Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The aims of this paper are to detect the most problematic issues related to dialogue act annotation in speech corpora and to define basic categories of dialogue acts. I critically examine and test generic schemes that represent different lines of dialogue act annotation: AMI, DART, ISO 24617–2 and SWBD-DAMSL. It is found that the most problematic issues regarding dialogue act annotation are related to the distinction between the semantic and pragmatic meanings of utterances, the annotation of metadiscourse, and the adequacy and informativeness of the tagset. The identified basic dialogue act categories are information providing, information seeking, actions, social acts and metadiscourse. The findings help improve dialogue act annotation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alexandersson, J., Buschbeck-Wolf, B., Fujinami, T., Maier, E., Reithinger, N., Schmitz, B., & Siegel, M.
    (1997) Dialogue Acts in VERBMOBIL-2. Report 204. DFKI GmbH, Saarbrücken, Germany. www.jaist.ac.jp/~fuji/docs/papers/Verbmobil/report204/vmrep204.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, J. F., Schubet, L. K., Ferguson, G., Heeman, P., Hwang, C. H., Kato, T., Light, M., Martin, N. G., Miller, B. W., Poesio, M., & Traum, D. R.
    (1994) The TRAINS project: A Case Study in Building Conversational Planning Agent. TRAINS technical note 94–3. The University of Rochester. people.ict.usc.edu/~traum/Papers/TRAINS93.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen, J., & Core, M.
    (1997) Draft of DAMSL: Dialog Act Markup in Several Layers. https://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/cisd/resources/damsl/RevisedManual/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AMI
    AMI (2005) Guidelines for Dialogue Act and Addressee Annotation Version 1.0. groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/ami/corpus/Guidelines/dialogue_acts_manual_1.0.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, J. L.
    (1975) How to Do Things with Words (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barras, C., Geoffrois, E., Wu, Z., & Liberman, M.
    (2000) Transcriber: Development and use of a tool for assisting speech corpora production. Speech Communication, 33(1–2), 5–22. 10.1016/S0167‑6393(00)00067‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00067-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bunt, H.
    (1994) Context and Dialogue Control. Think Quarterly, 31, 19–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1995) Dynamic interpretation and dialogue theory. InM. M. Taylor, F. Neel, & D. G. Bouwhuis. (Eds.), The Structure of Multimodal Dialogue (pp.139–188). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.99.10bun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.99.10bun [Google Scholar]
  10. (2009) The DIT++ taxonomy for functional dialogue markup. InD. Heylen, C. Pelachaud, R. Catizone, & D. Traum. AMAAS 2009 Workshop ‘Towards a Standard Markup Language for Embodied Dialogue Acts’ Proceedings (pp.13–23). Budapest. https://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~jeff/aamas09/pdf/04_Workshop/w16.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bunt, H. C., & Black, B.
    (2000) The ABC of computational pragmatics. InH. C. Bunt & W. Black. (Eds.), Computational Pragmatics: Abduction, Belief and Context. John Benjamins. 10.1075/nlp.1.01bun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.1.01bun [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark, A., & Popescu-Belis, A.
    (2004) Multi-level Dialogue Act Tags. InProceedings of the 5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue at HLT-NAACL 2004 (pp.163–170). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W04-2328/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. De Felice, R., Darby, J., Fisher, A., & Peplow, D.
    (2013) A classification scheme for annotating speech acts in a business email corpus. ICAME Journal, 371, 71–105. clu.uni.no/icame/ij37/Pages_71-106.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dhillon, R., Bhagat, S., Carvey, H., & Shriberg, E.
    (2004) Meeting Recorder Project: Dialog Act Labeling Guide. ICSI Technical Report TR-04-002. www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/ftp/pub/speech/papers/MRDA-manual.pdf. 10.21236/ADA607947
    https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA607947 [Google Scholar]
  16. Di Eugenio, B., Jordan, P. W., & Pylkkänen, L.
    (1998) The COCONUT Project: Dialogue Annotation Manual. ISP Technical Report 98-1, University of Pittsburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Godfrey, J., & Holliman, E.
    (1997) Switchboard-1 Release 2. Linguistic Data Consortium. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC97S62
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Irie, Y., Matsubara, S., Kawaguchi, N., Yamaguchi, Y., & Inagaki, Y.
    (2006) Layered speech-act annotation for spoken dialogue corpus. InLREC 2006 (pp.1584–1589). www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2006/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ISO 24617-2
    ISO 24617-2 (2012) ISO DIS 24617-2 Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework (SemAF), Part 2: Dialogue acts. Geneva.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jurafsky, D.
    (2004) Pragmatics and computational linguistics. InL. R. Horn & G. Ward. (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.578–604). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jurafsky, D., Shriberg, E., & Biasca, D.
    (1997) Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL shallow-discourse-function annotation. Coders manual, draft 13. University of Colorado at Boulder & +SRI International. https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/ws97/manual.august1.html
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kang, S., Kim, H., & Seo, J.
    (2010) A reliable multidomain model for speech act classification. Pattern Recognition Letters, 311, 71–74. 10.1016/j.patrec.2009.08.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2009.08.013 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kirk, J. M.
    (2013) Beyond the structural levels of language: An introduction to the SPICE-Ireland corpus and its uses. InJ. Cruickshank & R. McColl Millar. (Eds.), After the Storm: Papers from the Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster Triennial Meeting (pp.207–232). Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ireland. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/sll/documents/Kirk-Beyond-the-Structural-Levels-of-Language.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Klein, M.
    (1999) An overview of the state of the art of coding schemes for dialogue act annotation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1(1692), 274–279. 10.1007/3‑540‑48239‑3_50
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48239-3_50 [Google Scholar]
  26. Klein, M., Bernsen, N. O., Davies, S., Dybkjær, Garrido, J., Kasch, H., Mengel, A., Pirrelli, V., Poesio, M., Quazza, S., & Soria, C.
    (1998) MATE Deliverable D1.1: Supported Coding Schemes. 4. Dialogue Acts. www.dfki.de/mate/d11/chap4.html
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Leech, G. N.
    (1980) Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.i.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.i.5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Leech, G., & Weisser, M.
    (2003) Generic speech act annotation for task-oriented dialogues. InD. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson, & T. McEnery. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference. Lancaster University, UCREL Technical Papers, vol. 161. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/doc_library/linguistics/leechg/leech_and_weisser_2003.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Leech, G., Weisser, M., Wilson, A., & Grice, M.
    (2000) Survey and guidelines for the representation and annotation of dialogue. InD. Gibbon, I. Mertins, & R. Moore. (Eds), Handbook of Multimodal and Spoken Language Systems (pp.10–11). Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2017) Speech acts. InY. Huang. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.199–216).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. McAllister, P. G.
    (2015) Speech acts: A synchronic perspective. InK. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann. Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.29–51). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Meteer, M.
    (1995) Dysfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus. University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Morris, C. W.
    (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. InO. Neurath, R. Carnap, & C. Morris. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (pp.77–138). University of Chicago Pess.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Park, J., & Kim, Y.
    (2018) A novel speech-act coding scheme to visualize the intention of crew communications to cope with simulated off-normal conditions of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1781, 236–246. 10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.05.013 [Google Scholar]
  36. Qadir, A., & Riloff, E.
    (2011) Classifying sentences as speech acts in message board posts. InProceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp.748–758). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/D11-1069/
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Searle, J. R.
    (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vail, A. K., & Boyer, K. E.
    (2014) Identifying effective moves in tutoring: On the refinement of dialogue act annotation schemes. InS. Trausan-Matu, K. Elizabeth Boyer, M. Crosby, & Kitty Panourgia. (Eds.), ITS 2014, LNCS84741 (pp.199–209). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑07221‑0_24
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07221-0_24 [Google Scholar]
  39. Verdonik, D., Kosem, I., Zwitter Vitez, A., Krek, S., & Stabej, M.
    (2013) Compilation, transcription and usage of a reference speech corpus: The case of the Slovene corpus GOS. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal, 47(4), 1031–1048. 10.1007/s10579‑013‑9216‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-013-9216-5 [Google Scholar]
  40. Weisser, M.
    (2014) Speech act annotation. InK. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann. (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.84–113). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2016) DART – The dialogue annotation and research tool. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–388. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0051
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0051 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2018) How to Do Corpus Pragmatics on Pragmatically Annotated data: Speech acts and Beyond. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.84 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2019a) The DART Taxonomy v. 3. martinweisser.org/DART_scheme.html
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2019b) The DART annotation scheme: Form, applicability & application. Studia Neophilologica, 91 (2), 131–153. 10.1080/00393274.2019.1616218
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2019.1616218 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2020) Speech acts in corpus pragmatics: Making the case for an extended taxonomy. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 25(4), 400–425. 10.1075/ijcl.19023.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19023.wei [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhao, T., & Kawahara, T.
    (2019) Joint dialog act segmentation and recognition in human conversations using attention to dialog context. Computer Speech & Language, 571, 108–127. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885230818304030. 10.1016/j.csl.2019.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2019.03.001 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): communicative function; corpus pragmatics; dialogue tagset; metadiscourse; speech act
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error