Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2011 / Chameleons in Imagined Conversations: A New Approach to Understanding Coordination of Linguistic Style in Dialogs

Chameleons in Imagined Conversations: A New Approach to Understanding Coordination of Linguistic Style in Dialogs

Summary

The authors ask whether people's tendency to match a partner's function-word usage in conversation is a socially driven strategy or a reflex built into language production. To test this, they study dialogs where the person producing the words is not the one who gains socially: scripted movie conversations. Screenwriters write both sides of an exchange, but only the fictional characters "benefit" from rapport. The authors built the Cornell movie-dialogs corpus, linking 617 scripts to IMDB metadata, and measured adjacent-turn coordination across nine LIWC-derived function-word families. All nine families showed statistically significant convergence. This suggests that stylistic accommodation is so ingrained in our sense of how dialog sounds that it appears even in invented talk. Preliminary analyses of gender, billing order and quarreling show systematic differences. Because the characters are not real, these differences must reflect writers' implicit expectations. The released corpus gives a metadata-rich resource for studying social and linguistic phenomena.

Key points

  • Corpus: The Cornell movie-dialogs corpus has 617 unique titles with genre, year, cast and IMDB data. It contains 220,579 exchanges between character pairs who have at least 5 exchanges each.
  • Character metadata: About 9,000 characters were matched to IMDB.
    • Roughly 3,000 have gender, taken from the "actor"/"actress" label.
    • Roughly 3,000 have billing position, used as a stand-in for narrative importance.
  • Features: The study draws on nine function-word categories (451 lexemes) borrowed from Ireland et al. (2011): quantifiers, prepositions, personal pronouns, negations, impersonal pronouns, high-frequency adverbs, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs and articles.
  • Main result: Significant convergence appears for every family. For articles, characters on average accommodate more to female speakers than to male ones.
  • Contention: In 24 romantic-comedy couples, quarrels bring stronger article (and pronoun) convergence. Adverbs, by contrast, diverge in hostile exchanges, which echoes earlier observations from the Watergate transcripts.

Interesting ideas

  • Separate who produces language from who benefits: Fiction lets you separate the person producing language from the person who gains from it. This makes it possible to test causal hypotheses about social motivation that natural data cannot isolate. The same trick could probe other pragmatic phenomena.
  • Treat fiction as a window on expectations: Scripts reveal people's unconscious beliefs about how gender, status or conflict shape speech, rather than actual behavior. This framing is useful for studying stereotypes in generated or authored text, including LLM output.
  • Use cheap proxies from external metadata: Billing order in the credits stands in for importance, and the actor/actress label stands in for gender. Linking text to a structured database such as IMDB can enrich a corpus with social variables at low cost.
  • Measure style with closed-class word families: Coordination is measured on function-word classes, which speakers do not consciously track. This gives a topic-independent signal that could be applied to dialog systems or to corpora in other languages.
  • Report results per feature family: Effects can flip direction between word classes, as with articles versus adverbs under conflict. Breaking results down by family prevents aggregate scores from hiding meaningful divergence.

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

Cited by

110 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 7 of them have a page here, 103 not yet.

Cite

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

@inproceedings{danescuniculescumizil2011chameleons,
  title = {{Chameleons in Imagined Conversations: A New Approach to Understanding Coordination of Linguistic Style in Dialogs}},
  author = {Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Cristian and Lee, Lillian},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics},
  year = {2011},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/W11-0609/}
}

References

67 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Shlomo Argamon, Sushant Dhawle, and Moshe Koppel. 2005. Lexical predictors of personality type. Proceedings of the 2005 Joint Annual Meeting of the Interface and the Classification Society of North America. find
  2. Frances Bilous and Robert Krauss. 1988. Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behavior of same- and mixed-gender dyads. Language and Communication, 8:183–194. find
  3. Lukas Bleichenbacher. 2008. Multilingualism in the movies: Hollywood characters and their language choices. francke verlag, Jan. find
  4. J. Kathryn Bock. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3):355 – 387. find
  5. Heather Bortfeld and Susan E. Brennan. 1997. Use and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in referring by native and non-native speakers. Discourse Processes, 23(2):119–147. find
  6. Richard Y. Bourhis. 1991. Organizational communication and accommodation: Toward some conceptual and empirical links. In Howard Giles, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland, editors, Contexts of Accommodation. Cambridge University Press. find
  7. James J. Bradac, Anthony Mulac, and Ann House. 1988. Lexical diversity and magnitude of convergent versus divergent style shifting: Perceptual and evaluative consequences. Language and Communication, 8:213– 228, Nov. find
  8. Philip Bramsen, Martha Escobar-Molana, Ami Patel, and Rafael Alonso. 2011. Extracting social power relationships from natural language. In Proceedings of ACL HLT. find
  9. Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Janet F. McLean. 2010. Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9):2355–2368. find
  10. Tanya L. Chartrand and John A. Bargh. 1999. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6):893–910. find
  11. Tanya L. Chartrand and Rick van Baaren. 2009. Chapter 5: Human mimicry. In Mark P. Zanna, editor, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, volume 41, pp. 219–274. Academic Press. find
  12. Kenneth W. Church. 2000. Empirical estimates of adaptation: the chance of two noriegas is closer to p/2 than p2. In Proceedings of COLING, pp. 180–186. find
  13. Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge University Press, second edition. find
  14. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Michael Gamon, and Susan Dumais. 2011. Mark my words! Linguistic style accommodation in social media. In Proceedings of WWW. find
  15. David Elson and Kathleen McKeown. 2010. Automatic attribution of quoted speech in literary narrative. In Proceedings of AAAI. find
  16. David Elson, Nicholas Dames, and Kathleen McKeown. 2010. Extracting social networks from literary fiction. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 138–147. find
  17. Kathleen Ferrara. 1991. Accommodation in therapy. In Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. Cambridge University Press. find
  18. Howard Giles, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland. 1991. Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. In Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. Cambridge University Press. find
  19. Howard Giles, Michael Willemyns, Cynthia Gallois, and Michelle Anderson. 2007. Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In Klaus Fiedler, editor, Social Communication, Frontiers of Social Psychology, chapter 5, pp. 129–162. find
  20. Howard Giles. 2008. Communication accommodation theory. In Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives. Sage Publications. find
  21. Vicenç Gómez, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, and Vicente López. 2008. Statistical analysis of the social network and discussion threads in Slashdot. In Proceedings of WWW, pp. 645–654. find
  22. Amy L. Gonzales, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37(1):3–19, Feb. find
  23. Stanford W. Gregory and Stephen Webster. 1996. A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6):1231–1240. find
  24. Heidi Hamilton. 1991. Accommodation and mental disability. In Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. Cambridge University Press. find
  25. Jeffrey T. Hancock, Lauren E. Curry, Saurabh Goorha, and Michael Woodworth. 2008. On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1):1–23. find
  26. Susan C. Herring and John C. Paolillo. 2006. Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, Jan. find
  27. Walter Hill. 1972. The Getaway. Directed by Sam Peck-inpah. find
  28. Molly E. Ireland and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. Language style matching in writing: Synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3):549–571. find
  29. Molly E. Ireland, Richard B. Slatcher, Paul W. Eastwick, Lauren E. Scissors, Eli J. Finkel, and James W. Pennebaker. 2011. Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22:39–44. find
  30. Patrick Juola. 2008. Authorship Attribution. Now Publishers. find
  31. Dan Jurafsky, Rajesh Ranganath, and Dan McFarland. 2009. Extracting social meaning: Identifying interactional style in spoken conversation. In Proceedings of the NAACL, pp. 638–646. find
  32. Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. Proceedings of EMNLP, pp. 388–395. find
  33. Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon, and Anat Shimoni. 2002. Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing. find
  34. Sarah Kozloff. 2000. Overhearing Film Dialogue. University of California Press. find
  35. Jessica L. Lakin, Valerie E. Jefferis, Clara Michelle Cheng, and Tanya L. Chartrand. 2003. The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Non-verbal Behavior, 27:145–162. find
  36. Willem J.M. Levelt and Stephanie Kelter. 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14(1):78–106. find
  37. François Mairesse, Marilyn A. Walker, Matthias R. Mehl, and Roger K. Moore. 2007. Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. JAIR, pp. 457–500. find
  38. Petr Mareš. 2000. Fikce, konvence a realita: K více-jazyčnosti v uměleckých textech [fiction, convention, and reality: On multilingualism in literary texts]. Slovo a slovesnost, 61(1):47–53. find
  39. Robert McKee. 1999. Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting. Methuen. find
  40. Rada Mihalcea and Carlo Strapparava. 2009. The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, pp. 309–312. find
  41. Gilad Mishne and Natalie Glance. 2006. Leave a reply: An analysis of weblog comments. Third annual workshop on the Weblogging ecosystem. find
  42. Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace. 1984. Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference: The Case of the Federalist Papers. Springer-Verlag. find
  43. Arjun Mukherjee and Bing Liu. 2010. Improving gender classification of blog authors. EMNLP. find
  44. Randall Munroe. 2010. http://xkcd.com/813/. ↗
  45. Laura L. Namy, Lynne C. Nygaard, and Denise Sauerteig. 2002. Gender differences in vocal accommodation. J. Language and Social Psychology, 21(4):422–432. find
  46. Clifford Nass and Kwan Min Lee. 2000. Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In Proceedings of CHI, pp. 329–336. find
  47. Michael Natale. 1975. Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic communication as a function of social desirability. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5):790–804. find
  48. Kate G. Niederhoffer and James W. Pennebaker. 2002. Linguistic style matching in social interaction. J. Language and Social Psychology. find
  49. Jon Oberlander and Alastair J. Gill. 2006. Language with character: A stratified corpus comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Processes, 42(3):239–270. find
  50. James W. Pennebaker, Roger J. Booth, and Martha E. Francis. 2007. Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): A computerized text analysis program. http://www.liwc.net/. ↗
  51. Cyma Van Petten and Marta Kutas. 1991. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19(1):95–112. find
  52. Martin Pickering and Simon Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(02):169–190. find
  53. Rajesh Ranganath, Dan Jurafsky, and Dan McFarland. 2009. It’s not you, it’s me: Detecting flirting and its misperception in speed-dates. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pp. 334–342. find
  54. Paul Rayson, Andrew Wilson, and Geoffrey Leech. 2001. Grammatical word class variation within the British National Corpus Sampler. Language and Computers, 36:295–306(12). find
  55. David Reitter, Johanna D. Moore, and Frank Keller. 2006. Priming of syntactic rules in task-oriented dialogue and spontaneous conversation. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. find
  56. David Reitter, Frank Keller, and Johanna D. Moore. 2011. A Computational Cognitive Model of Syntactic Priming. Cognitive Science. find
  57. Sidney J. Segalowitz and Korri Lane. 2004. Perceptual fluency and lexical access for function versus content words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(02):307– 308. find
  58. Morgan Sonderegger. 2010. Applications of graph theory to an English rhyming corpus. Computer Speech & Language, In Press, Corrected Proof. find
  59. Svetlana Stenchikova and Amanda Stent. 2007. Measuring adaptation between dialogs. In Proc. of the 8th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. find
  60. Richard L. Street and Howard Giles. 1982. Speech accommodation theory. In Social cognition and communication. Sage Publications. find
  61. Devi Stuart-Fox and Adnan Moussalli. 2008. Selection for social signalling drives the evolution of chameleon colour change. PLoS Biol, 6(1):e25, 01. find
  62. Paul J. Taylor and Sally Thomas. 2008. Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(3):263–281. find
  63. Jitendra N. Thakerar, Howard Giles, and Jenny Cheshire. 1982. Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser and K.R. Scherer, editors, Advances in the Social Psychology of Language. Cambridge. find
  64. Rick B. van Baaren, Rob W. Holland, Bregje Steenaert, and Ad van Knippenberg. 2003. Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4):393–398. find
  65. Arthur Ward and Diane Litman. 2007. Dialog convergence and learning. In Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), pp. 262–269. find
  66. Danny Wyatt, Jeff Bilmes, Tanzeem Choudhury, and James A. Kitts. 2008. Towards the automated social analysis of situated speech data. In Proceedings of Ubicomp, pp. 168–171. find
  67. Patrick Ye and Timothy Baldwin. 2006. Verb sense disambiguation using selectional preferences extracted with a state-of-the-art semantic role labeler. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop 2006, pp. 139–148. find

↑ back to top