skip to main content
10.1145/3461615.3491105acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Semantic and Acoustic-Prosodic Entrainment of Dialogues in Service Scenarios

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 December 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

According to the Communication Accommodation Theory, speakers dynamically adjust their communication behaviors, converging to or diverging from their interlocutors in order to diminish or increase social distance, which is called entrainment. Most of the studies investigated the entrainment of the interlocutors in terms of linguistic and paralinguistic features respectively, but paid less attention to the (dis)entrainment relation between paralinguistic and linguistic ones. In this study, we employed BERT to extract the semantic similarities of turns within dialogues in service scenarios, and found the semantic entrainment. We also found that (dis)entrainments policies were adopted between acoustic-prosodic (paralinguistic) and linguistic (semantic) features. These findings will contribute to fully understanding the mechanism of entrainment in dialogue.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. P Boersma and D Weenink. 2019. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (6.1. 08)[Computer program].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Michael P. Broderick, Andrew J. Anderson, Giovanni M. Di Liberto, Michael J. Crosse, and Edmund C. Lalor. 2018. Electrophysiological Correlates of Semantic Dissimilarity Reflect the Comprehension of Natural, Narrative Speech. Current Biology 28, 5 (2018), 803–809.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.080Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Estelle Campione and Jean Véronis. 2002. A large-scale multilingual study of pause duration. Speech Prosody 2002. Proceedings of the1st International Conference on Speech Prosody (2002), 199–202. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/sp2002/sp02_199.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jens Edlund, Julia Bell Hirschberg, and Mattias Heldner. 2009. Pause and gap length in face-to-face interaction. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Heather Friedberg, Diane Litman, and Susannah B F Paletz. 2012. LEXICAL ENTRAINMENT AND SUCCESS IN STUDENT ENGINEERING GROUPS Department of Computer Science and 2 Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. (2012), 404–409.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ramiro H Gálvez, Lara Gauder, Jordi Luque, and Agustin Gravano. 2020. A unifying framework for modeling acoustic/prosodic entrainment: definition and evaluation on two large corpora. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 215–224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Rivka Levitan, Štefan Beňuš, Agustín Gravano, and Julia Hirschberg. 2015. Acoustic-prosodic entrainment in Slovak, Spanish, English and Chinese: A cross-linguistic comparison. SIGDIAL 2015 - 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, Proceedings of the ConferenceSeptember (2015), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w15-4644Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Aijun Li. 2018. Response Acts in Chinese Conversation: the Coding Scheme and Analysis. In 2018 11th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (ISCSLP). IEEE, 478–482.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Juan Manuel Pérez, Ramiro H Gálvez, and Agustín Gravano. 2016. Disentrainment may be a Positive Thing: A Novel Measure of Unsigned Acoustic-Prosodic Synchrony, and its Relation to Speaker Engagement.. In INTERSPEECH. 1270–1274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin J. Pickering and Simon Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 2 (2004), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x04000056Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Uwe D. Reichel, Katalin Mády, and Jennifer Cole. 2018. Prosodic entrainment in dialog acts. arXiv (2018), 1–19. arxiv:1810.12646Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Andreas Weise and Rivka Levitan. 2018. Looking for structure in lexical and acoustic-prosodic entrainment behaviors. NAACL HLT 2018 - 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies - Proceedings of the Conference 2(2018), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n18-2048Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICMI '21 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2021 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
    October 2021
    418 pages
    ISBN:9781450384711
    DOI:10.1145/3461615

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 17 December 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate453of1,080submissions,42%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format