How does one measure "ability to understand language"? If it is a person's
ability that is being measured, this is a question that almost never poses
itself in an unqualified manner: Whatever formal test is applied, it takes
place on the background of the person's language use in daily social practice,
and what is measured is a specialised variety of language understanding (e.g.,
of a second language; or of written, technical language). Computer programs do
not have this background. What does that mean for the applicability of formal
tests of language understanding? I argue that such tests need to be
complemented with tests of language use embedded in a practice, to arrive at a
more comprehensive evaluation of "artificial language understanding". To do
such tests systematically, I propose to use "Dialogue Games" -- constructed
activities that provide a situational embedding for language use. I describe a
taxonomy of Dialogue Game types, linked to a model of underlying capabilites
that are tested, and thereby giving an argument for the \emph{construct
validity} of the test. I close with showing how the internal structure of the
taxonomy suggests an ordering from more specialised to more general situational
language understanding, which potentially can provide some strategic guidance
for development in this field.

论文提出了一种使用 “对话游戏” 来测试人工语言理解能力的方法，并借由建立一种对话游戏类型的分类来探讨测试的结构效度，以达到更全面的评估。