which the human developers or domain experts define a set of rules to made decision on action selection. In this category decision are made based on the rules or states [14]. Herein, these methods are investigated in five approaches including: Finite-State Automata, Semantic Frame based, Agent Based, Information state based, and Plan based.

Finite-State Automata:

This system is shown by Finite State Machines (FSMs) [24] which is a graph of predefined steps. In this system state of a dialogue during conversation is represented by steps and the possible actions which can be taken by user or system are shown by transition between the states. This structure is straight forward to encode all possible dialogue. Several studies have been proposed for this structure.

Semantic Frame Based Systems

These models also known as form-filling and slot-filing methods in which the required information are filling into predefined slots. These slot according to the domain application is defined by expert and application specific. In these method, if the information of a slot can limit the conversation is called informable, if the user wants to know the value of a slot, this slot is called requestable [1]. This model since the dialogue flow is depend on the user’s information is not pre- predetermined [22].

Agent-based Approach

In [19] author defined agent as follows. “An agent is something that perceives and acts in an environment”. In a dialogue system, dialogue participants as agents interact to each other to develop agent base system. In order to maintain information and pro-attitude for the purpose of selecting action an agent should have knowledge or belief [20]. In [22] “In agent-based systems communication is viewed as interaction between two agents, each of which is capable of reasoning about its own actions and beliefs, and sometimes also about the actions and beliefs of the other agent.” Several structure such as BDI [21], Ω-Ants [15] have been proposed for this model.

Information State Update (ISU) approach

In [17] authors introduced five concepts for an information based dialogue theory including: Informational components, formal representations of components, dialogue moves, update rules and update strategy. Informational components refer to common context and internal motivating factors. A set of update rules which control updating information state, applying update strategies in order to perform dialogue moves.

The approach’s natural amiability and cohesiveness with other dialogue methodologies. Given this description, it appears that the ISU approach does not always share the downfalls of handcrafted systems.

Plan Based

In [22] this structure has been introduced as a sub model of agent based approaches, while it can be seen as a representative separate model. In this system each utterance should be considered and treated as action which has been done to achieve some goals [Cohen1994]. In [31] the description of this model is represented by an example which an agent A asks another agent B a question as follows:

“A has a goal to acquire certain information. This causes him to create a plan that involves asking B a question. B will hopefully possess the sought information. A then executes the plan, and thereby asks B the question. B will now receive the question and attempt to infer A’s plan. In the plan there might be goals that A cannot achieve without assistance. B can accept some of these obstacles as his own goals and create a plan to achieve them. B will then execute his plan and thereby respond to A’s question.”

Probabilistic Approaches

For this group of method statistics and machine learning (ML) techniques are used. In [32] due to the fact that datasets are applied these approaches have been called data-driven. These system as contrast to handcrafted models are dynamic, since during dialogue approach learning is applied. In [24] these methods are categorized into three main models including Neural Networks, Bayesian Networks and Markov decision process.

Neural Networks

In the context of spoken dialogue systems, neural network (NN) approaches tend to feature less in dialogue management but are especially prominent in speech recognition and natural language processing areas for processes such as sequence matching , learning , and prediction . The literature survey conducted for this report uncovered very little research in the area of dialogue management with specific use of NNs for the purpose of action selection, which the authors felt surprising—given that NNs have shown increased popularity in recent years.

Bayesian Networks

Bayesian Networks (BNs) are well-studies probabilistic models. They capture probabilistic distributions between events or variables, and comprise two parts: a directed acyclic graph, and conditional probability tables for each node. Bayesian networks are generally applied due to the realisation that the environment in which SDSs operate is inherently ‘noisy’– the users’ utterances can be unclear due to unnecessary prolixity or speech recognition errors [24]. Situations where Bayesian inference can assist include keyword and feature recognition, and in user modelling and intent recognition. The use of BNs for deciding system actions appears to occur only when it is combined with other methods.

Markov Decision Process

A complete dialogue system can be modeled as a Markov decision process (MDP) in which each dialogue exchange results in a state transition from S to S` [27]. It is a formal model of fully-observable sequential decision processes which is an extension of Markov chains with a set of decisions/actions and a state based reward structure. In this process for each state a decision has to be made regarding the action to be taken in that state to increase some predefined measure of performance. The action affects not only the transition probabilities but the rewards as well. A state describes the environment at a particular instant of time. Itis assumed that the system can be in a finite number of states and the agent (SDS) can choose from a finite set of actions.

Analysis

Finite-state systems fail to act natural and cannot represent human dialogues. Although this model is proper for small domain problems, when the domain is complex and involve wide-range these systems become non-trivial. This system is predictable. Also these models are simple to construct. The required vocabulary and grammar for each state can be determined in advance [29]. They do not allow over-informative answers. Inhabits the user ability to ask questions and take initiative [29]. they Limit the users answers [22]. Such methods are not sufficient for Dialog because of our interesting in flexible, natural tutorial dialogues. [14]

Frame based are not predictable since they give the users more freedom to answers [22]. They allow more natural Dialogues. User can provide over informative answers. These systems can’t handle complex dialogues. Range of application is limited to the systems that elicit information from users and act on the basis on the same [29]. However, even this flexibility does not reach the level required by Dialog. Also, form-filling is more suited to situations in which the information ow is mainly in the direction of the system, for instance in personal banking applications, whereas the dialogue manager for Dialog must support flexible information exchange in both directions. [14]

Information System Update systems are suitable for situation in which the determinism is significant. Similar to finite state machine this approach is predictable. In this approach the dialogue manager maintains a dialogue context, a description of the state of the dialogue and its participants, which then forms a framework for communication between the external modules associated with the system. The ISU approach has been developed in in the Siridus and Trindi projects, and implemented in TrindiKit [30]. Here the IS is divided into private’ system information, such as internal beliefs of the system, andpublic’ information shared between the system and the user such as their common beliefs. The IS stores both dialogue-level knowledge, such as the user’s last speech act or an evaluation of the utterance, as well as meta-information about the dialogue, such as an utterance history. It can be changed by update rules which rebased on actions in the world and which update the IS accordingly. [13]

Agent-based allow natural language in complex domain and are user friendly, like talking to human. These systems are hard to build. The agent itself are usually very complex [29]. Agent-based systems are suitable for mixed initiative dialogue because, for instance, the user can introduce new topics of conversation. Such systems can also use expectations to aid error correction. Due to the unconstrained nature of the interaction that agent-based systems support, there is a need for sophisticated natural language abilities. This contrasts with both finite state and form-filling systems, which restrict the language in which the interaction can take place [15].

Plan-based methods have the ability to provide scalable solutions to dialogue management, containing the required intelligence to automatically decide the pathways through a conversation [30]. One objection against plan-based dialogue modelling concerns the lack of theoretical base. Even though the approach provides a solid computational model, it is not entirely clear how the mental constructs postulated in the model correlates to people’s actual mental states. Disregarding the obvious objections by eliminative materialists and behaviourists alike, one would want the model to be rooted more deeply in psychological research. However, there seems to be similarities, at least at a surface level [28].

The establishment overheads of Bayesian Networks can be reduced if the domain in which the network is applied is suitably small and manageable—the BN approach is not trying to capture the entire dialogue model—and if it is combined with other techniques, notably Markovian models. If the domain was indeed small enough, then one could posit that a FSM could also be applied; however, if the transitions needed to be updated in response to observed interactions or other training data, then a BN would still be necessary [24].

Markovian Models by adopting strategies that have been created automatically by the system, without a human-in-the-loop developer, the system has essentially removed control from the developers to ensure that dialogue flow is effective and suitably refined. In the system the system allows for the domain expert to create and apply handcrafted rules which grants them a greater ability to ensure the conversation is adequately constrained [24].

Neural networks have shown good performance. Despite positive results in such implementations they appear restricted to single-round responses, albeit as their design intend, and appear unsuitable where conversational interaction is needed. Study of [24] expressed that the use of NNs for action selection should be a future goal for research—as common applications of the technique appear grounded in natural language processing.

Conclusions

Herein, different approaches to dialogue management have been introduced and discussed. Benefits of handcrafted systems will vary depending on the requirements of their domain of implementation and the capabilities desired. Systems concerned with security, safety, or strict adherence to business rules necessarily require the ability to adequately predict and cater for expected and unexpected usage scenarios; here, the key characteristic is determinism. In addition, handcrafted methods are easier to implement in smaller domains and simpler use cases, and their outputs can always be derived back to the conditions and inputs that caused them. A defining characteristic of probabilistic systems is their reliance upon large datasets in order to produce sufficiently reliable dialogue strategies, and this can be positive or negative depending upon domain of implementation. Availability of corpora and training data may be plentiful in social media scenarios, but this may not be the case in specific domains; without appropriate resources the ML algorithms cannot operate effectively. With appropriate training, however, they are able to respond to inputs in ways that cannot be matched or anticipated with rules prior to deployment. Indeed, they are perhaps sought after for their ability to operate without extensive effort by designers, and to adapt with extended use. Several studies in order to take benefit of handcrafted and probabilistic approaches have been focused on hybrid system in different ways. Investigating hybrid models could be a plan for future study.

Mozart’s Piano Concertos represent the dynamic relationship ‘between the individual expressive voice of the soloist and the wider ‘community’ of the orchestra…both ultimately uniting in joyous unanimity’ (Till). The extent to which Mozart succeeded in achieving this ‘dialogue’, is easily determined by the way piano concertos were valued and understood by audiences of the time. Mozart’s greatest concertos, written in Vienna– offer an attractive source for investigating this topic. will be analysed. To understand how dialogue was created and gained awareness, this essay will begin with a concise review of primary literature – via differing claims of significant figures such as Tia DeNora, Simon p. Keefe, Leonard G. Ratner, Heinrich Christoph Koch, Cuthbert Girdlestone and Mozart himself – discussing as to what makes a Mozart Concerto ‘sing’. The topic of how Mozart’s Piano Concertos was appreciated and understood by the audiences of the time will also be explored, once again with relevant scholarly literature. This research will rely on the nature of the audience’s response at the time, as well as through an in-depth analysis of a Mozart Piano Concerto, specially No. 23, in A Major, for Piano and Orchestra, K.488. Evidently, throughout this essay, it is clear that Mozart’s Piano Concertos did form a sense of dialogue. Various music analysts and critics were able to actually understand the dialogue, however not so much the individual audience member. Yet, both could truly appreciate the communication and relationship within the orchestra.

Written at the height of Mozart’s career in the 1780s, the classic keyboard concerto, provides an intriguing backdrop for investigating piano/concerto relations (Keefe & Sisman). As represented by those of Mozart, the concerto achieved a magnificent synthesis of late eighteenth-century elements of style and structure – various aspects formed within the enlightenment (Ratner, 1980).

In Josephinian Vienna, c.1784, the ‘new musical ideas’ of the concerto connected with the new ‘enlightened’ ideas and practices. This included liberalism, toleration, the suppression of aristocratic powers, the lifting of censorship, and to some degree, economic resurgence (DeNora). It is in Mozart’s Vienna concerto’s that we can observe a prime example of what has been termed the emergence of the public sphere (DeNora). The concerto was, therefore, much more than a metaphor, whether for Mozart’s audiences or the readings provided by today’s music analysts and critics.

The concerto also provided a useful case in point for socio-economic exploration. Meaning not only could the wealthy, high-status aristocracy enjoy and attend live musical performances, but also those of a lower-status class. Following this transformation, it was revealed that music had a role as a medium of social values and one which enabled but was also constrained by practical, conventional, material and organisational factors (DeNora). Given that dialogue has a high social, artistic and creative standing, it is not surprising that in music, too, the conversation would be regarded in a positive light (Keefe & Sisman) . To replace the self-absorption of the piano and orchestra, the act of engaging in dialogue is achieved with a kind of openness. The social exchange replaces individualism and isolationism (Keefe, 2001).

Most soloists’ merely aim at displaying technical skill with no expression and ‘far from applying this acquired skill to arouse in their listener’s beautiful feelings and to gratify them in a noble way…seek only to draw attention to the mechanics of their art’ (Sulzer et al.). However, the truly skilled concerto composer will write a ‘passionate dialogue’ for soloist and orchestra such that the latter will ‘stimulate…noble feelings’ in the former (Koch). Thus, Mozart has gradually introduced emotion into the world of classical music with such relationships between the orchestra and solo. It is dialogue that directly draws upon and brings about the ‘noble feelings’ expressed in the soloist by the orchestra.

When a solo instrument breaks away from the mass of the orchestra and asserts its independence, either temporarily or, as in the concerto, for a whole work, it can form other relationships within the music and different forms. (Girdlestone, 2012). The polyphonic style of the earliest concerto had diverse combinations of solo and tutti but abandoned polyphony. Nevertheless, Mozart went against this and returned to polyphonic writing, and obtained thus once again the collaboration of solo and orchestra by using, not counterpoint, but the new symphonic style. This allowed the musical composition texture to once again combine and shape the overall sound and quality of the work.

As stated above, Mozart composed numerous concertos – all great examples of how he formed dialogue. The Concerto No. 23, in A Major, for Piano and Orchestra, K.488 is a significant example of how this connection is formed. Within bars 67-81, the soloist opens with the first subject, played in the tonic key (A major). The first four bars of the theme are reproduced exactly. However, in bars 71-78, scales and broken chord-type figures outline the theme. Bars 79- 81 replace the original bars 13-17 but remain in the key of A major. To end this first entry, the soloist ends with a brief, scalic passage, submitting on a perfect cadence. In the soloist piano part, Mozart has used melodic decoration and scalic melodies from the outset. This makes it evidently clear to the listener that this movement is for the soloist’s virtuosity, yet it still tells a story with the complete orchestra as they add to the story underneath the piano.

The harmonic structure of bars 114-128 is fundamentally the same as bars 46-60 (transposed), although the texture is different; the piano’s right hand is full of sparkling semiquaver runs. Subtle changes to the orchestration make the passage more interesting and inviting, evoking a dialogue between the instruments than a mere repeat and copy of the original orchestration. For example, in bars, 47- 48, the winds imitate the strings an octave higher, but in bars 115-116 it is reversed, with the strings now imitating the wind section. Mozart has cleverly composed this ‘copycat’, or perhaps even call and response, to establish the relationship between not only the orchestra and solo but the relationships within the orchestra itself. During bar 129 the music further takes a brief melodic diversion to allow for the extended virtuoso passage work by the soloist. Both tutti and solo, are of an equal importance here combining and conversing with dialogue, without one controlling over the other or claiming a larger share than the other of the public’s attention – which has been a clear motivation within many other Concertos by other composers of the time.

On the paper, Mozart created a dialogue between instruments, but what truly mattered to him was if the audience learnt to or how to appreciate the music. Frequent music analysts and critics have expressed their positivity and appreciation for Mozart’s works. François-Jean de Chastellux, exclaims Mozart’s concerto’s as one where, ‘the instruments shine in turn, in which they provoke each other and respond; they dispute and reconcile among themselves.’ It is a lively and sustained conversation’ (Chastellux, 1765). From this sentiment, it is evident that patrons of Mozart enjoyed his musical abilities and awarded the concerto’s ‘dialogue’ – which Mozart wholeheartedly composed – with the recognition it deserved. Even Mozart himself wrote to his father saying, ‘The first concert…went off very well. The hall was overflowing; and the new concerto I played won extraordinary applause. Everywhere I go, I hear praises of that concert’ (Anderson, 1985. Trans). This clearly expresses that Mozart himself heard the applause and the comments throughout his travels of praise and excitement.

Mozart’s concerto performances and the instruments, all received the highest praise. The admiration for one aspect fed directly into an appreciation for another, and everything was esteemed. (Keefe, 2009). For example, in Mozart: A Documentary Biography, it states ‘…mastery in the thoughts, mastery in the performance, and mastery in the instruments, all combined’ (Deutsch et al.) Mozart carefully integrated intimate grandeur manifested within the dialogue between the piano and the orchestra (Boydell & Brewer), allowing for the audience to appreciate the music and the discussion formed within indeed. Such praise and appreciation for works which held expressive dialogue were not widely recognise until Mozart wrote these concertos in Vienna.

Once audiences learnt to appreciate the music, the next step was to know if they understood the piece that was being performed or if it just went through one ear and out the next. When listening or attending a Mozart orchestral performance, it was essential for audiences to grasp the full significance of how the state of co-operation between ensemble members, and further yet the solo and accompanying orchestra, were formed and attained. They would have to understand, for example, the complicated ways in which dialogue functions as a pivot between competitive and the family relations within the orchestration. Only in this way would an audience have comprehended the full dramatic impact of the composition (Keefe, 2001). Keefe further suggests that Mozart’s concertos might have conveyed meaning or related in a similar way to the style of contemporary dramatic works – which most audience members were familiar with at this time. This would have allowed the audience to relate such music to something which they are already affiliated with. Mozart was therefore able to express that he intended on harnessing particular musical events (sounds, timbres, instrumental and solo effects) to a more general end. Ultimately, this encouraged listeners to perceive performance and composition as mutually reinforcing feature of a complete musical experience (Keefe, 2009). This left the audience with not only appreciating the music and dialogue, but also to understand it.

From 1773-1791, Mozart’s Vienna concertos for piano exhibited dynamic relationships between the solo piano and tutti orchestra, forming an artistic dialogue. A key example of this was the Concerto No. 23, in A Major, for Piano and Orchestra, K.488 composed in 1786. Throughout his career, Mozart took an interest in knowing whether his concertos were appreciated and understood by his audience. Overtime, from patrons and music analysts and critics, he did receive constant praise for his works preformed and composed in Vienna. These concertos grew within the enlightenment, allowing for unleashed creativity. During the enlightenment, Mozart went against the compositional norms of the time and went back to polyphonic writing creating the new symphonic style. Mozart’s concertos also conveyed meaning or related to similar dramatic works of the time, allowing for the audience to appreciate and understand the orchestration more. Mozart’s Piano Concerto’s established that ‘during the solo, the accompanying voices were not merely there to sounds this or that missing interval of the chord between the soprano and bass. There is a passionate dialogue between the concerto player and the accompanying orchestra.’ (H.C. Koch). Mozart’s work is to this day constantly praised by many consumers of classical music, and many music analysts and critics who can even now still hear the dialogue within his wide compositional range of works.

Introduction

Thucydides might be one of the most influential figures not only as a historian but also the founding father of realism through his writing, the ‘Peloponnesian War’ (Viotti and Kauppi, 1987). His book would suggest significant paradigms about realism (Keohane and Nye, 1977:42), and this has been considered as the core textbook penetrating all the time (Welch, 2003:303). Among his stories, it could be suggested that the three stages of the Melian dialogue – before the dialogue, during the dialogue, and after the dialogue – provided essential perspectives to classical realists, neo-realists, and neo-classical realists in concerning the power-seeking behavior of states.

Focusing on before the dialogue, neo-realists could find out that fears from international anarchy could encourage states to maximize their power, observing Athens’ argument that ‘ruling is the only way to escape from being ruled by others’ (Forde, 1995:149). Reflecting on neo-classical realists, it could also be claimed that different national characteristics formed by distinctive political atmospheres were another convincing factor in explaining states’ decisions to pursue to power (Ober and Perry, 2014:226; Monten, 2006:12).

In considering the time period in which the dialogue was being written (hereafter referred to as the ongoing Melian dialogue), Athenians attempted to negotiate with Melos to persuade them to surrender (Ober and Perry, 2014:214). Melos refused Athens’ suggestion and decided to fight Athens’ overwhelming military power (ibid). As a result, while Melos faced destruction; classical realists could discover fundamental assumptions about human nature that, irrespective of nationality, human beings would behave in the same way as Athens when concerning power (Morgenthau, 1946:203; Donnelly, 2000:10).

After the Melian dialogue, it could be proposed that neo-classical realists approached to another core idea that the maximization of power to escape from fear could turn into self-destruction by creating a security dilemma and getting involved in the war by other states (Herz, 1950:157; Welch, 2003:304).

In this regard, this essay argues that the Melian dialogue would provide essential theories to three schools of realism in a matter of state’s power-seeking behaviors – human nature in classical realism, anarchic fear and security dilemma in neo-realism, and national characteristics in neo-classical realism – by dividing three stages; before the dialogue, ongoing the dialogue, and after the dialogue.

Main body

For the sake of comprehending Athens’s fear and their decision on pursuing power, it might be proper to claim that Athens would already be aware of the international anarchic system. In accordance with Schuman (1941:9, cited in Donnelly, 2000:10), the term of anarchy would be described as the world in the jungle with the absence of central authorization, and that international anarchic system might be the most influential factor to intensify the fear, which could lead states to pursue the power (Monten, 2006:6; Grieco, 1988a:498, cited in Donnelly, 2000:58).

In this sense, the fear Athens felt before the Melian dialogue could not only be amplified by the international anarchic system, since there was no central authorization of controlling the balance of power between Sparta and Athens but also make Athens maximize the power in order to secure their security with this idea that ‘ruling is the only way to avoid being ruled by others’ (Thucydides, 1980:6.87, cited in Forde, 1995:149). Furthermore, as specified by Gilpin (1988:593), among driving forces in the pursuit of power, fear is the most convincing factor which always makes the states strive the power until restrained by other states.

In that regard, by reconsidering the background of Melian dialogue concerning why Athens made a decision to invade Melos, neo-realists could obtain valuable insights of what extent the anarchic environment in international affairs could amplify the fear and how far that fear could contribute to states to maximize the power for security. Thus, it could be argued that, since international anarchy would escalate the level of fear, states might concentrate on the way of maximizing power so as not to be controlled by other states and to maintain their security, which could be underlying reasons to describe the situation before the Melian dialogue.

Additionally, neo-classical realism emphasizing on the distinctive national characteristics could be expected to reinforce the overall explanation regarding the background of Melian dialogue as well. Neo-realistic approaches, based on the state-centric viewpoint, could be often considered as an oversimplified theory in dealing with the state’s motivation of maximizing power (Waltz, 1979:93-95; Snidal, 1985:35). In a matter of that, it would be helpful to light on another underlying cause in the background of Melian dialogue. Thucydides’ idea could be suggested that different national characteristics in Athens and Sparta were able to account for the states’ power-seeking behaviors.

Donnelly (2000:57) argued that states’ motivation of pursuing power might not be consistent to every state. For instance, unlike Athens’ concrete manner to pursue power (Smith, 1986:219-21, cited in Donnelly, 2000:8; Forde, 1995:147), it could be claimed that Sparta would indicate himself with a passive manner when confronting the increasing power of Athens, rather than actively responding to it by elevating the level of power in the same level as Athens (Jones and Powell, 1942, cited in Lee, 2019:75; Bagby, 1994:147). With respect to both states’ different manners of power-seeking behaviors, Thucydides attempted to give a reason by emphasizing on both states’ distinctive national characteristics (Gilpin, 1988:593; Doyle, 1986:68-69).

And these dissimilarities in national characteristics could be described by each nation’s political atmosphere with the neo-classical realism’s idea which considers the process in decision-making as a crucial intervening factor (Rosa, 2018:148), for instance, democracy in Athens and oligarchic in Sparta. In accordance with the Corinthian speech in Thucydides’ book ‘Peloponnesian War’, it had been claimed that Athens adopted the democracy as their political system, which collected a number of citizens’ opinions at once and was available to quickly adjust their stance to the surrounding environment, leading Athens to make decisions in bold and innovative means (Ober and Perry, 2014:226; Monten, 2006:12).

In short, Athens could be viewed as a risk-lover to obtain potential profits such as power. In opposition to Athens’ national characteristics, Sparta had been described timid and slow country responding to situations such as Athens’ uprising powers (Doyle, 1986:68-69), and political cultures in Sparta’s oligarchy would probably lead Sparta to preserve the status quo rather than taking an adventure, in that a few numbers of leaders could have final determination in the way of conducting state affairs and they might consider opportunities as potential loses, viewed as risk-haters (Ober and Perry, 2014:226; Monten, 2006:12).

At this point, it could be held that, in terms of power-seeking behaviors, national characteristics created through the political atmosphere could be another significant factor to inspire states to determine whether to be a risk-lover, likewise Athens or to be a risk-hater, Sparta. With a shared idea of states’ power-seeking behavior, neo-realists and neo-classical realists could discover their core theoretical approaches – fear in international anarchy and national characteristics from the political atmosphere – by inspecting before the Melian dialogue. Next paragraph will be dealt with how classical realism’s core idea, human nature, could emerge during the dialogue.

While Athens had been negotiating with Melos, Athens argued to Melos that ‘all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do’ (Thucydides, 1980:5.105.2-3, cited in Bagby, 1994:13). In considering reasons regarding that argument, it seems possible to speculate that Athens highlighted the universality of states’ power-seeking behavior based on the human nature. Concerning the universality, Athens might consider that human nature itself would not change (Thomson, 1985:17; Monten, 2006:12). So, bearing in mind of a constant manner in human nature, Athens could claim that the Melos would do in the same behavior as Athens. In a similar vein, Gilpin (1988, cited in Welch, 2003:304) also argued that the behavior of human beings could be tractable and predictable due to the unchanging human nature.

In addition to the constant human nature, a number of classical realistic scholars would approach to the egoistic human nature to answer the question ‘why do human beings pursue power?’ (Morgenthau, 1943:203; Donnelly, 2000:10). So, with the constant and egoistic human nature, it has been claimed that all states would continuously pursue the way of maximizing the power beyond the existing power for improving their security (Smith, 1986:219-21, cited in Donnelly, 2005:8; Forde, 1995:147).

That presupposition could be the main reason of persuading Melos to surrender, in that, in Athens’ expectation, Melos would accept their request so as to keep pursuing the power instead of choosing self-destruction. In this respect, it could be proposed that Athens might justify their behavior of pursuing power with the assertion that all states would seek the power and behave in the same manner due to constant and egoistic human natures, which could be fundamental ideas to classical realists in explaining the states’ power-seeking behaviors through ongoing Melian dialogue. Last paragraph will describe outcomes after the Melian dialogue with a neo-realistic lens focusing on the security dilemma and its aftermath of it.

By considering Athens’ argument that ‘ruling is the only way to avoid being ruled by others’, neo-realists could discover fundamental paradigms in their theory that maximizing the power might be considered reasonable states’ action as a means of escaping from the fear and securing the state in the international anarchic system (Collins, 2016; Donnelly, 2005). However, in a matter of after the dialogue, it might also be necessary for neo-realists to consider that overcoming the fear by maximizing power could trigger the security dilemma by threatening other interrelated countries and could even turn into self-destruction by either waging a war or being engaged in.

In the case of Athens and Sparta, it could be claimed that Athens’ fear to be ruled was transformed into another type of fear to Sparta. In other words, Athens’ fear and efforts of overcoming it could be interpreted as major threats to Sparta, which could make war between them inevitable (Martin Ostwald, 1988, cited in Forde, 1995:147; Welch, 2003:304). For instance, in Lebow’s perspective (2007:168), Athens’ behavior and consequent highly intensive conflicts with Sparta might be proper examples in what John Herz called a ‘security dilemma’ that states A’s action of increasing the power to escape from the fear could turn to state B’s motivation to accumulate power not to be threatened by state A’s increasing power and these situations would be relentlessly repeating as there is no internationally centralized authority to stop them (Herz, 1950:157).

Thus, in opposition to Athens’ decisions to be the power-seeker and trials to secure their position in international anarchy, those caused another fear from Sparta, which would eventually ruin Athens after the Melian dialogue (Levy, 1987:83, cited in Lee, 2019; Ober and Perry, 2014:226-27; Martin Ostwald, 1988 in Forde, 1995:147). In that regard, in an ironical sense, it could be suggested that, as for Athens, the initial motivation to increase the power could be a reasonable state’s action in order to escape from the fear in international anarchy, but the outcome from it could be self-destruction to Athens for escalating the level of the security dilemma and triggering other interrelated states to wage a war with Athens. That outcome could be considered as a valuable theoretical insight to neo-realists in terms of the negative effect of states’ power-seeking behaviors.

Conclusion

Through Melian dialogue, it could be assumed that core ideas in three types of realism would be identified by dividing Melian dialogue into three stages; before the dialogue, during the dialogue, and after the dialogue. With respect to the stage of before the dialogue, neo-realism and neo-classical realism could discover their core theoretical findings that the fear of international anarchy could be a compelling motivation to maximize states’ power and national characteristics shaped through the internal political atmosphere could also be another convincing element to describe states’ behaviors in terms of increasing the power. During the dialogue, constant and egoistic human natures, shown and suggested by Athens’ argument, could be the main theoretical ideas of classical realists in explaining the states’ power-seeking behavior. At the last stage, after the dialogue, it could be suggested that neo-realist would realize that states’ behavior of increasing power to escape the fear of an anarchic system could trigger the escalation of security dilemma with other interrelated countries and could be self-destruction by waging or being involved into the war regardless of states’ intention.

Reference lists

1. Bagby, L. M. J. (1994). The use and abuse of Thucydides in international relations. International Organization, 48(1), 131-153
2. Collins, A. (2016). Contemporary security studies (Fourth ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
3. Donnelly, J., & Dawson Books. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge;New York, NY;: Cambridge University Press.
4. Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1169
5. Forde, S. (1995). International realism and the science of politics: Thucydides, machiavelli, and neorealism. International Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 141-160
6. Gilpin, R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 591-613.
7. Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), 157-180.
8. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
9. Lebow, R. N. (2007). Thucydides and deterrence. Security Studies, 16(2), 163-188.
10. Lee, J. (2019). Did thucydides believe in thucydides’ trap? the history of the peloponnesian war and its relevance to U.S.-china relations. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 24(1), 67-86
11. Monten, J. (2006). Thucydides and modern realism. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 3-25.
12. Morgenthau, H. J., & Norman Wait Harris Memorial Foundation. (1946). Peace, security, & the united nations. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.
13. Ober, J., & Perry, T. J. (2014). Thucydides as a prospect theorist. Polis, 31(2), 206-232.
14. Rosa, P., & SpringerLink (Online service). (2018). Neoclassical realism and the underdevelopment of china’s nuclear doctrine. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
15. Snidal, D. (1985). The limits of hegemonic stability theory. International Organization, 39(4), 579-614
16. Viotti, P. R & Kauppi, M. V. (1987). International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism. New York: Macmillan
17. Welch, D. A. (2003). Why international relations theorists should stop reading thucydides. Review of International Studies, 29(3), 301-319.

The importance and educational value of talk propagates the sense of empowerment in an academic setting. Talking allows the pupils to think, share ideas and interact with their peers, resulting in an enhanced educational experience.

When I was working at a primary school, based in Harmondsworth, I used talk to assess children’s prior knowledge, which helped me to develop their understanding of the subject’s knowledge by sharing ideas. My experience of working with children delineates the following points.

• Talking allowed pupils to become more adroit and agile in communication skills, to express their thoughts.
• Children became more engaged in the intellectual activity, with more ease, which enhanced the academic productivity.
• New thinking and ideas stimulated the learning experience where children felt more empowered, as opposed to merely being the passive recipients of knowledge.
• Allowing them to ask questions and share ideas enhanced their sense of autonomy, and they performed better in academic activities.

In my view, when a teacher facilitates discussions, it allows the pupils to develop better understanding of the subject. Semiotic tools such as language enables the pupils to add meaning to the experience. A positive and coherent talk focuses on teacher & learner’s interaction. An effective talk gives teachers the ability to access pupil’s thinking, which allows them to recognize the individual’s needs. Learning tasks can then be devised to scrutinize & analyse understanding, to evaluate their progress. In contrast, the traditional older method of teaching, can be less effective, where the teacher remains in firm control of the transition of knowledge to students with fewer interactions. Better language use, concomitants better expression and better thinking.

Wegerif: Dialogic Education consciousness (‘conscientization’) and at the same time a transformation of social reality. Where a particular concept of what counts as social justice is established in advance of dialogue then this Freirean vision may be accused of being instrumental and manipulative rather than genuinely dialogic (Matusov, 2009). However, if the focus is on liberating all students to be able to participate equally fully in dialogues that shape a shared social reality then this is a truly dialogic educational goal albeit one which may often have obvious political implications.

In practice, despite claims to the contrary (e.g Matusov in Matusov & Wegerif, 2014), these three levels of definition are not mutually incompatible. Most approaches to education that describe themselves as dialogic combine some element of all three levels. It is not uncommon for approaches to combine a concern for taking the form of a dialogue in which all participants are given opportunities to participate with ideas, a concern to promote knowledge age skills through shared inquiry and an interest in developing dialogic dispositions and promoting more dialogue as a valued end in itself (ege. Flecha 2000, 16: Phillipson and Wegerif, 2016; Nystrand, 1997 and Lefstein and Snell, 2013).

A brief intellectual history of dialogic education

Dialogic talk gives a platform to student’s abilities to engage at a deep level. In an effective educational talk, questioning should be used to extend thinking rather than assess it. The value to talk is embedded with the idea of active participation and immediate feedback. An effective talk requires a vivid collaboration at a deep level between the teacher and the students. Questioning extends thinking and triggers active participation.

‘’High quality talk between the teacher and the student(s) provides a fertile ground for an active, highly collaborative and cognitively stimulating learning process leading to improved learning outcomes’’ (Cecilia, Speicher, Sascha 2016)

An effective academic exchange should dwell on collective, mutual, contributory, calculated and cumulative characteristics. Children should listen, share and consider the view of others. Build on their own on, or other’s contributions and change them into coherent line of thinking. Group discussions. ‘’Productive collaborative talk requires time for pupils to develop and practise the necessary group skills before they are able to use what Alexander has called, ‘the right kind of talk’ (Alexander 2004)’’. (Braund, and Leigh 2013)

Dialogic talks may not always be an effective method, especially when some students refuse to participate. Children’s contribution in effective dialogue is very important. Teacher’s voice is a guiding force in the effectiveness of dialogic talks, and many teachers lack the skills necessary to plan an effective dialogue. They should be able to establish strategies which enables children to discuss, argue, explain and reason rather than just respond. ‘’Dialogic talk can be developed effectively in schools through structured intervention programmes and can be initiated in classrooms through particular forms of stimulus’’, (Poultney and Rupert 2020).

Bibliography/Referencing

1. Braund, M. and Leigh, J. (2013) ‘Frequency and Efficacy of Talk-Related Tasks in Primary Science’, Research in Science Education, 43(2), pp. 451 doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9270-1
2. Goria, C., Speicher, O. and Stollhans, S., 2016. Innovative Language Teaching And Learning At University. 1st ed. Dublin: Research-Publishing.net, p.5.
3. Poultney, V. and Knight, R., 2020. Classroom Talk. 1st ed. [eBook] St Albans: Critical Publishing, p.56. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mdx/reader.action?docID=6007359> [Accessed 18 September 2020].

Spoken dialogue in music can be traced back to 16th and 17th centuries however, it was also used more specifically to signify the independent dialogue settings included in an abundance of madrigals, motets and cantatas; and it was for this type of setting that in the early 17th century G.B. Doni coined the phrase, ‘dialoghi fuor di scena’ (dialogues without stage performance), (Nutter, Whenham). During the nineteenth century, the uses of spoken dialogue was essential when it came to German and French opera. Considering that opera today is known as shows with continuous singing many get confused and believe that spoken dialogue is only in musicals/spoken theater. The uses of spoken dialogue in operas of the nineteenth century played an imperative role on the content and development for German Singspiel operas, Opéra-Comique and Operettas. The integration of spoken dialogue in operas combined with arias, ensembles, and sometimes dance became an important factor in the strengthening of dialect opera in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Spoken dialogue in German-language comic operas are known as, Singspiel. Although sung recitative was still popular during the rise of spoken dialogue in operas, it was believed that dialogue helped connect the story to the songs smoothly in comparison to a recitative. Although some enjoyed the spoken dialogue the initial shock of it all refused to diminish, ‘Christopher Martin Wieland, in his, das deutsche Singspiel, argued for the elimination of spoken dialogue: to have music all the time was clearly superior’ (Abbate). carried forward in spoken dialogue, normally in prose, with music reserved for introductions and emotional highpoints; dances, marches and narrative songs are frequent; recitatives occur only occasionally, normally in addition to the dialogue rather than in place of it. While Singspiel continued to be performed on German main stages another genre was gaining popularity in France, opéra comique. This was the equivalent of the German singspiel, where arias alternated with spoken dialogue.

In France, Opéra-Comique began to rise into the spotlight of the operatic world. It was given many names before finally settling on Opéra-Comique, one name most commonly used was “comedie melee d’ariettes”(fsdfsg) Opéra-Comique became widely popular and the use of spoken dialogue began to normalize. These spoken dialogue operas affected the contents. They usually tend to have a wider range of themes and they mainly favored more so sentimental or fantastic plots. Opéra-Comique also initiated the decline on operas/plays performed in France. By the beginning of the Revolution, operas with spoken dialogue on an extensive range of subjects and in a variety of styles were an important part of the opera repertory. Theatres began to pop up and most were vaudevilles or short operas. The Opéra-Comique would compete for audiences and many suffered. Even Italian plays in France (Comédie-Italienne) were dropped in 1780 and the desire for the number of new vaudevilles reduced, “still, 1789 and the early years of the Revolution brought major changes to the Comédie-Italienne. First, its monopoly on operas with spoken dialogue was challenged and soon disappeared.” At the time among the most successful in discovering the way to combine spoken dialogue with sung portions was Bizet’s Carmen, which includes recitative and arias combined with spoken segments. Slowly it began to lose its comedy and shift to more serious themes.

Originating in France, Operetta is a form of light opera that includes spoken dialogue and dances. The operetta was a very popular form of entertainment in mid-nineteenth-century France. Although operettas a short operatic work with section of spoken dialogue it brought back some of the ideals of opera buffa. It has been said that the operetta was the precursor to twentieth-century musical comedy. While operettas feature opera singers in a style more like a play, musical features non-operatic singing in a play, so similarities are inevitable. It can also be argued that Opéra-Comique was the main influence on this process for operettas. Spoken dialogue permitted a quick shift of essential components of spoken theater to the operatic stage. The alternation of spoken dialogue with arias was a vital structure in operettas. With so much importance being on spoken dialogue, librettos were held at an even higher expectation. The dialogue not only helped point out the meaning of the arias but also allowed the aria to become more like a continuation of a conversation. Due to the importance of dialogue in operettas, it became a requirement to hire singing actors. The quality of acting became just as important as the quality of singing quality, if not more.

Eugène Scribe was a famous playwriter and librettist that had a huge in the development of Opéra-Comique and the librettist of many successful Grand Operas in the nineteenth century. He attended the Collège Sainte-Barbe in Paris, and then entered the law firm of Guillonné-Merville Although he worked at a law firm, he spent most of his time writing satirical vaudevilles in collaboration with his friend from Sainte-Barbe, Germain Delavigne (Pendle). He is known for the perfection of the so-called ‘well-made play’, where he resurrected the vaudeville, replaced its stock characters with ones from society and introduced elements of the comedy of manners into his plays. He eliminated the musical interludes altogether and expanded the elements of comic intrigue until his plays had become genuine comedies. ‘He went on to become one of the great masters of the neatly plotted, tightly constructed well-made play which were intended to appeal to the material aspirations of a middle-class audience whose capacity for idealism was limited’ (Schneider). He valued the middle-class and chose everyday life honest and hard sympathetic characters of his comedies honest, caring, simple, hardworking people. He wrote almost 400 theatre pieces of every kind, often in collaboration in what was virtually a literary factory. Although he had many failures he persisted and became one of the most influential librettists in Grand Opera history. Some of his first work began in 1810 but was not very successful. He began to write many dramas for theaters that played Opéra-Comics in the 1820s; his first work being, Valérie. He finally became of some importance when he won the Légion d’Honneur and was elected as a member of the Académie Française in 1836. Scribe was known for the act of merging several different sources, many of his own to write his librettos for Opéra-Comique. He has worked with Offenbach, Meyerbeer, Auber. He also worked with Verdi and Gounod who had a few complaints about Scribe. What he wrote is important to French opera history, but the way it was done will always be immensely impressive. Almost all our present-day lyric theater comes from Scribe’s capabilities. We wouldn’t have, La Muette, Robert le Diable, La Juive, Les Huguenots, nor the very delightful repertoire of Opéra-Comiques without him (Blaze de Bury). The works of Auber would probably be forgotten without the great collaborations between he and Scribe. ‘Of the twenty-five new operas listed in Loewen- berg’s Annals of Opera as having been first performed between 1828 – the year of Auber’s La Muette de Portici – and 1848, Scribe was responsible wholly or in part for the librettos of sixteen of them’ (Pendle). When it comes to Opéra-Comique, Scribe did not fall short. He has a large number of collaborations, and work where he was the author of the librettos for thirty-five works cited by Loewenberg between 1823 and the year of his first collaborations with Auber. That would mean most of the librettos used in Paris performed on the stage were written by Scribe. Due to the high capacity of his work and his relationship with other writers, Scribe continued to be known as a prolific writer for a ton of the major stages in Paris. Also, the significance of his librettos for not only Opéra-Comique but also Grand Opera during the nineteenth century granted him a huge place in French history.

Scribe’s past work helped his writing for his work in Opéra-Comiques. Because Opéra-Comiques contained dialogue rather than a recitative, he decided to pull from his past projects to fill in the dialogue. It was easy for him to transfer his playwrights and the techniques he used while writing them to his comedies. Scholars have read over an abundance of his librettos and figured he took what he wrote from his vaudevilles and put them into his Opéra-Comiques. Due to him sourcing himself, he had to make sure to make a few changes to fit the structure around the new setting in his Opéra-Comique. He did use his past plots, but they had to be significantly simplified the musical stage. The quick-paced, prompt, comical dialogue of the comedies/vaudevilles needed to be clearer and more understandable. His audience was no longer the middle class but now where aristocrats who enjoyed the Grand Operas. Now when it came to Scribe’s librettos for Grand Opera, he repeated his action of pulling sources from himself. He pulled different elements out of each different style from his past. From his Opéra-Comique he pulled his dramatic techniques, character types, and situations already adapted from his comedies-vaudevilles and dramas, and then finally turned all of that into his librettos for Grand Opera (Pendle).

Work Cited

1. Abbate, Carolyn, and Roger Parker. A History of Opera. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.
2. Blaze de Bury,Henri ‘Portraits d’hier et d’aujourd’hui: I. Auber et Scribe,’ Revue des Deux mondes, Ser. 3, Vol. XXXV (1879), pp. 54-55
3. Nutter, David, and John Whenham. ‘Dialogue.’ Grove Music Online. 2001; Accessed 12 Nov. 2019.https://wwwoxfordmusiconlinecom.udel.idm.oclc.org/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo9781561592630-e-0000007713.
4. Pendle, Karin. ‘Eugene Scribe and French Opera of the Nineteenth Century.’ The Musical Quarterly 57, no. 4 (1971): 535-61. www.jstor.org/stable/741257.
5. Schneider, Herbert. ‘Scribe, (Auguste) Eugène.’ Grove Music Online. 2001; Accessed 12 Nov. 2019.https://wwwoxfordmusiconlinecom.udel.idm.oclc.org/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000025268.

“As a narrative medium in film, dialogue is overrated”, I agree and disagree with this statement. According to film reference, “Cinematic dialogue is oral speech between fictional characters”. The source goes on to say, “This distinguishes dialogue from other types of cinematic language such as voice-over narration, internal monologue, or documentary interviews, which have different characteristics.” I will discuss narratives and compare it to the role of dialogue.

To begin with, a narrative is a story. A linear narrative is when a story is told from the beginning, to the middle then to the end. Non-linear is the opposite. This is when a story is told out of order. There are claims that dialogue is not needed to tell a story. The old phrase being, “one photo can be worth a thousand words”. The language of film can be described as a visual one. In fact in the history of cinema, there was no sound put to an image or a sequence of images at all. Charlie Chaplin being one prime example. Whether it’s acknowledgement between characters, an intimate closeup of a person or object, an expressive production design or some other element of mise-en-scène; visuals can speak without words and still portray a meaning or message.

When we decide what our favourite movies are, the first thing we think of is why is that my favourite movie? Is is the jokes? The actors? The dialogue? A moment/s we relate to best? Or a shocking reveal? The list goes on. As quoted from a source, “ In all of our favorite movies, there are a handful of lines we can recite by heart…lines that make us smile and crystallize the emotional experience of the narrative”. This is the reason one has to get dialogue right to a T if you want to make a good first impression and capture the reader’s attention.

Narratives in Film and TV

Visual storytelling in film and television is when a narrative is portrayed with images. Not just images. Images that are created through amazing technology we have in the modern day. It is a known fact that Human beings are able to understand stories. We have a visual ability that allows our brain to put certain images together. Thus, we have a mental picture. A source points out that, “It is in our nature to want to understand the world around us, and our eyes are the primary way we do so”. Everyday we are bombarded by images, but our brains have tricked us into thinking this is the norm, so we never really question it in practice. However, through well thought out arrangements, many images transform from just being a big mess of movement or “information into something we call a story”.

During my research, I came across an interesting article with an experiment relating to this exact topic. Long story short, this is to test the effects of visual storytelling on our brain. “Turn your television to a movie that you have never seen, and then turn the sound off”. Without hearing anything at all, do you know what’s going on? This is an experiment dedicated to testing filmmaker’s work but also to see how the human brain can make sense of the stories without dialogue. When you watch the film, your mind will work at its rate to give you an idea about what this story could be about. Now you must ask yourself, how quickly did you begin to put the story together? Could you tell how the actors felt? How did the actors interact? Who were their friends/enemies? How did the filmmaker communicate with you without dialogue?

Although dialogue isn’t always needed, a lot of prefer to have it. For some dialogue would be the only way for them to enjoy film i.e. the blind. They wouldn’t know what was going on. As well as this, in this modern age young people have shorter attention spans, without dialogue I’m afraid my generation would ‘zone out’. I am guilty of this myself. Between phone and short attention span, if majority of films were made without dialogue the industry wouldn’t do too well.

Dialogue can be subtle and clever. Films are for artistic and creative expression. The last thing the audience wants is dialogue that sounds too much like boring reality. The challenge here is to make the realistic dialogue sound clever and unique. As well as this, the scripts can be witty or comic. The audiences watching the movies and TV, can laugh in response to a witty phrase or joke. A source says, “Comic dialogue must keep up with a character’s personality. This is often seen in cartoons. Although the jokes wouldn’t be the same as jokes we’d know them to be, cartoons also have a little bit of dialogue to illustrate a story to a child/children. It may not be a lot, but it is very effective when done right. Kids also tend to get bored easily so a sentence here and there keeps them engaged. I would say a lot of movies rely on dialogue especially for engagement. In my opinion, not everyone can engage in a silent film. I remember when I was a child, watching a cartoon; if there was no sound I would get bored very quickly. That is the only reason I agree and disagree on the statement. I don’t believe dialogue to be overrated in this case.

In conclusion, film is a complex craft that combines the talents of hundreds upon hundreds of people. These people are joined together, no matter what area of study, to tell a story to the best of their ability. But what is the story they want to tell? And how are they going to tell it. Words or no words. Dialogue should be used in moderation and depending on what genre the visual is. It cannot be generalised into it being,‘overrated’ especially when its needed as appose to when its not. All I can say is im thankful one of my favourite films, Gone with the wind 1939, has dialogue otherwise I would never of heard one of my favourite phrases of all time which is as follows, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.

The importance and educational value of talk propagates the sense of empowerment in an academic setting. Talking allows the pupils to think, share ideas and interact with their peers, resulting in an enhanced educational experience.

When I was working at a primary school, based in Harmondsworth, I used talk to assess children’s prior knowledge, which helped me to develop their understanding of the subject’s knowledge by sharing ideas. My experience of working with children delineates the following points.

• Talking allowed pupils to become more adroit and agile in communication skills, to express their thoughts.
• Children became more engaged in the intellectual activity, with more ease, which enhanced the academic productivity.
• New thinking and ideas stimulated the learning experience where children felt more empowered, as opposed to merely being the passive recipients of knowledge.
• Allowing them to ask questions and share ideas enhanced their sense of autonomy, and they performed better in academic activities.

In my view, when a teacher facilitates discussions, it allows the pupils to develop better understanding of the subject. Semiotic tools such as language enables the pupils to add meaning to the experience. A positive and coherent talk focuses on teacher & learner’s interaction. An effective talk gives teachers the ability to access pupil’s thinking, which allows them to recognize the individual’s needs. Learning tasks can then be devised to scrutinize & analyse understanding, to evaluate their progress. In contrast, the traditional older method of teaching, can be less effective, where the teacher remains in firm control of the transition of knowledge to students with fewer interactions. Better language use, concomitants better expression and better thinking.

Wegerif: Dialogic Education consciousness (‘conscientization’) and at the same time a transformation of social reality. Where a particular concept of what counts as social justice is established in advance of dialogue then this Freirean vision may be accused of being instrumental and manipulative rather than genuinely dialogic (Matusov, 2009). However, if the focus is on liberating all students to be able to participate equally fully in dialogues that shape a shared social reality then this is a truly dialogic educational goal albeit one which may often have obvious political implications.

In practice, despite claims to the contrary (e.g Matusov in Matusov & Wegerif, 2014), these three levels of definition are not mutually incompatible. Most approaches to education that describe themselves as dialogic combine some element of all three levels. It is not uncommon for approaches to combine a concern for taking the form of a dialogue in which all participants are given opportunities to participate with ideas, a concern to promote knowledge age skills through shared inquiry and an interest in developing dialogic dispositions and promoting more dialogue as a valued end in itself (ege. Flecha 2000, 16: Phillipson and Wegerif, 2016; Nystrand, 1997 and Lefstein and Snell, 2013).

A brief intellectual history of dialogic education

Dialogic talk gives a platform to student’s abilities to engage at a deep level. In an effective educational talk, questioning should be used to extend thinking rather than assess it. The value to talk is embedded with the idea of active participation and immediate feedback. An effective talk requires a vivid collaboration at a deep level between the teacher and the students. Questioning extends thinking and triggers active participation.

‘’High quality talk between the teacher and the student(s) provides a fertile ground for an active, highly collaborative and cognitively stimulating learning process leading to improved learning outcomes’’ (Cecilia, Speicher, Sascha 2016)

An effective academic exchange should dwell on collective, mutual, contributory, calculated and cumulative characteristics. Children should listen, share and consider the view of others. Build on their own on, or other’s contributions and change them into coherent line of thinking. Group discussions. ‘’Productive collaborative talk requires time for pupils to develop and practise the necessary group skills before they are able to use what Alexander has called, ‘the right kind of talk’ (Alexander 2004)’’. (Braund, and Leigh 2013)

Dialogic talks may not always be an effective method, especially when some students refuse to participate. Children’s contribution in effective dialogue is very important. Teacher’s voice is a guiding force in the effectiveness of dialogic talks, and many teachers lack the skills necessary to plan an effective dialogue. They should be able to establish strategies which enables children to discuss, argue, explain and reason rather than just respond. ‘’Dialogic talk can be developed effectively in schools through structured intervention programmes and can be initiated in classrooms through particular forms of stimulus’’, (Poultney and Rupert 2020).

Bibliography/Referencing

1. Braund, M. and Leigh, J. (2013) ‘Frequency and Efficacy of Talk-Related Tasks in Primary Science’, Research in Science Education, 43(2), pp. 451 doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9270-1
2. Goria, C., Speicher, O. and Stollhans, S., 2016. Innovative Language Teaching And Learning At University. 1st ed. Dublin: Research-Publishing.net, p.5.
3. Poultney, V. and Knight, R., 2020. Classroom Talk. 1st ed. [eBook] St Albans: Critical Publishing, p.56. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mdx/reader.action?docID=6007359> [Accessed 18 September 2020].

Spoken dialogue in music can be traced back to 16th and 17th centuries however, it was also used more specifically to signify the independent dialogue settings included in an abundance of madrigals, motets and cantatas; and it was for this type of setting that in the early 17th century G.B. Doni coined the phrase, ‘dialoghi fuor di scena’ (dialogues without stage performance), (Nutter, Whenham). During the nineteenth century, the uses of spoken dialogue was essential when it came to German and French opera. Considering that opera today is known as shows with continuous singing many get confused and believe that spoken dialogue is only in musicals/spoken theater. The uses of spoken dialogue in operas of the nineteenth century played an imperative role on the content and development for German Singspiel operas, Opéra-Comique and Operettas. The integration of spoken dialogue in operas combined with arias, ensembles, and sometimes dance became an important factor in the strengthening of dialect opera in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Spoken dialogue in German-language comic operas are known as, Singspiel. Although sung recitative was still popular during the rise of spoken dialogue in operas, it was believed that dialogue helped connect the story to the songs smoothly in comparison to a recitative. Although some enjoyed the spoken dialogue the initial shock of it all refused to diminish, ‘Christopher Martin Wieland, in his, das deutsche Singspiel, argued for the elimination of spoken dialogue: to have music all the time was clearly superior’ (Abbate). carried forward in spoken dialogue, normally in prose, with music reserved for introductions and emotional highpoints; dances, marches and narrative songs are frequent; recitatives occur only occasionally, normally in addition to the dialogue rather than in place of it. While Singspiel continued to be performed on German main stages another genre was gaining popularity in France, opéra comique. This was the equivalent of the German singspiel, where arias alternated with spoken dialogue.

In France, Opéra-Comique began to rise into the spotlight of the operatic world. It was given many names before finally settling on Opéra-Comique, one name most commonly used was “comedie melee d’ariettes”(fsdfsg) Opéra-Comique became widely popular and the use of spoken dialogue began to normalize. These spoken dialogue operas affected the contents. They usually tend to have a wider range of themes and they mainly favored more so sentimental or fantastic plots. Opéra-Comique also initiated the decline on operas/plays performed in France. By the beginning of the Revolution, operas with spoken dialogue on an extensive range of subjects and in a variety of styles were an important part of the opera repertory. Theatres began to pop up and most were vaudevilles or short operas. The Opéra-Comique would compete for audiences and many suffered. Even Italian plays in France (Comédie-Italienne) were dropped in 1780 and the desire for the number of new vaudevilles reduced, “still, 1789 and the early years of the Revolution brought major changes to the Comédie-Italienne. First, its monopoly on operas with spoken dialogue was challenged and soon disappeared.” At the time among the most successful in discovering the way to combine spoken dialogue with sung portions was Bizet’s Carmen, which includes recitative and arias combined with spoken segments. Slowly it began to lose its comedy and shift to more serious themes.

Originating in France, Operetta is a form of light opera that includes spoken dialogue and dances. The operetta was a very popular form of entertainment in mid-nineteenth-century France. Although operettas a short operatic work with section of spoken dialogue it brought back some of the ideals of opera buffa. It has been said that the operetta was the precursor to twentieth-century musical comedy. While operettas feature opera singers in a style more like a play, musical features non-operatic singing in a play, so similarities are inevitable. It can also be argued that Opéra-Comique was the main influence on this process for operettas. Spoken dialogue permitted a quick shift of essential components of spoken theater to the operatic stage. The alternation of spoken dialogue with arias was a vital structure in operettas. With so much importance being on spoken dialogue, librettos were held at an even higher expectation. The dialogue not only helped point out the meaning of the arias but also allowed the aria to become more like a continuation of a conversation. Due to the importance of dialogue in operettas, it became a requirement to hire singing actors. The quality of acting became just as important as the quality of singing quality, if not more.

Eugène Scribe was a famous playwriter and librettist that had a huge in the development of Opéra-Comique and the librettist of many successful Grand Operas in the nineteenth century. He attended the Collège Sainte-Barbe in Paris, and then entered the law firm of Guillonné-Merville Although he worked at a law firm, he spent most of his time writing satirical vaudevilles in collaboration with his friend from Sainte-Barbe, Germain Delavigne (Pendle). He is known for the perfection of the so-called ‘well-made play’, where he resurrected the vaudeville, replaced its stock characters with ones from society and introduced elements of the comedy of manners into his plays. He eliminated the musical interludes altogether and expanded the elements of comic intrigue until his plays had become genuine comedies. ‘He went on to become one of the great masters of the neatly plotted, tightly constructed well-made play which were intended to appeal to the material aspirations of a middle-class audience whose capacity for idealism was limited’ (Schneider). He valued the middle-class and chose everyday life honest and hard sympathetic characters of his comedies honest, caring, simple, hardworking people. He wrote almost 400 theatre pieces of every kind, often in collaboration in what was virtually a literary factory. Although he had many failures he persisted and became one of the most influential librettists in Grand Opera history. Some of his first work began in 1810 but was not very successful. He began to write many dramas for theaters that played Opéra-Comics in the 1820s; his first work being, Valérie. He finally became of some importance when he won the Légion d’Honneur and was elected as a member of the Académie Française in 1836. Scribe was known for the act of merging several different sources, many of his own to write his librettos for Opéra-Comique. He has worked with Offenbach, Meyerbeer, Auber. He also worked with Verdi and Gounod who had a few complaints about Scribe. What he wrote is important to French opera history, but the way it was done will always be immensely impressive. Almost all our present-day lyric theater comes from Scribe’s capabilities. We wouldn’t have, La Muette, Robert le Diable, La Juive, Les Huguenots, nor the very delightful repertoire of Opéra-Comiques without him (Blaze de Bury). The works of Auber would probably be forgotten without the great collaborations between he and Scribe. ‘Of the twenty-five new operas listed in Loewen- berg’s Annals of Opera as having been first performed between 1828 – the year of Auber’s La Muette de Portici – and 1848, Scribe was responsible wholly or in part for the librettos of sixteen of them’ (Pendle). When it comes to Opéra-Comique, Scribe did not fall short. He has a large number of collaborations, and work where he was the author of the librettos for thirty-five works cited by Loewenberg between 1823 and the year of his first collaborations with Auber. That would mean most of the librettos used in Paris performed on the stage were written by Scribe. Due to the high capacity of his work and his relationship with other writers, Scribe continued to be known as a prolific writer for a ton of the major stages in Paris. Also, the significance of his librettos for not only Opéra-Comique but also Grand Opera during the nineteenth century granted him a huge place in French history.

Scribe’s past work helped his writing for his work in Opéra-Comiques. Because Opéra-Comiques contained dialogue rather than a recitative, he decided to pull from his past projects to fill in the dialogue. It was easy for him to transfer his playwrights and the techniques he used while writing them to his comedies. Scholars have read over an abundance of his librettos and figured he took what he wrote from his vaudevilles and put them into his Opéra-Comiques. Due to him sourcing himself, he had to make sure to make a few changes to fit the structure around the new setting in his Opéra-Comique. He did use his past plots, but they had to be significantly simplified the musical stage. The quick-paced, prompt, comical dialogue of the comedies/vaudevilles needed to be clearer and more understandable. His audience was no longer the middle class but now where aristocrats who enjoyed the Grand Operas. Now when it came to Scribe’s librettos for Grand Opera, he repeated his action of pulling sources from himself. He pulled different elements out of each different style from his past. From his Opéra-Comique he pulled his dramatic techniques, character types, and situations already adapted from his comedies-vaudevilles and dramas, and then finally turned all of that into his librettos for Grand Opera (Pendle).

Work Cited

1. Abbate, Carolyn, and Roger Parker. A History of Opera. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.
2. Blaze de Bury,Henri ‘Portraits d’hier et d’aujourd’hui: I. Auber et Scribe,’ Revue des Deux mondes, Ser. 3, Vol. XXXV (1879), pp. 54-55
3. Nutter, David, and John Whenham. ‘Dialogue.’ Grove Music Online. 2001; Accessed 12 Nov. 2019.https://wwwoxfordmusiconlinecom.udel.idm.oclc.org/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo9781561592630-e-0000007713.
4. Pendle, Karin. ‘Eugene Scribe and French Opera of the Nineteenth Century.’ The Musical Quarterly 57, no. 4 (1971): 535-61. www.jstor.org/stable/741257.
5. Schneider, Herbert. ‘Scribe, (Auguste) Eugène.’ Grove Music Online. 2001; Accessed 12 Nov. 2019.https://wwwoxfordmusiconlinecom.udel.idm.oclc.org/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000025268.

“As a narrative medium in film, dialogue is overrated”, I agree and disagree with this statement. According to film reference, “Cinematic dialogue is oral speech between fictional characters”. The source goes on to say, “This distinguishes dialogue from other types of cinematic language such as voice-over narration, internal monologue, or documentary interviews, which have different characteristics.” I will discuss narratives and compare it to the role of dialogue.

To begin with, a narrative is a story. A linear narrative is when a story is told from the beginning, to the middle then to the end. Non-linear is the opposite. This is when a story is told out of order. There are claims that dialogue is not needed to tell a story. The old phrase being, “one photo can be worth a thousand words”. The language of film can be described as a visual one. In fact in the history of cinema, there was no sound put to an image or a sequence of images at all. Charlie Chaplin being one prime example. Whether it’s acknowledgement between characters, an intimate closeup of a person or object, an expressive production design or some other element of mise-en-scène; visuals can speak without words and still portray a meaning or message.

When we decide what our favourite movies are, the first thing we think of is why is that my favourite movie? Is is the jokes? The actors? The dialogue? A moment/s we relate to best? Or a shocking reveal? The list goes on. As quoted from a source, “ In all of our favorite movies, there are a handful of lines we can recite by heart…lines that make us smile and crystallize the emotional experience of the narrative”. This is the reason one has to get dialogue right to a T if you want to make a good first impression and capture the reader’s attention.

Narratives in Film and TV

Visual storytelling in film and television is when a narrative is portrayed with images. Not just images. Images that are created through amazing technology we have in the modern day. It is a known fact that Human beings are able to understand stories. We have a visual ability that allows our brain to put certain images together. Thus, we have a mental picture. A source points out that, “It is in our nature to want to understand the world around us, and our eyes are the primary way we do so”. Everyday we are bombarded by images, but our brains have tricked us into thinking this is the norm, so we never really question it in practice. However, through well thought out arrangements, many images transform from just being a big mess of movement or “information into something we call a story”.

During my research, I came across an interesting article with an experiment relating to this exact topic. Long story short, this is to test the effects of visual storytelling on our brain. “Turn your television to a movie that you have never seen, and then turn the sound off”. Without hearing anything at all, do you know what’s going on? This is an experiment dedicated to testing filmmaker’s work but also to see how the human brain can make sense of the stories without dialogue. When you watch the film, your mind will work at its rate to give you an idea about what this story could be about. Now you must ask yourself, how quickly did you begin to put the story together? Could you tell how the actors felt? How did the actors interact? Who were their friends/enemies? How did the filmmaker communicate with you without dialogue?

Although dialogue isn’t always needed, a lot of prefer to have it. For some dialogue would be the only way for them to enjoy film i.e. the blind. They wouldn’t know what was going on. As well as this, in this modern age young people have shorter attention spans, without dialogue I’m afraid my generation would ‘zone out’. I am guilty of this myself. Between phone and short attention span, if majority of films were made without dialogue the industry wouldn’t do too well.

Dialogue can be subtle and clever. Films are for artistic and creative expression. The last thing the audience wants is dialogue that sounds too much like boring reality. The challenge here is to make the realistic dialogue sound clever and unique. As well as this, the scripts can be witty or comic. The audiences watching the movies and TV, can laugh in response to a witty phrase or joke. A source says, “Comic dialogue must keep up with a character’s personality. This is often seen in cartoons. Although the jokes wouldn’t be the same as jokes we’d know them to be, cartoons also have a little bit of dialogue to illustrate a story to a child/children. It may not be a lot, but it is very effective when done right. Kids also tend to get bored easily so a sentence here and there keeps them engaged. I would say a lot of movies rely on dialogue especially for engagement. In my opinion, not everyone can engage in a silent film. I remember when I was a child, watching a cartoon; if there was no sound I would get bored very quickly. That is the only reason I agree and disagree on the statement. I don’t believe dialogue to be overrated in this case.

In conclusion, film is a complex craft that combines the talents of hundreds upon hundreds of people. These people are joined together, no matter what area of study, to tell a story to the best of their ability. But what is the story they want to tell? And how are they going to tell it. Words or no words. Dialogue should be used in moderation and depending on what genre the visual is. It cannot be generalised into it being,‘overrated’ especially when its needed as appose to when its not. All I can say is im thankful one of my favourite films, Gone with the wind 1939, has dialogue otherwise I would never of heard one of my favourite phrases of all time which is as follows, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.