Prosodic and lexical indications of discourse structure in human-machine interactions

Speech Communication

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 25-41

  Swerts, Marc ^a,b   Ostendorf, Mari ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b Institute for Perception Research Eindhoven   (Netherlands)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Discourse structure; Human machine interaction; Prosody; Spoken dialogue systems

Indexed keywords

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; LINGUISTICS; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; SPEECH PROCESSING;

DISCOURSE STRUCTURAL FEATURES; SPOKEN LANGUAGE SYSTEMS;

SPEECH ANALYSIS;

EID: 0031185913     PISSN: 01676393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6393(97)00011-3     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Batliner, A., Weiand, C., Kießling, A., Nöth, E., 1993. Why sentence modality in spontaneous speech is more difficult to classify and why this fact is not too bad for prosody. In: House D., Touati, P. (Eds.), Working Papers 41, Proc. ESCA Workshop on Prosody. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics, Lund, Sweden, pp. 112-115.
2. Bennacef, S.K., Néel, F., Maynard, H.B., 1995. An oral dialogue model based on speech acts categorization. Proc. ESCA Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems - Theories and Applications, Vigsø, 30 May-2 June, pp. 237-240.
3. Black, A., 1996. Predicting the intonation of discourse segments from examples in dialogue speech. In: Sagisaka, Y., Campbell, N., Higuchi, N. (Eds.), Computing Prosody. Springer, Berlin, forthcoming.
4. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C., 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth, Monterey, CA.
5. Brown, G., Currie, K., Kenworthy, J., 1980. Questions of Intonation. Croom Helm, London.
6. Brubaker, R.S., 1972. Rate and pause characteristics of oral reading. J. Psycholinguistic Research 1, 141-147.
7. Bruce, G., 1982. Textual aspects of prosody in Swedish. Phonetica 39, 274-287.
8. Chafe, W.L., 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
9. Cole, R., et al., 1995. The challenge of spoken language recognition: Research directions for the 90s, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 30, 1-21.
10. Dahl, D., et al., 1994. Expanding the scope of the ATIS task: The ATIS-3 corpus. Proc. ARPA Workshop on Human Language Technology, pp. 43-48.
11. Daly, N., Zue, V., 1990. Acoustic, perceptual, and linguistic analyses of intonation contours in human/machine dialogues. Proc. Internat. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing, pp. 497-500.
12. Flammia, G., Zue, V., 1995. Empirical evaluation of human performance and agreement in discourse constituents in spoken dialogue. Proc. European Conf. on Speech Communication and Technology, pp. 1965-1968.
13. Geluykens, R., 1987. Intonation and speech act type: An experimental approach to rising intonation in queclaratives. J. Pragmatics 11, 483-494.
14. Geluykens, R., 1989. R(a)ising questions: Question intonation revisited. J. Pragmatics 13, 567-576.
15. Grosz, B., Hirschberg, J., 1992. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure. Proc. Internat. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing, pp. 429-432.
16. Grosz, B., Sidner, C., 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175-204.
17. Hadding-Koch, K., Studdert-Kennedy, M., 1964. An experimental study of some intonation contours. Phonetica 11, 175-185.
18. Hearst, M., 1994. Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository discourse. Proc. 32nd Ann. Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics.
19. Hirschberg, J., 1993. Pitch accent in context: Predicting prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence 63, 305-340.
20. Hirschberg, J., Litman, D., 1987. Now let's talk about now: Identifying cue phrases internationally. Proc. 25th Ann. Meeting, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford University, pp. 163-171.
21. Hirschberg, J., Nakatani, C. A prosodic analysis of discourse segments in direction-giving monologues. Manuscript.
22. Kenne, P.E., O'Kane, M., 1996. Topic change and local perplexity in spoken legal dialogue. Proc. Internat. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing, Philadelphia, PA, October 1996, pp. 721-724.
23. Kompe, R., Nöth, E., Kießling, A., Kuhn, T., Mast, M., Niemann, H., Ott, K., Batliner A., 1994. Prosody takes over: Towards a prosodically guided dialog system. Speech Communication 15 (1-2), 155-167.
24. Kowtko, J., Isard, S., Doherty-Sneddon, G., 1992. Conversational games within dialogue. Research Paper HCRC/RP-31, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.
25. Lehiste, I., 1980. The phonetic structure of paragraphs. In: Nooteboom, S., Cohen, A. (Eds.), Structure and Process in Speech Perception. Springer, Berlin, pp. 195-206.
26. Moore, R., et al., 1994. SRI's recent progress on the ATIS task. Proc. ARPA Workshop on Spoken Language Technology, pp. 72-75.
27. Nagata, M., Morimoto, T., 1994. First steps towards statistical modeling of dialogue to predict the speech act type of the next utterance. Speech Communication 15 (3-4), 193-203.
28. Nakatani, C., 1996a. Discourse structural constraints on accent in spontaneous narrative. In: van Santen, J., Sproat, R., Olive, J., Hirschberg, J. (Eds.), Progress in Speech Synthesis. Springer, New York, pp. 139-156.
29. Nakatani, C., 1996b. Integrating prosodic and discourse modeling. In: Sagisaka, Y., Campbell, N., Higuchi, N. (Eds.), Computing Prosody. Springer, Berlin, forthcoming.
30. Ostendorf, M., Ross, K., 1996. A multi-level model for recognition of intonation labels. In: Sagisaka, Y., Campbell, N., Higuchi, N. (Eds.), Computing Prosody. Springer, Berlin, forthcoming.
31. Passonneau, R., Litman, D., 1993. Intention-based segmentation: human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. Proc. ACL-93, Ohio State University, Association for Computational Linguistics.
32. Pitrelli, J., Beckman, M., Hirschberg, J., 1994. Evaluation of prosodic labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. Proc. Internat. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing, pp. 123-126.
33. Sag, I.A., Liberman, M., 1975. The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL.
34. Shriberg, E.E., 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, unpublished.
35. Sluijter, A.C.M., Terken, J.M.B., 1993. Beyond sentence prosody: Paragraph intonation in Dutch. Phonetica 50, 180-188.
36. Swerts, M., 1994. Prosodic features of discourse units. Doctoral Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, unpublished.
37. Swerts, M., 1997. Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 101, 514-521.
38. Swerts, M., Geluykens, R., 1994. Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech 37, 21-43.
39. Swerts, M., Collier, R., Terken, J., 1994. Prosodic predictors of discourse finality in spontaneous monologues. Speech Communication 15 (1-2), 79-90.
40. Terken, J.M.B., 1984. The distribution of pitch accents in instructions as a function of discourse structure. Language and Speech 27, 53-73.
41. Thorsen, N.G., 1985. Intonation and text in Standard Danish. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 77, 1205-1216.
42. Ward, G., Hirschberg, J., 1985. Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61, 747-776.