Abstract
This chapter presents an update semantic for dialogue acts, defined in terms of combinations of ‘elementary update functions’. This approach allows fine-grained distinctions to be made between related types of dialogue acts, and relations like entailment and exclusion between dialogue acts to be established. The approach is applied to the inventory of dialogue act types in the DIT++ taxonomy, using dialogue act representations as defined in the Dialogue Act Markup Language (DiAML), which is part of the recently established ISO standard 24617-2 for dialogue act annotation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
ISO 24612:2012; see also Ide and Romary (2004).
- 2.
If the set E in a dependence structure Δ=〈E,δ〉 is empty, then this amounts to there being no dependences. We will designate a dependence structure Δ=〈∅,δ〉 by ∅.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
This approach has been implemented in the multimodal DenK dialogue system; see Kievit et al. (2001).
References
Ahn, R. (2001). Agents, objects and events. Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
Alexandersson, J., Buschbeck-Wolf, B., Fujinami, T., Kipp, M., Koch, S., Maier, E., Reithinger, N., Schmitz, B., & Siegel, M. (1998). Dialogue acts in VERBMOBIL-2 (2nd ed.) (Verbmobil Report No. 226). Saarbrücken: DFKI.
Allen, J., & Core, M. (1997). DAMSL: Dialogue act markup in several layers (Draft 2.1) (Technical Report). Rochester: University of Rochester.
Allen, J., Schubert, L., Ferguson, G., Heeman, P., Hwang, C. H., Kato, T., Light, M., Martin, N., Miller, B., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (1994). The TRAINS project: A case study in defining a conversational planning agent (Technical Report No. 532). Computer Science Department, University of Rochester.
Augmented Multiparty Interaction Consortium (AMI) (2005). Guidelines for dialogue act and addressee annotation. Unpublished report, University of Edinburgh.
Bunt, H. (1989). Information dialogues as communicative action in relation to partner modelling and information processing. In M. Taylor, F. Néel, & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), The structure of multimodal dialogue (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Bunt, H. (1994). Context and dialogue control. Think Quarterly, 3(1), 19–31.
Bunt, H. (2000). Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In H. Bunt & W. Black (Eds.), Abduction, belief and context in dialogue. Studies in computational pragmatics (pp. 81–150). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bunt, H. (2006). Dimensions in dialogue annotation. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2006), Genova, Italy. Paris: ELRA.
Bunt, H. (2009). A framework for dialogue act specification. In D. Heylen, C. Pelachaud, & D. Traum (Eds.), Proceedings of EDAML@AAMAS workshop “Towards a standard markup language for embodied dialogue acts”, Budapest (pp. 13–24).
Bunt, H. (2010). A methodology for designing semantic annotation languages exploiting semantic-syntactic ISO-morphisms. In Proceedings of the second international conference on global interoperability for language resources (ICGL 2010), Hong Kong.
Bunt, H. (2011). Multifunctionality in dialogue and its interpretation. Computer Speech & Language, 25, 222–245.
Bunt, H. (2012). The semantics of feedback. In Proceedings of SeineDial, 2012 workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, Paris.
Bunt, H. (2013a). A methodology for designing semantic annotations (TiCC Technical Report TR 2013-001). Tilburg University.
Bunt, H. (2013b). Annotations that effectively contribute to semantic interpretation. In Computing meaning (Vol. 4, pp. 49–69). Dordrecht: Springer. Chapter 4.
Bunt, H., Alexandersson, J., Choe, J.-W., Fang, A., Hasida, K., Lee, K., Petukhova, V., Popescu-Belis, A., Romary, L., Soria, C., & Traum, D. (2010). Towards an ISO standard for dialogue act annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, Malta. Paris: ELDA.
Bunt, H., Alexandersson, J., Choe, J.-W., Fang, A., Hasida, K., Petukhova, V., Popescu-Belis, A., & Traum, D. (2012). A semantically-based standard for dialogue annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, Istanbul. Paris: ELRA.
Carletta, J., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., & Doherty-Sneddon, G. (1996). HCRC dialogue structure coding manual (Technical Report HCRC/TR-82).
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, R. (2004). Information states, attitudes and dependent record types. In N. B. L. Cavedon, P. Blackburn, & A. Shimolina (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (Vol. 3, pp. 85–106). Stanford: CSLI.
Dhillon, R., Bhagat, S., Carvey, H., & Schriberg, E. (2004). Meeting recorder project: Dialogue labelling guide (ICSI Technical Report TR-04-002).
Di Eugenio, B., Jordan, P., & Pylkkaenen, L. (1998). The COCONUT project: Dialogue annotation manual (ISP Technical Report 98-1).
Geertzen, J., Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2007). A multidimensional approach to utterance segmentation and dialogue act classification. In Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, Antwerp (pp. 140–149).
Ide, N., & Romary, L. (2004). International standard for a linguistic annotation framework. Natural Language Engineering, 10, 211–225.
ISO (2012). Language resource management—semantic annotation framework (SemAF)—Part 2: Dialogue acts. International Organisation for Standardisation ISO. ISO International Standard 24617-2:2012(E).
Jurafsky, D., Schriberg, E., & Biasca, D. (1997). Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual.
Keizer, S., & Bunt, H. (2006). Multidimensional dialogue management. In Proceedings of the SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, Sydney, Australia (pp. 37–45).
Keizer, S., & Bunt, H. (2007). Evaluating combinations of dialogue acts for generation. In Proceedings of the SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, Antwerp, Belgium (pp. 158–165).
Keizer, S., Bunt, H., & Petukhova, V. (2011). Multidimensional dialogue management. In A. van den Bosch & G. Bouma (Eds.), Interactive multimodal question answering (pp. 118–145). Berlin: Springer.
Kievit, L., Piwek, P., Beun, R.-J., & Bunt, H. (2001). Multimodal cooperative resolution of referential expressions in the DenK system. In H. Bunt & R.-J. Beun (Eds.), LNAI: Vol. 2155. Revised selected papers from the second international conference on cooperative multimodal communication (pp. 197–214). Berlin: Springer.
Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2009a). The independence of dimensions in multidimensional dialogue act annotation. In Proceedings NAACL HLT conference, Boulder, Colorado.
Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2009b). Dimensions in communication (TiCC Technical Report TR 2009-003). Tilburg University.
Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2010). Introducing communicative function qualifiers. In Proceedings second international conference on global interoperability for language resources (ICGL-2), Hong Kong (pp. 123–133).
Petukhova, V., Bunt, H., & Malchanau, A. (2010). Empirical and theoretical constraints on dialogue act combinations. In Proceedings 14th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (PozDial), Poznán, Poland.
Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (1997). Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13(3), 309–347.
Popescu-Belis, A. (2004). Dialogue act tagsets for meeting understanding: An abstraction based on the DAMSL, Switchboard and ICSI-MR tagsets (Technical report, IM2.MDM-09, v1.2).
Traum, D., & Larsson, S. (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In J. van Kuppevelt & R. Smith (Eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 325–345). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Acknowledgements
I thank the members of the Tilburg Dialogue Club, who over the years have contributed to shaping Dynamic Interpretation Theory and the DIT++ annotation scheme, as well as PhD students and colleagues in related projects. This includes Volha Petukhova, Jeroen Geertzen, Simon Keizer, Roser Morante, Amanda Schiffrin, Ielka van der Sluis, Hans van Dam, Yann Girard, Rintse van der Weff, Elyon Dekoven, Paul Piwek, Robbert-Jan Beun, René Ahn, and Leen Kievit. Important contributions have also come from collaborative work in relation to ISO project 24617-2 “Semantic Annotation Framework, Part 2: Dialogue Acts”, in particular with David Traum, Jan Alexandersson, Andrei Popescu-Belis, Laurent Prévot, Marcin Wlodarzcak, Jens Allwood, Jean Carletta, Jae-Woong Choe, Alex Fang, Kiyong Lee, Laurent Romary, Nancy Ide, Claudia Soria, Dirk Heylen, and David Novick.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: The DIT++/ISO 24617-2 Taxonomies of Communicative Functions
Appendix: The DIT++/ISO 24617-2 Taxonomies of Communicative Functions
General-purpose communicative functions in ISO 24617-2 and DIT++
Dimension-specific communicative functions in ISO 24617-2 and DIT++. Functions and dimensions in italics are defined only in DIT++
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bunt, H. (2014). A Context-Change Semantics for Dialogue Acts. In: Bunt, H., Bos, J., Pulman, S. (eds) Computing Meaning. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 47. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7284-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7284-7_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7283-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7284-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)