Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 1998 / Lexical, Prosodic, and Syntactic Cues for Dialog Acts

Lexical, Prosodic, and Syntactic Cues for Dialog Acts

Summary

The paper examines how short feedback utterances in conversation, such as yeah, uh-huh and okay, can be told apart by their dialog act (DA) function. The acts studied are continuers, incipient speakership, agreements, yes-answers and assessments. The data come from the Switchboard (SWBD) corpus of telephone conversations, which was hand-annotated with the SWBD-DAMSL tagset, an adaptation of DAMSL. The authors compare which words realize each act, listen to recordings of selected utterances to find prosodic differences, and analyze the grammatical shape of assessments.

The word distributions differ clearly across acts, even though yeah is highly ambiguous. For some acts, prosody and timing settle cases the words leave open: duration, pitch, loudness, pauses, and whether one utterance runs straight into the next. Assessments follow a very narrow pattern, which leads the authors to propose a per-act "microsyntax". The work was a preliminary study within the WS97 Johns Hopkins project. It informs automatic DA recognition for speech recognition and understanding systems.

Key points

  • Annotation: Seven annotators tagged 1155 SWBD conversations (about 205,000 utterances) with SWBD-DAMSL.
    • The 220 tag combinations were later merged into 42 classes.
    • Inter-annotator agreement was 84% (kappa .80).
  • Continuers vs. floor-taking: Uh-huh is roughly twice as likely as yeah to act as a continuer. Yeah is about three times as likely to be used for taking the floor.
    • About 41% of backchannel yeah tokens take the floor.
    • About 11% of backchannel uh-huh tokens do so.
  • Yes-answers and agreements: 86% of yes-answers contain yes, yeah or yep. Uh-huh appears in only 4% of agreements, while exactly and that's right signal agreement unambiguously.
  • Prosody: Compared with agreements, continuers tend to be shorter, lower in pitch, flatter and quieter. A long pause before an utterance, or the absence of one ("latching"), can change how it is interpreted.
  • Assessments: Of 1150 assessments with an overt subject, 80% use that as the subject. Intensifiers occur in only 2% of cases (just really and pretty), and the adjectives come from a small closed set (great, good, nice, …).

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Speech act theory

Cited by

27 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 3 of them have a page here, 24 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{jurafsky1998lexical,
  title = {{Lexical, Prosodic, and Syntactic Cues for Dialog Acts}},
  author = {Jurafsky, Daniel and Shriberg, Elizabeth and Fox, Barbara and Curl, Traci},
  booktitle = {Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers},
  year = {1998},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/W98-0319/}
}

References

28 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. J Allen and M Core. 1997. Draft of DAMSL: Dialog act markup in several layers. find
  2. J Carletta, A Isard, S Isard, J. C Kowtko, G Doherty-Sneddon, and A. H Anderson. 1997, The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23(1):13-32. ↗
  3. J Carletta. 1996. Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The Kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):249-254. June. ↗ our card
  4. M. G Core and J Alien. 1997. Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation scheme. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines, MIT, Cambridge, MA, November. find
  5. K Drummond and R Hopper. 1993a. Back channels revisited: Acknowledgement tokens and speakership incipienc~,. Research on Langauge and Social Interaction, 26(2): 157-177. find
  6. K Drurnmond and R Hopper. 1993b. Some uses of yeah. Research on Langauge and Social Interaction, 26(2):203-212. find
  7. J Godfrey, E Holliman, and J McDaniel. 1992. SWITCH-BOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings oflCASSP-92, pages 517-520, San Francisco. find
  8. C Goodwin and M Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk. Paper in Pragmatics, 1:1-52. find
  9. C Goodwin. 1996. Transparent vision. In Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
  10. J Hirschberg and D. J Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501-530. find
  11. G Jefferson. 1984. Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens 'yeah' and 'ram hm'. Papers in Linguistics, ( 17): 197-216. find
  12. G Jefferson. 1993. Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Langauge and Social Interaction, 26(1): 1-30. Originally published 1983. ↗
  13. D Jurafsky, R Bates, N Coccaro, R Martin, M Metcer, K Ries, E Shriberg, A Stolcke, P Taylor, and C Van Ess-Dykema. 1997a. Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Workshop on Speech Recognition and Understanding, pages 88-95, Santa Barbara. ↗
  14. D Jurafsky, E Shriberg, and D Biasca. 1997b. Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL Labeling Project Coder's Manual, Draft 13. Technical Report 97-02, University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science. Also available as http://stripe.colorado.edu/-jurafsky/manual.august 1 .html. ↗
  15. J Lyons. 1972. Human language. In Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
  16. M Meteer et al. 1995. Dysfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium. find
  17. Revised June 1995 by Ann Taylor. ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/treebank/swbd/doc/DFL-book.ps.gz. find
  18. M Nagata and T Morimoto. 1994. First steps toward statistical modeling of dialogue to predict the speech act type of the next utterance. Speech Communication, 15:193-203. find
  19. N Reithinger, R Engel, M Kipp, and M Klesen. 1996. Predicting dialogue acts for a speech-to-speech translation system. In ICSLP.96, pages 65..I..-657, Philadephia. ↗
  20. H Sacks, E. A Scheglo~. and G Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4):696...-735. find
  21. E Schegloff. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70:1075-1095. find
  22. E. A Schegloff. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of 'uh huh' and other things that come between sentences. In D Tannen, editor, Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. George',own University Press, Washington, D.C. find
  23. J. R Searle. 1969. Speec,". Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
  24. E Shriberg, R Bates, P Taylor, A Stolcke, D Jurafsky, K Ries, N Coccaro, R Martin, M Meteer. and C. V Ess-Dykema. 1998. Can prosody aid the automatic classification of dialog acts in conversational speech? 7: appear in Language and Speech Special Issue on Prosody and Conversation. find
  25. A Stolcke, E Shriberg, R Bates, N Coccaro, D Jurafsky, R Martin, M Meteer, K Ries, P Taylor, and C. V Ess-Dykema. 1998. Dialog act modeling for conversational speech. In In Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium on Applying Machine Learning to Discourse Processing, pages 98-105, Menlo Park, CA. AAAI Press. Technical Report SS.98-01. find
  26. B Suhm and A Waibel. 1994. Toward better language models for spontaneous speech. In ICSLP.94, pages 831-834. find
  27. P Taylor, S King, S Isard, and H Wright. 1998. Intonation and dialogue context as constraints for speech recognition. Language and Speech. to appear. find
  28. V. H Yngve. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pages 567-577, Chicago. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/jurafsky-1998-lexical-prosodic-syntactic-cues-dialog/