Advertisement

Ranked Multidimensional Dialogue Act Annotation

  • Marcin Włodarczak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7415)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a dialogue act annotation system allowing ranking of communicative functions of utterances in terms of their perceived importance. It is argued that multidimensional dialogue act annotation schemes, while allowing more than one tag per utterance, implicitly treat all functions as equally important. Consequently, they fail to capture the fact that in a given context some of the functions of an utterance may have a higher priority than its other functions. The present approach tries to improve on this deficiency. The results of an annotation experiment suggest that ranking communicative functions accurately reflects the communicative competence of language users.

Keywords

Communicative Function Annotation Scheme Pragmatic Representation Dominant Function Annotation Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bunt, H.: Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In: Bunt, H., Black, W. (eds.) Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue, pp. 81–150. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popescu-Belis, A.: Dialogue acts: One or more dimensions? ISSCO Working Paper, ser. 62. University of Geneva (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allwood, J.: An activity based approach to pragmatics. In: Bunt, H., Black, W. (eds.) Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics, pp. 47–80. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bunt, H.: Multifunctionality in dialogue. Computer Speech and Language 25(2), 225–245 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunt, H., Girard, Y.: Designing an open, multidimensional dialogue act taxonomy. In: Gardent, C., Gaiffe, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, DIALOR 2005, Nancy (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petukhova, V., Bunt, H.: The independence of dimensions in multidimensional dialogue act annotation. In: Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 197–200 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jakobson, R.: Linguistics and poetics. In: Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) Style in Language, pp. 350–377. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keizer, S., Bunt, H.: Multidimensional dialogue management. In: Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2006, Sydney, pp. 37–45 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geertzen, J., Bunt, H.: Measuring annotator agreement in a complex hierarchical dialogue act scheme. In: Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2006, Sydney, pp. 126–133 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Popescu-Belis, A.: Dimensionality of dialogue act tagsets: An empirical analysis of large corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 42(1), 99–107 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jurafsky, D., Shriberg, E., Biasca, D.: Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL labelling project coder’s manual. Draft 13. University of Colorado, Institute of Congnitive Science, Tech. Rep. 97-02 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allen, J., Core, M.: Draft of Damsl: Dialogue Act Markup in Several Layers (1997), ftp://ftp.cs.rochester.edu/pub/packages/dialog-annotation/manual.ps.gz
  13. 13.
    Allen, J.F., Perrault, C.R.: Analyzing intentions in utterances. Artificial Intelligence 3(15), 143–178 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Włodarczak, M., Bunt, H., Petukhova, V.: Entailed feedback: evidence from a ranking experiment. In: Łupkowski, P., Purver, M. (eds.) Aspects of Semantic and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Poznań, pp. 159–162 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petukhova, V.V.: Multidimensional dialogue modelling. Ph.D. dissertation. Tilburg University, Tilburg (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson, A.H., Bader, M., Gurman Bard, E., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H.S., Weinert, R.: The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech 34(4), 351–366 (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bunt, H.: The DIT + +  taxonomy for functional dialogue markup. In: Proceedings of 8th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009), Budapest, pp. 13–24 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO, Semantic annotation framework (semaf), part 2: Dialogue acts. ISO, Geneva, Tech. Rep. ISO 24617-2 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geertzen, J., Petukhova, V., Bunt, H.: 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 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1), 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcin Włodarczak
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations