Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multimodal study of answers to disruptions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The interaction between Members of Parliament (MPs) is convention-based and rule-regulated. As instantiations of individual and group confrontations, parliamentary debates display well-regulated competing discursive processes. Unauthorised interruptions are spontaneous verbal reactions of MPs who interrupt the current speaker. This paper focuses on the answers of the current speaker to these disruptions. It introduces an annotation scheme for a political debate dataset which is mainly in the form of video annotations and audio annotations. The annotations contain information ranging from general linguistic to domain specific information. Some is annotated with automatic tools, and some is manually annotated. One of the goals is to use the information to predict the categories of the answers by the speaker to the disruptions. A typology of such answers is proposed and an automatic categorization system based on a multimodal parametrization is successfully performed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Multimodal Discourse Analysis.

  2. http://www.sldr.org/sldr000729/en.

  3. French national Assembly regulations, chapter XII, article 34, updated version 12/2011.

  4. Experiments were carried out with the version 3.7.3 of weka, by using the J48 algorithm, with the following options: -U (disable pruning) and -M 2 (at least 2 instances per leave).

References

  1. Bavelas J-B, Chovil N, Coates L, Roe L (1995) Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 21:394–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertrand R, Portes C, Sabio F (2007) Distribution syntaxique, discursive et interactionnelle des contours intonatifs du français dans un corpus de conversation. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 47:59–77

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bevitori C (2004) Interruptions in British and Italian parliamentary debates. In Bayley Pe (ed) Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse, vol vi, pp 87–109

  4. Beyssade C, Marandin J-M (2007) French intonation and attitude attribution. In: Denis et al (eds) Texas Linguistics Society conference: issues at the semantics-pragmatics interface, Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Press, Somerville

  5. Bigi B, Meunier C, Nesterenko I, Bertrand R (2010) Automatic detection of syllable boundaries in spontaneous speech. In: Language Resource and Evaluation Conference, La Valetta, Malte

  6. Bigi B, Péri P, Bertrand R (2012) Orthographic transcription: which enrichment is required for phonetization? In: Language resources and evaluation conference, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 1756–1763. ISBN 978-2-9517408-7-7

  7. Blache P, Bertrand R, Bigi B, Bruno E, Cela E, Espesser R, Ferré G, Guardiola M, Hirst D, Magro E-P, Martin J-C, Meunier C, Morel M-A, Murisasco E, Nesterenko I, Nocera P, Pallaud B, Prévot L, Priego-Valverde B, Seinturier J, Tan N, Tellier M, Rauzy S (2010) Multimodal annotation of conversational data. In: The fourth linguistic annotation workshop, Uppsala, Suède

  8. Blache P, Rauzy S (2008) Influence de la qualité de l’étiquetage sur le chunking: une corrélation dépendant de la taille des chunks. In: Actes de TALN, Avignon, pp 290–299

  9. Blanche-Benveniste C, Jeanjean C (1987) Le français parlé. Transcription et édition, Didier Erudition

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boersma P, Weenink D (2011) Praat: doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org

  11. Carbó T (1992) Towards an interpretation of interruptions in mexican parliamentary discourse. Discourse& Society 3(1):25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chau M, Cheng R, Kao B (2005) Uncertain data mining: a new research direction. In: Workshop on the Sciences of the Artificial, Hualien, Taiwan

  13. Delattre P (1966) Les dix intonations de base du francais. The French Review, vol 40

  14. Di Cristo A (1999) Le cadre accentuel du français contemporain. Langues 3(2):184–205, 4(2):258–267

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holmes G, Donkin A, Witten I-H (1994) Weka: a machine learning workbench. In: Second Australian and New Zealand conference on intelligent information systems. Intelligent, Information Systems, pp 357–361

  16. Ilie C (2004) Interruption patterns in British parliamentary debates and drama dialogue. Dialoganalyse IX - Dialogue in Literature and the Media, pp 311–326

  17. Ilie C (2006) Parliamentary discourses. Encyclop Lang Linguist 9:188–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jewitt C (2009) Handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jun S-A, Fougeron C (2000) A phonological model of french intonation. Intonation: analysis, modelling and technology

  20. Jun S-A, Fougeron C (2000) Realizations of accentual phrase in french. Probus 14:147–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kerbrat-Orecchioni C (1990) Les interactions verbales. Armand Colin, Paris

  22. Kipp M (2001) Anvil—a generic annotation tool for multimodal dialogue. In: 7th European conference on speech communication and technology, Scandinavia, pp 1367–1370

  23. La Cascia M, Sethi S, Sclaroff S (1998) Combining textual and visual cues for content-based image retrieval on the world wide web. In: IEEE workshop on content-based access of image and video libraries, Washington, DC, USA

  24. Lavesson N, Davidsson P (2006) Quantifying the impact of learning algorithm parameter tuning. In: The twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligence, Boston, USA

  25. Lee C-C, Lee S, Narayanan S (2008) An analysis of multi-modal cues of interruption in dyadic spoken interactions. In: Interspeech, Brisbane, Australia

  26. Liang C, Zhang Y, Song Q (2010) Decision tree for dynamic and uncertain data streams. In: 2nd Asian conference on machine learning, vol 3, Tokyo, Japan, pp 209–224

  27. Liang L-C (2001) Visualizing spoken discourse: prosodic form and discourse function of interruptions. In: Second SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialog, vol 16, pp 1–10

  28. McNeill D (1992) Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  29. McNeill D (2005) Gesture and thought. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Halloran K (2011) Multimodal discourse analysis. Companion to Discourse, pp 120–137

  31. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (2008) Traite de l’argumentation. Bruxelles, Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles, [1958]

  32. Qin B, Xia Y, Sathyesh R, Prabhakar S, Tu Y (2010) urule: a rule-based classification system for uncertain data. In: 10th IEEE international conference on data mining workshops, Sydney, Australia, pp 1415–1418

  33. Quinlan J-R (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco

  34. Ren J, Lee S-D, Chen X, Kao B, Cheng R, Cheung D-W-L (2009) Naive bayes classification of uncertain data. In: Ninth IEEE international conference on data mining, pp 944–949

  35. Rohlfing K, Loehr D, Duncan S, Brown A, Franklin A, Kimbarra I (2006) Comparison of multimodal annotation tools—workshop report. In: Online-Zeitschrift zur Verbalen Interaktion, Ausgabe, vol 7, pp 99–123

  36. Saar-Tsechansky M, Provost F (2007) Handling missing values when applying classification models. J Mach Learn Res 8:1625–1657

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sandre M (2009) Analyse d’un dysfonctionnement interactionnel—l’interruption—dans le debat de l’entre-deux tours de l’election presidentielle de 2007. Mots, Les Langages du politique 89:69–81

  38. Steuckardt A (2012) Decrire la reformulation : le parametre rhetorique. Cahiers de praxematique 52:159–172

  39. Traverso V (2002) Replique, p 502. Dictionnaire d’analyse de discours. Patrick Charaudeau et Dominique Maingueneau (eds) Seuil, Paris

  40. Wittenburg P, Brugman H, Russel A, Klassmann A, Sloetjes H (2006) Elan: a professional framework for multimodality research

  41. Yang F, Heeman P (2007) Avoiding and resolving initiative conflicts in dialog. In: NAACL HLT, Rochester, NY

  42. Zhi Q, Kaynak MN, Sengupta K, Cheok A-D, Ko C-C (2001) HMM modeling for audio-visual speech recognition. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME’01), Los Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society, pp 136–139

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Parole et Langage, CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université, 5, avenue Pasteur, BP 80975, 13604, Aix en Provence, France

    Brigitte Bigi, Cristel Portes & Marion Tellier

  2. Praxiling, CNRS, Université de Montpellier 3, 17, rue Abbé de l’Épée, 34090, Montpellier, France

    Agnès Steuckardt

Authors
  1. Brigitte Bigi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristel Portes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Agnès Steuckardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marion Tellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brigitte Bigi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bigi, B., Portes, C., Steuckardt, A. et al. A multimodal study of answers to disruptions. J Multimodal User Interfaces 7, 55–66 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-012-0110-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-012-0110-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation