Advertisement

Politeness and Bias in Dialogue Summarization: Two Exploratory Studies

  • Norton Trevisan Roman
  • Paul Piwek
  • Ariadne Maria Brito Rizzoni Carvalho
Part of the The Information Retrieval Series book series (INRE, volume 20)

Abstract

In this chapter, two empirical pilot studies on the role of politeness in dialogue summarization are described. In these studies, a collection of four dialogues was used. Each dialogue was automatically generated by the NECA system and the politeness of the dialogue participants was systematically manipulated. Subjects were divided into groups who had to summarize the dialogues from a particular dialogue participant’s point of view or the point of view of an impartial observer. In the first study, there were no other constraints. In the second study, the summarizers were restricted to summaries whose length did not exceed 10% of the number of words in the dialogue that was being summarized.

Amongst other things, it was found that the politeness of the interaction is included more often in summaries of dialogues that deviate from what would be considered normal or unmarked. A comparison of the results of the two studies suggests that the extent to which politeness is reported is not affected by how long a summary is allowed to be. It was also found that the point of view of the summarizer influences which information is included in the summary and how it is presented. This finding did not seem to be affected by the constraint in our second study on the summary length.

Keywords

automatic dialogue summarization automatic summarization natural language processing politeness bias 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. Bibliography

  1. Alexandersson, J. and Poller, P. (2000) Multilingual Summary Generation in a Speech-to-Speech Translation System for Multilingual Dialogues. In Proc. International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG-2000). Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.Google Scholar
  2. Ardissono, L., Boella, G. and Lesmo, L. (1999) Politeness and Speech Acts. In Proc. Workshop on Attitude, Personality and Emotions in User-Adapted Interaction. 41–55. Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Bickmore, T. and Cassell, J. (2000) How About this Weather? Social Dialogue with Embodied Conversational Agents. In Proc. AAAI Fall Symposium on Socially Intelligent Agents. North Falmouth, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bickmore, T. (2002) Social Dialogue is Serious Business. In Proc. CHI 2002 Workshop on Socially Adept Technologies. Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Craggs, R. and Wood, M. (2003) Annotating Emotion in Dialogue. In Proc. 4thSIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  7. Eelen, G. (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories. St. Gerome, Manchester.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, K. (1999) Annotating Emotional Language Data. Technical Report 236. Verbmobil Project.Google Scholar
  9. Hovy, E. (1988) Generating Natural Language Under Pragmatic Constraints. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  10. Huber, R., Batliner, A. Buckow, J., Nöth, E., Warnke, V. and Niemann, H. (2000) Recognition of Emotion in a Realistic Dialogue Scenario. In Proc. International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  11. Kipp, M., Alexandersson, J. and Reithinger, N. (1999) Understanding Spontaneous Negotiation Dialogue. In Proc. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-1999). Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  12. Krenn, B., Pirker, H., Grice, M., Baumann, S., Piwek, P., van Deemter, K., Schroeder, M., Klesen, M. and Gstrein, E. (2002) Generation of Multimodal Dialogue for Net Environments. In Busemann, S. (Ed.) KONVENS 2002, Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz (DFKI). 91–98. Saarbruecken, Germany.Google Scholar
  13. Mani, I. and Maybury, M. (1999) Advances in Automatic Text Summarization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Mani, I. (2001) Automatic Summarization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Marcu, D. (2000) The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nijholt, A. (2003) Humor and Embodied Conversational Agents. CTIT Technical Report Series 03-03. University of Twente.Google Scholar
  17. Piwek, P., Krenn, B., Schröder, M., Grice, M., Baumann, S. and Pirker, H. (2002) RRL: A Rich Representation Language for the Description of Agent Behaviour in NECA, In Proc. Workshop “Embodied Conversational Agents — Let’s Specify and Evaluate Them!”. Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  18. Piwek, P. (2003) An Annotated Bibliography of Affective Natural Language Generation. Technical Report ITRI-02-02. ITRI — University of Brighton.Google Scholar
  19. Piwek, P. and van Deemter, K. (2003) Dialogue as Discourse: Controlling Global Properties of Scripted Dialogue. In Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium on Natural Language Generation in Spoken and Written Dialogue. Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Reithinger, N., Kipp, M., Engel, R. and Alexandersson, J. (2000) Summarizing Multilingual Spoken Negotiation Dialogues. In Proc. 38thMeeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2000). Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  21. Roman, N., Piwek, P. and Carvalho, A. (2004a) Politeness and Summarization: an Exploratory Study. In Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium Exploring Affect and Attitude in Text: Theories and Applications (AAAI-EAAT-2004). Palo Alto, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Roman, N., Piwek, P. and Carvalho, A. (2004b) Be Polite or Be Summarized. Technical Report ITRI-04-05. ITRI — University of Brighton.Google Scholar
  23. Roman, N., Piwek, P. and Carvalho, A. (2004c) Politeness and Summarization: to Bias or not to Bias. Technical Report ITRI-04-06. ITRI — University of Brighton.Google Scholar
  24. Schmitz, B. and Quantz, J. (1996) Dialogue Acts in Automatic Dialogue Interpreting. Technical Report 173, Verbmobil Project.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, M., Cahn, J. and Whittaker, S. (1997) Improvising Linguistic Style: Social and Affective Bases for Agent Personality. In Proc. Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS-97). Marina del Rey, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Walton, D. (1999) One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Watts, R. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norton Trevisan Roman
    • 1
  • Paul Piwek
    • 2
  • Ariadne Maria Brito Rizzoni Carvalho
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto de Computção,Universidade Estadual de CampinasState University of CampinasCampinas, SPBrazil
  2. 2.ITRIUniversity of BrightonUK
  3. 3.Computing InstituteState University of CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations