Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automatic dialogue act recognition with syntactic features

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Language Resources and Evaluation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work studies the usefulness of syntactic information in the context of automatic dialogue act recognition in Czech. Several pieces of evidence are presented in this work that support our claim that syntax might bring valuable information for dialogue act recognition. In particular, a parallel is drawn with the related domain of automatic punctuation generation and a set of syntactic features derived from a deep parse tree is further proposed and successfully used in a Czech dialogue act recognition system based on conditional random fields. We finally discuss the possible reasons why so few works have exploited this type of information before and propose future research directions to further progress in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://dit.uvt.nl.

  2. http://ufal.mff.cuni.cz/pdt2.0/.

  3. http://liks.fav.zcu.cz.

  4. http://incubator.apache.org/opennlp.

References

  • Alexandersson, J., Reithinger, N., & Maier, E. (1997). Insights into the dialogue processing of VERBMOBIL. Tech. rep. 191, Germany: Saarbrücken.

  • Allen, J., & Core, M. (1997). Draft of DAMSL: Dialog act markup in several layers. http://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/RevisedManual/RevisedManual.html.

  • Andernach, T. (1996) A machine learning approach to the classification of dialogue utterances. Computing Research Repository.

  • Ang, J., Liu, Y., & Shriberg, E. (2005). Automatic dialog act segmentation and classification in multiparty meetings. In Proceedings of the ICASSP, Philadelphia, USA.

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilmes, J. (2005). Backoff model training using partially observed data: Application to dialog act tagging. Tech. rep. UWEETR-2005-0008, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington.

  • Blanchon, H., & Boitet, C. (2000). Speech translation for French within the C-STAR II consortium and future perspectives. In INTERSPEECH ’00 (pp. 412–417).

  • Bunt, H. (1994). Context and dialogue control. Think Quarterly, 3, 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carberry, S. (1990). Plan recognition in natural language dialogue. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Cerisara, C., Král, P., & Gardent, C. (2011). Commas recovery with syntactic features in French and in Czech. In INTERSPEECH’11 (pp. 1413–1416), Firenze, Italy.

  • Crook, N., Granell, R., & Pulman, S. (2009). Unsupervised classification of dialogue acts using a dirichlet process mixture model. In Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the special interest group in discourse and dialogue (SIGDIAL) (pp. 241–348).

  • Dhillon, R. B. S., & Carvey, H. S. E. (2004). Meeting recorder project: Dialog act labeling guide. Tech. rep. TR-04-002, International Computer Science Institute.

  • Di Eugenio, B., Xie, Z., & Serafin, R. (2010). Dialogue act classification, higher order dialogue structure, and instance-based learning. Journal of Discourse and Dialogue Research, 1(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dielmann, A., & Renals, S. (2008). Recognition of dialogue acts in multiparty meetings using a switching DBN. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 16(7), 1303–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favre, B., Hakkani-Tür, D., & Shriberg, E. (2009). Syntactically-informed models for comma prediction. In ICASSP ’09 (pp. 4697–4700), Taipei, Taiwan.

  • Garner, P. N., Browning, S. R., Moore, R. K., & Russel, R. J. (1996). A theory of word frequencies and its application to dialogue move recognition. In ICSLP ’96 (Vol. 3, pp. 1880–1883), Philadelphia, USA.

  • Geertzen, J. (2009). Dialog act recognition and prediction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tilburg.

  • Gillick, L., Cox, S. (1989). Some statistical issues in the comparison of speech recognition algorithms. In ICASSP ’1989 (pp. 532–535).

  • Grau, S., Sanchis, E., Castro, M. J., & Vilar, D. (2004). Dialogue act classification using a Bayesian approach. In 9th international conference speech and computer (SPECOM ’2004) (pp. 495–499), Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

  • Guo, Y., Wang, H., & Genabith, J. V. (2010). A linguistically inspired statistical model for Chinese punctuation generation. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 9(2), 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajičová, E. (2000). Dependency-based underlying-structure tagging of a very large Czech corpus, 41(1), 57–78.

  • Hajič, J., Böhmová, A., Hajičová, E., & Vidová-Hladká, B. (2000). The Prague dependency treebank: A three-level annotation scenario. In A. Abeillé (Ed.), Treebanks: Building and using parsed corpora (pp. 103–127). Amsterdam: Kluwer.

  • Jekat, S., et al. (1995). Dialogue acts in VERBMOBIL. Verbmobil report 65.

  • Jeong, M., & Lee, G. G. (2008). Triangular-chain conditional random fields. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 16(7), 1287–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, G., & Bilmes, J. (2005). Dialog act tagging using graphical models. In Proceedings of the ICASSP (Vol. 1, pp. 33–36), Philadelphia, USA.

  • Joty, S., Carenini, G., & Lin, C.-Y. (2011). Unsupervised approaches for dialog act modeling of asynchronous conversations. In Proceedings of the IJCAI, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Jurafsky, D., et al. (1997). Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding. In IEEE workshop on speech recognition and understanding, Santa Barbara.

  • Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurafsky, D., Shriberg, E., & Biasca, D. (1997). Switchboard SWBD–DAMSL shallow-discourse-function annotation (Coders manual, draft 13). Tech. rep. 97-01, University of Colorado, Institute of Cognitive Science.

  • Kautz, H. A. (1987). A formal theory of plan recognition. Tech. rep. 215. NY: Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.

  • Keizer, S. A. R., & Nijholt, A. (2002). Dialogue act recognition with Bayesian networks for Dutch dialogues. In 3rd ACL/SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue (pp. 88–94), Philadelphia, USA.

  • Klüwer, T., Uszkoreit, H., & Xu, F. (2010). Using syntactic and semantic based relations for dialogue act recognition. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics: Posters (COLING ’10) (pp. 570–578). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. URL: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1944566.1944631.

  • Kompe, R. (1997). Prosody in speech understanding systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Král, P., Cerisara, C., & Klečková, J. (2005). Combination of classifiers for automatic recognition of dialog acts. In Interspeech ’2005 (pp. 825–828). Lisboa, Portugal: ISCA.

  • Král, P., Cerisara, C., & Klečková, J. (2006a). Automatic dialog acts recognition based on sentence structure. In ICASSP ’06 (pp. 61–64), Toulouse, France.

  • Král, P., Klečková, J., Pavelka, T., & Cerisara, C. (2006b). Sentence structure for dialog act recognition in Czech. In ICTTA ’06, Damascus, Syria.

  • Král, P., Cerisara, C., & Klečková, J. (2007). Lexical structure for dialogue act recognition. Journal of Multimedia (JMM), 2(3), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, J. D., McCallum, A., & Pereira, F. C. N. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on machine learning (ICML ’01) (pp. 282–289). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. URL: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645530.655813.

  • Lavie, A., Pianesi, F., & Levin, L. (2006). The NESPOLE! System for multilingual speech communication over the internet. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(5), 1664–1673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lendvai, P. A., & van den Bosch, K. E. (2003). Machine learning for shallow interpretation of user utterances in spoken dialogue systems. In Workshop on dialogue systems: Interaction, adaptation and styles management (EACL-03) (pp. 69–78). Hungary: Budapest.

  • Levin, L., Langley, C., Lavie, A., Gates, D., Wallace, D., & Peterson, K. (2003). Domain specific speech acts for spoken language translation. In 4th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue. Japan: Sapporo.

  • Litman, D. J. (1985). Plan recognition and discourse analysis: An integrated approach for understanding dialogues. Ph.D. thesis, Rochester, NY: University. of Rochester.

  • Mast, M., et al. (1996). Automatic classification of dialog acts with semantic classification trees and polygrams. In Connectionist, statistical and symbolic approaches to learning for natural language processing (pp. 217–229).

  • Mast, M., Kompe, R., Harbeck, S., Kiessling, A., Niemann, H., Nöth, E., et al. (1996). Dialog act classification with the help of prosody. In ICSLP ’96, Philadelphia, USA.

  • Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kübler, S., et al. (2007). MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(2), 95–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orkin, J., & Roy, D. (2010). Semi-automated dialogue act classification for situated social agents in games. In Proceedings of the agents for games and simulations workshop at the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), Toronto, Canada.

  • Pavelka, T., Ekštein, K. (2007). JLASER: An automatic speech recognizer written in Java. In XII international conference speech and computer (SPECOM ’2007) (pp. 165–169), Moscow, Russia.

  • Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2011). Incremental dialogue act understanding. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computational semantics (IWCS-9), Oxford.

  • Power, R. J. D. (1979). The organization of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics, 17, 107–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quarteroni, S., Ivanov, A. V., & Riccardi, G. (2011). Simultaneous dialog act segmentation and classification from human–human spoken conversations. In Proceedings of the ICASSP, Prague, Czech Republic.

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest semantics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, K., Carberry, S., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (1998). Dialogue act tagging with transformation-based learning. In 17th international conference on computational linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 1150–1156). Morristown, NJ, USA, Montreal, QC, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(1), 1075–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.

  • Serafin, R., & Di Eugenio, B. (2004). LSA: Extending latent semantic analysis with features for dialogue act classification. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Spain.

  • Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Stolcke, A., Taylor, P., Jurafsky, D., Ries, K., et al. (1998). Language and speech, Vol. 41 of special double issue on prosody and conversation, Ch. can prosody aid the automatic classification of dialog acts in conversational speech? (pp. 439–487).

  • Sporleder, C., & Lascarides, A. (2008). Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: A critical assessment, Natural Language Engineering, 14(3).

  • Stolcke, A. et al. (2000). Dialog act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics, 26, 339–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traum, D. R. (1999). Speech acts for dialogue agents. In M. Wooldridge & A. Rao (Eds.), Foundations and theories of rational agents. (pp. 169–201). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tur, G., Guz, U., & Hakkani-Tur, D. (2006). Model adaptation for dialogue act tagging. In Proceedings of the IEEE spoken language technology workshop.

  • Verbree, D., Rienks, R., & Heylen, D. (2006). Dialog-act tagging using smart feature selection; results on multiple corpora. In The first international IEEE workshop on spoken language technology (SLT), Aruba, Palm Beach.

  • Webb, N. (2010). Cue-based dialog act classification, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield.

  • Wright, H. (1998). Automatic utterance type detection using suprasegmental features. In ICSLP ’98 (Vol. 4), Sydney, Australia.

  • Wright, H., Poesio, M., & Isard, S. (1999). Using high level dialogue information for dialogue act recognition using prosodic features. In ESCA workshop on prosody and dialogue, Holland, Eindhoven.

  • Zhou, K., & Zong, C. (2009). Dialog-act recognition using discourse and sentence structure information. In Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on asian language processing (IALP ’09) (pp. 11–16). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Zimmermann, M., Stolcke, A., & Shriberg, E. (2006). Joint segmentation and classification of dialog acts in multiparty meetings. In ICASSP ’06 (pp. 581–584), Toulouse, France.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been partly supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), project “NTIS—New Technologies for Information Society”, European Centre of Excellence, CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0090. We would like also to thank Ms. Michala Beranová for some implementation work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of West Bohemia, Plzeň, Czech Republic

    Pavel Král

  2. Faculty of Applied Sciences, New Technologies for the Information Society (NTIS), University of West Bohemia, Plzeň, Czech Republic

    Pavel Král

  3. LORIA UMR 7503, BP 239, 54506, Vandoeuvre, France

    Christophe Cerisara

Authors
  1. Pavel Král
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Cerisara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavel Král.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Král, P., Cerisara, C. Automatic dialogue act recognition with syntactic features. Lang Resources & Evaluation 48, 419–441 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9263-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9263-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation