Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-f6s65 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-26T18:23:51.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling Sociocultural phenomena in discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2012

GEORGE AARON BROADWELL ,
JENNIFER STROMER-GALLEY ,
TOMEK STRZALKOWSKI ,
SAMIRA SHAIKH ,
SARAH TAYLOR ,
TING LIU ,
UMIT BOZ ,
ALANA ELIA ,
LAURA JIAO  and
NICK WEBB
GEORGE AARON BROADWELL
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
JENNIFER STROMER-GALLEY
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
TOMEK STRZALKOWSKI
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
SAMIRA SHAIKH
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
SARAH TAYLOR
Affiliation:
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA e-mail: Taylmail59@gmail.com
TING LIU
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
UMIT BOZ
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
ALANA ELIA
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
LAURA JIAO
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
NICK WEBB
Affiliation:
ILS Institute, University at Albany, SUNY, NY, USA e-mails: g.broadwell@albany.edu, jstromer@albany.edu, tomek@albany.edu, samirashaikh@gmail.com, ting.tim.liu@gmail.com, umitboz@yahoo.com, aelia@nycap.rr.com, jiao_gh@msn.com, webbn@union.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a novel approach to computational modeling and understanding of social and cultural phenomena in multi-party dialogues. We developed a two-tier approach in which we first detect and classify certain sociolinguistic behaviors, including topic control, disagreement, and involvement, that serve as first-order models from which presence the higher level social roles, such as leadership, may be inferred.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 213 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agar, M. 1994. Language Shock, Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: Quill, William Morrow.Google Scholar
Allen, J. and Core, M. 1997. Draft of DAMSL: dialog act markup in several layers. www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/ Accessed 2009.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B. M., and Jung, D. I. 1999. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 72: 441–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. 2001. Social Interaction Systems, Theory and Measurement. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. S. 2005. Exploring how power is enacted in small groups. In Chick, H. L. and Vincent, J. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 2, pp. 137–44. Melbourne, Australia: PME.Google Scholar
Blaylock, N. 2002. Managing communicative intentions in dialogue using a collaborative problem-solving model. Technical Report 774, CS Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, H. 1959. Group Dynamics; Principles and Applications. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Broadwell, G. A.et al. 2010. Social phenomena and language use. ILS Technical Report, SUNY, New York.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. 1994. Context and dialogue control. THINK 3: 19–31.Google Scholar
Carberry, S. and Lambert, L. 1999. A process model for recognizing communicative acts and modeling negotiation dialogue. Computational Linguistics 25 (1): 1–53.Google Scholar
Carletta, J. 2007. Unleashing the killer corpus: experiences in creating the multi-everything AMI meeting corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal 41 (2): 181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, L. 1983. Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. and House, R. J. 2007. Culture and Leadership, Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. Florence, KY: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu-Carroll, J., and Brown, M. K. 1998 (September). An evidential model for tracking initiative in collaborative dialogue interactions. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 8 (3–4), 215–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Core, M. G., Moore, J. D. and Zinn, C. 2003. The role of initiative in tutorial dialogue. In EACL'03: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 67–74. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMicco, J. M., Pandolfo, A., and Bender, W. 2004. Influencing group participation with a shared display. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference CSCW'04, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 614–23.Google Scholar
Ellis, D. G. and Fisher, B. A. 1994. Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fairhurst, G. 2007. Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, D., Worgan, S., Webb, N., Hepple, M., and Wilks, Y. 2008. Automatic induction of dialogue structure from the companions dialogue corpus. In 4th International Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation, Bellagio, Italy.Google Scholar
Forsyth, E. N. and Martell, C. H. 2007. Lexical and discourse analysis of online chat dialog. In First IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), California, USA, pp. 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givon, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A. and Reid, S. A. 2006. Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory 16: 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, D. 2010. Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities. Human Communication Research 36: 596–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ji, G. and Bilmes, J. 2006. Backoff model training using partially observed data: application to dialog act tagging. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology/American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT/NAACL'06), New York, USA.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bates, R., Coccaro, N., Martin, R., Meteer, M., Ries, K., Shriberg, E., Stolcke, A., Taylor, P., and Van Ess-Dykema, C. 1997. Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Workshop on Speech Recognition and Understanding, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Ketrow, S. M. 1991. Communication role specializations and perceptions of leadership. Small Group Research 22: 492–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, F. M., Fisher, T. A., Shuler, L., Wu, T. and Pottenger, W. M. 2002. Mining chat-room conversations for social and semantic interactions. Technical Report, LU-CSE-02-011, Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Shaw, E., Chern, G. and Feng, D. 2007. An intelligent discussion-bot for guiding student interactions in threaded discussions. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Interaction Challenges for Intelligent Assistants, Stanford University, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Levin, L., Thyme-Gobbel, A., Lavie, A., Ries, K., and Zechner, K. 1998. A discourse coding scheme for conversational Spanish. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech and Language Processing (ICSLP '98), The Australian Speech Science and Technology Association, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 1990. The power of dialogue dynamics. In Markov'a, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue, pp. 147–77. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum-Bayliss, H. 2010. SCIL overview. Socio-cultural content in language, In PI Meeting, IARPA 1, College Park, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C. D., Gross, D. and Miller, K. 1990. WordNet: an online lexical database. International Journal of Lexicograph. 3 (4): 235–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misiolek, N. I. and Heckman, R. 2005. Patterns of emergent leadership in virtual teams. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
Morris, C. G. H. and Richard, J. 1969. Behavioral correlates of perceived leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13: 350–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, C., High, A. C., Tressler, K. E. and Winslow, J. K. 2007. Leadership communication during group resource dilemmas. Small Group Research 38 (4): 509–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, G. M. 1973. Communication and the Small Group. Indianapolis, ID: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Poesio, M. and Mikheev, A. 1998. The predictive power of game structure in dialogue act recognition. In International Conference on Speech and Language Processing (ICSLP-98), Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Denvir, P. 2007. Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: the interactional realization of provisional authority. In Cooren, F. (ed.), Interacting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting, pp. 31–51. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reid, S. A. and Ng, S. H. 1999. Language, power, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues 55 (1): 119–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, K., Carberry, S. and Vijay-Shanker, K. 1998. Dialogue act tagging with transformation-based learning. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Montreal, Germany.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. 2001. Intercultural Communication, A Discourse Approach, 2nd ed.San Francisco, CA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: The University Printing House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaikh, S., Strzalkowski, T., Broadwell, G. A., Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., Boz, U., and Elia, A. 2010a. DSARMD annotation guidelines version 2.5. Technical Report 014, ILS, SUNY, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
Shaikh, S., Strzalkowski, T., Taylor, S. and Webb, N. 2010b. MPC: a multi-party chat corpus for modeling social phenomena in discourse. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2010), Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E., Dhillon, R., Bhagat, S., Ang, J., and Carvey, H. 2004. The ICSI Meeting Recorder Dialog Act (MRDA) corpus. In Strube, M. and Sidner, C. (eds.), Proceedings of 5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Cambridge, MA, April 30–May 1, pp. 97–100.Google Scholar
Stein, R. T. and Heller, T. 1983. The relationship of participation rates to leadership status: a meta-analysis. In Blumberg, H. H., Hare, A. P., Kent, V., and Davies, M. F. (eds.), Small Groups and Social Interaction, vol. 1, pp. 401–6. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Stolcke, A., Ries, K., Coccaro, N., Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Jurafsky, D., Taylor, P., Martin, R., Van Ess-Dykema, C. and Meteer, M. 2000. Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics 26 (3): 339–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromer-Galley, J. 2007. Measuring deliberation's content: a coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1). http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12/Google Scholar
Twitchell, D. P., Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., and Burgoon, J. K. 2004. Using speech act profiling for deception detection. In Intelligence and Security Informatics, LNCS, vol. 3073. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Webb, N. and Ferguson, M. 2010. Automatic extraction of cue phrases for cross-corpus dialogue act classification. In The Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2010), Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Whittaker, S. and Stenton, P. 1988. Cues and control in expert-client dialogues. In 26th Annual ACL Conference, Buffalo, NY, USA, pp. 123–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, T., Wiebe, J. and Hoffmann, P. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of HLT-EMNLP-2005, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 6–8.Google Scholar
Wu, T., Khan, F. M., Fisher, T. A., Shuler, L. A., and Pottenger, W. M. 2002. Posting act tagging using transformation-based learning. In Foundations of Data Mining and Discovery, IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, San Jose, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M. 2004. Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do? Information and Organization 14: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. and West, C. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In Thorne, B. and Henley, N. (eds.), Language and Sex: Differences and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar