Abstract
Since the debut of the speech act theory, the classification standards of speech acts have been in dispute. Traditional abstract taxonomies seem insufficient to meet the needs of artificial intelligence for identifying and even understanding speech acts. To facilitate the automatic identification of the communicative intentions in human dialogs, scholars have tried some data-driven methods based on speech-act annotated corpora. However, few studies have objectively evaluated those classification schemes. In this regard, the current study applied the frequencies of the eleven discourse markers (oh, well, and, but, or, so, because, now, then, I mean, and you know) proposed by Schiffrin [24] to investigate whether they can be effective indicators of speech act variations. The results showed that the five speech acts of Agreement can be well classified in terms of their functions by the frequencies of discourse markers. Moreover, it was found that the discourse markers well and oh are rather efficacious in differentiating distinct speech acts. This paper indicates that quantitative indexes can reflect the characteristics of human speech acts, and more objective and data-based classification schemes might be achieved based on these metrics.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For all the clustering results using different methods and distance metrics, see Appendix A.
References
Allen, J., Core, M.: Draft of DAMSL: dialog act markup in several layers (1997). http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/ling/ss07/discourse-materials/DAMSL97.pdf
Anthony, L.: Antconc 4.0.5. Waseda University (2021)
Ariel, M.: Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In: Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (eds.) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 223–260. John Benjamins, Philadelphia (1998)
Carletta, J.: Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Comput. Linguist. 22(2), 249–254 (1996)
Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J.C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A.H.: The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Comput. Linguist. 23(1), 13–31 (1997)
D’Andrade, R.G., Wish, M.: Speech act theory in quantitative research on interpersonal behavior. Discourse Process. 8(2), 229–259 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544615
Fischer, K.: Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: the functional polysemy of discourse particles. In: Fischer, K. (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles, pp. 427–447. Elsevier, Oxford (2006)
Fraser, B.: Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2), 167–190 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
FurkĂł, P.B.: Discourse Markers and Beyond: Descriptive and Critical Perspectives on Discourse-Pragmatic Devices Across Genres and Languages. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37763-2
Hewitt, L.E., Duchan, J.F., Segal, E.M.: Structure and function of verbal conflicts among adults with mental retardation. Discourse Process. 16(4), 525–543 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544852
Holtgraves, T.: The production and perception of implicit performatives. J. Pragmat. 37(12), 2024–2043 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.005
Jacobs, S., Jackson, S.: Argument as a natural category: the routine grounds for arguing in conversation. W. Jo. Speech Commun. 45(2), 118–132 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318109374035
Jucker, A.H.: The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. J. Pragmat. 19(5), 435–452 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9
Jurafsky, D., Shriberg, L., Biasca, D.: Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual, draft 13 (1997). https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/ws97/manual.august1.html
Labov, W., Fanshel, D.: Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. Academic Press, New York (1977)
Liu, S.: An experimental study of the classification and recognition of Chinese speech acts. J. Pragmat. 43(6), 1801–1817 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.031
Matei, M.: Discourse markers as functional elements. Bull. Transilvania Univ. Braşov 3(52), 119–126 (2010)
McHugh, M.L.: Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Med. 22(3), 276–282 (2012)
Mulkay, M.: Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text - Interdisc. J. Study Discourse 5(3), 201–228 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.3.201
Potts, C.: Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus with Penn Treebank links (2022). https://github.com/cgpotts/swda
Redeker, G.: Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions running head: discourse transitions. In: Fischer, K. (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles, pp. 339–358. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands (2006). https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_019
Scheflen, A.E.: Stream and Structure of Communicational Behavior: Context Analysis of a Psychotherapy Session. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Philadelphia (1965)
Scheflen, A.E.: On the structuring of human communication. Am. Behav. Sci. 10(8), 8–12 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764201000803
Schiffrin, D.: Discourse Markers. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Searle, J.R.: A classification of illocutionary acts. Lang. Soc. 5(1), 1–23 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Trimboli, C., Walker, M.B.: Switching pauses in cooperative and competitive conversations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20(4), 297–311 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(84)90027-1
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful feedback on this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A. The Clustering Results of the Frequencies of Discourse Markers in the Speech Acts of Agreement
Appendix A. The Clustering Results of the Frequencies of Discourse Markers in the Speech Acts of Agreement
(See Fig. 3).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Qi, D., Zhou, C., Liu, H. (2022). Discourse Markers as the Classificatory Factors of Speech Acts. In: Sun, M., et al. Chinese Computational Linguistics. CCL 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13603. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18315-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18315-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18314-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18315-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)