Advertisement

A Context-Change Semantics for Dialogue Acts

  • Harry Bunt
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 47)

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.

Keywords

Semantic Content Context Model Communicative Function Abstract Syntax Annotation Scheme 
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.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Ahn, R. (2001). Agents, objects and events. Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology. Google Scholar
  2. 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. Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J., & Core, M. (1997). DAMSL: Dialogue act markup in several layers (Draft 2.1) (Technical Report). Rochester: University of Rochester. Google Scholar
  4. 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. Google Scholar
  5. Augmented Multiparty Interaction Consortium (AMI) (2005). Guidelines for dialogue act and addressee annotation. Unpublished report, University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
  6. 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. Google Scholar
  7. Bunt, H. (1994). Context and dialogue control. Think Quarterly, 3(1), 19–31. Google Scholar
  8. 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. Google Scholar
  9. 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. Google Scholar
  10. 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). Google Scholar
  11. 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. Google Scholar
  12. Bunt, H. (2011). Multifunctionality in dialogue and its interpretation. Computer Speech & Language, 25, 222–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bunt, H. (2012). The semantics of feedback. In Proceedings of SeineDial, 2012 workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, Paris. Google Scholar
  14. Bunt, H. (2013a). A methodology for designing semantic annotations (TiCC Technical Report TR 2013-001). Tilburg University. Google Scholar
  15. Bunt, H. (2013b). Annotations that effectively contribute to semantic interpretation. In Computing meaning (Vol. 4, pp. 49–69). Dordrecht: Springer. Chapter 4. Google Scholar
  16. 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. Google Scholar
  17. 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. Google Scholar
  18. Carletta, J., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., & Doherty-Sneddon, G. (1996). HCRC dialogue structure coding manual (Technical Report HCRC/TR-82). Google Scholar
  19. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. Google Scholar
  21. Dhillon, R., Bhagat, S., Carvey, H., & Schriberg, E. (2004). Meeting recorder project: Dialogue labelling guide (ICSI Technical Report TR-04-002). Google Scholar
  22. Di Eugenio, B., Jordan, P., & Pylkkaenen, L. (1998). The COCONUT project: Dialogue annotation manual (ISP Technical Report 98-1). Google Scholar
  23. 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). Google Scholar
  24. Ide, N., & Romary, L. (2004). International standard for a linguistic annotation framework. Natural Language Engineering, 10, 211–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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). Google Scholar
  26. Jurafsky, D., Schriberg, E., & Biasca, D. (1997). Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Google Scholar
  27. Keizer, S., & Bunt, H. (2006). Multidimensional dialogue management. In Proceedings of the SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, Sydney, Australia (pp. 37–45). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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). Google Scholar
  29. 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. Google Scholar
  30. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2009a). The independence of dimensions in multidimensional dialogue act annotation. In Proceedings NAACL HLT conference, Boulder, Colorado. Google Scholar
  32. Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2009b). Dimensions in communication (TiCC Technical Report TR 2009-003). Tilburg University. Google Scholar
  33. 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). Google Scholar
  34. 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. Google Scholar
  35. Poesio, M., & Traum, D. (1997). Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13(3), 309–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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). Google Scholar
  37. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication (TiCC) and Department of PhilosophyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations