\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.]
	% 1a
	\item
		There are several differences between dialogues of native speakers
		without a translator and with an intermediate translator.

		When native speakers are aware of the fact that there is a translation
		process going they will adapt the conversation style to be more
		suitable for translation. This is because translation suffers from
		common problems such as overlap between words and differences in
		lexical structure that can cause confusion between the speakers.
		
		For one the native speakers might use a lot more grounding to make sure
		the translation was correct and the partner understands the thing that
		has been said. Moreover, the grounding is probably a lot more
		deliberate in the case of machine translation because a simple
		backchannel like \emph{uhu} might not be enough to convince the partner
		that the utterance was understood. This elaborate grounding might be
		necessary since translation happens both ways and an utterance in
		language \emph{A} translated to language \emph{B} and back to \emph{A}
		could be different from the utterance that they started with.  When two
		native speakers converse the grounding can be very automatic and
		simple. Speakers can use nuances in the grounding to determine whether
		the listener understood the utterance and adapt thereupon.

		Secondly, regarding conversation turn taking there is also likely a
		change in conversation. Since intricate turn taking behaviour is a lot
		more difficult to translate the turn-taking will likely be much more
		concrete and structured. Because the turn-taking is so concrete it is
		much harder to use references that span over turns.

		Thirdly, the language use will be much more simple in the case of a
		translator intervening. Lexical divergence can only be solved by a
		translator when the context is explaining enough.  When native speakers
		converse the context might be implicit and subtle whereas in translator
		the context must be concrete. Speakers will adapt to this and provide
		more context, for example in the form of more adjectives. This remark
		also includes the use of linguistic constructions that are very
		difficult to translate such as metaphors and complex referencing.

		Fourth and lastly, the use of conversational implicature will have to
		be minimised since by mistranslations it might not be clear what the
		implicature is. Moreover, the speakers are probably not sure what to
		imply since the partner might come from a very different culture with a
		very different language structure. For example when an English speaker
		says \emph{a couple} it probably means \emph{two or more}. In languages
		that also posses a dual case, such as Russian, next to the common
		singular and plural this might be translated as \emph{exactly two}.
		Because of errors of this kind the maxims proposed by Grice are extra
		important.

	% 1b
	\item
		The dialogue manager component should use the aforementioned techniques
		to improve the understanding and clearness of the conversation.
		It must use sophisticated grounding techniques such as \emph{explicit
		confirmation} and \emph{rejection} when there is even a minimal amount
		of doubt.

		When the system is still not sure it can use rapid reprompting to get
		the details clear, even when in the native language of the user it
		might have been clear from other signals such as context.

		This means that the dialogue manager probably should not produce a lot
		of references, must expect very little implicature from the user and
		must not use ambiguities.

		When the user reprompts the system it should use a different, maybe a
		little bit more illogical, construction to say the same. By doing this
		the translation might be a bit better and therefore easier to
		understand for the non-native speaker.
		\newpage

	% 1c
	\item
		Evaluating dialogue systems can be done via multiple perspectives.

		Expectations on task completion are pretty high. When an error occurs
		the system can just reprompt. Moreover, when the user does not
		understand an utterance it can also ask for a reprompt to the system
		which will then hopefully reformulate the utterance.

		Expectations on efficiency will probably be a lot worse than a system
		without translation. There will be a lot more grounding, reprompting
		and other clarification and confirmation techniques. All these
		technique increase understanding at the cost of efficiency. Luckily in
		an information providence system the conversations are often short and
		therefore the overhead will not be as devastating.

		Quality cost expectations will also not be as good as without
		translation since due to all the problems mentioned above the system
		has to use more recovery techniques which lower the quality.
\end{enumerate}
