Elements of a computational model for multi-party discourse: The turn-taking behavior of supreme court justices

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 60, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1607-1615

  Hawes, Timothy ^a   Lin, Jimmy ^a   Resnik, Philip ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; CONDITIONAL RANDOM FIELD; DISCOURSE MARKERS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; SECOND ORDERS; SEQUENCE PREDICTION; SUPREME COURT; TURN-TAKING;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

LABELS;

EID: 67651040055     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21087     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Clopper, C.J., & Pearson, E.S. (1934). The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika, 26, 404-413.
2. Coen, M. (1998). Design principles for intelligent environments. In J. Mostow, C. Rich, & B. Buchanan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth National/Tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence/Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI 1998) (pp. 547-554). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
3. Corston-Oliver, S.H. (1998). Identifying the linguistic correlates of rhetorical relations. In M. Stede, L. Wanner, & E. Hovy (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACL/COLING-98 Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers (pp. 8-14). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
4. Craig, H. (2004). Stylistic analysis and authorship studies. In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds.), A companion to digital humanities (pp. 273-288). Maiden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
5. Evans, M., McIntosh, W., Lin, J., & Cates, C. (2007). Recounting the courts? Applying automated content analysis to enhance empirical legal research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 1007-1039.
6. Gamon, M., Basu, S., Belenko, D., Fisher, D., Hurst, M., & König, A.C. (2008) BLEWS: Using blogs to provide context for news articles. In E. Adar & M. Hurst (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2008). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.
7. Greene, S. (2007). Spin: Lexical semantics, transitivity, and the identification of implicit sentiment. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
8. Greene S., & Resnik, P. (2009). More than words: Syntactic packaging and implicit sentiment. Paper presented at the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics-Human Language Technologies Conference (NAACL HLT). Retrieved April 14,2009, from http://umiacs.umd.edu/∼resnik/ pubs/greene-resnik-naacl2009.pdf
9. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
10. Johnson, T.R. (2001). Information, oral arguments, and Supreme Court decision making. American Politics Research, 29(4), 331-351.
11. Johnson, T.R., Wahlbeck P.J., & Spriggs, J.F., II. (2006). The influence of oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 99-113.
12. Jovanovic, N., & Akker, R. op den. (2004). Towards automatic addressee identification in multi-party dialogues. In M. Strube & C. Sidner (Eds.),
13. Proceedings of the 5th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue at HLT/NAACL 2004 (pp. 89-92). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
14. Kansas v. Marsh (Reargued). 04-1170 U. S. (2006).
15. Kurland, P.B., & Hutchinson, D.J. (1983). The business of the Supreme Court, O. T. 1982. The University of Chicago Law Review, 50(2), 628-651.
16. Lafferty, J.D., McCallum, A., & Pereira, F.C.N. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In CE. Bradley & A.P. Danyluk (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2001) (pp. 282289). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
17. Lancashire, I. (1997). Empirically determining Shakespeare's idiolect. Shakespeare Studies, 25, 171-185.
18. Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 311-331.
19. Lewis, D.D. (1992). Representation and learning in information retrieval. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
20. MacWhinney, B., Bird, S., Cieri, C., & Martell, C. (2004). TalkBank: Building an open unified multimodal database of communicative interaction. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004) (pp. 525-528). Paris: ELRA.
21. Malouf, R., & Mullen, T. (2008). Taking sides: User classification for informal online political discourse. Internet Research, 18, 177-190.
22. Marcu, D. (1997). The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted natural language texts. In P.R. Cohen & W Wahlster (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 1997) (pp. 96-103), Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
23. Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D.L. (1964). Inference and disputed authorship: The Federalist. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
24. Oates, S. (2001). A listing of discourse markers. Technical Report ITRI-Ol26. Retrieved January 10,2008, from University of Brighton, Information Technology Research Institute Web site: ftp://ftp.itri.bton.ac.uk/reports/ ITRI-01-26.pdf.
25. Przybocki, M.A., & Martin A.F. (1998). The NIST speaker recognition evaluations. In A. Rubio, N. Gallardo, R. Castro, & A. Tejada (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 1998) (pp. 331-335). Paris: ELRA.
26. Rehnquist, W.H. (2002). The Supreme Court. New York: Vintage.
27. Rohde, D. & Spaeth, H. (1976). Supreme Court decision making. San Francisco: Freeman.
28. Saltón, G., Wong A., &Yang, C.S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18(11), 613-620.
29. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Settles, B. (2004). Biomedical named entity recognition using conditional random fields and rich feature sets. In N. Collier, P. Ruch, & A. Nazarenko (Eds.), Proceedings of the COLING 2004 International Joint workshop on Natural Language Processing in Biomedicine and its Applications (NLPBA/BioNLP 2004) (pp. 107-110). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
31. Sha, F., & Pereira, F. (2003). Shallow parsing with conditional random fields. In M. Hearst & M. Ostendorf (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference and the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Annual Meeting (HLT/NAACL 2003) (pp. 134-141). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
32. Shullman, S.L. (2004). The illusion of devil's advocacy: How the justices of the Supreme Court foreshadow their decisions during oral argument. The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 6, 271-293.
33. Slatcher, R.B., Chung, C.K., Pennebaker, J.W, & Stone, L.D. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 63-75.
34. Stanford, V.M., Garofolo, J.S., Galibert, O., Michel, M., & Laprun, C.D. (2003). The NIST Smart Space and Meeting Room projects: Signals, acquisition annotation, and metrics. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP'03) (vol. 4) (pp. 736-739). Washington, DC: IEEE press.
35. Stolcke, A., Coceara, N., Bates, R., Taylor, P., Van Ess-Dykema, C., Ries, K., et al. (2000). Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics, 26(3), 339-373.
36. Thomas, M., Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2006). Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from Congressional floor-debate transcripts. In D. Jurafsky & E. Gaussier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2006) (pp. 327-335). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
37. Wilkie v. Robbins. 06-219 U. S. (2007).
38. Williams, J.D., & Young, S. (2007). Partially observable Markov decision processes for spoken dialog systems. Computer Speech and Language, 21(2), 231-422.