skip to main content
10.1145/3582768.3582775acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnlpirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards Measuring the Cognitive Loads of Different Dialog Acts through Dependency Distance

Published: 27 June 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Although relevance theory has called attention to the analysis of cognitive aspects of pragmatic phenomena, few investigations have explored whether distinct dialog acts (DAs) require different degrees of cognitive loads, not to mention examining them with objective indices. The current paper then adopted a syntactic cognitive index – dependency distance – to analyze whether distinct categories of DAs differ in cognitive loads. Specifically, this paper adopted mean dependency distance (MDD), mean hierarchical distance (MHD), and normalized dependency distance (NDD) to examine the language data in the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA). The results showed that MDD, MHD and NDD are all effective in differentiating four genres of DAs – Information Request (IR), Agreement (Ag), Understanding (Un), and Answering (An), among which IR has the highest values of the three indicators, Un has the lowest, and Ag and An are somewhere in between. A follow-up ANOVA further corroborated that the forward DA (IR) significantly differed from the backward ones (Ag, Un, and An). With these results obtained, this paper may shed light on the relationship between DAs and cognitive resources, providing a new perspective for the research under the paradigm of pragmatics.

References

[1]
Louis de Saussure. 2012. Cognitive pragmatics ways into discourse analysis: The case of discursive presuppositions. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 8,1 (June 2012), 37–59. https://doi.org/10/gg8svv
[2]
Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2012. Cognitive Pragmatics. De Gruyter Mouton. London/Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215
[3]
Ted J.M. Sanders. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning SEM–05. Biarritz, France. 105–114.
[4]
Naoko Taguchi. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied linguistics 28, 1 (March 2007), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051
[5]
André Berthold and Anthony Jameson. 1999. Interpreting symptoms of cognitive load in speech input. In UM99 User Modeling. Springer, Vienna, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-2490-1_23
[6]
M. Asif Khawaja, Natalie Ruiz, and Fang Chen. 2008. Think before you talk: An empirical study of relationship between speech pauses and cognitive load. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat. Cairns, Australia, 335–338. https://doi.org/10.1145/1517744.1517814
[7]
J. Bryan Sexton and Robert L. Helmreich. 2000. Analyzing cockpit communications: The links between language, performance, error, and workload. Human Performance in Extreme Environments 5, 1 (October 2000), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.7771/2327-2937.1007
[8]
Haeran Jae. 2011. Cognitive load and syntactic complexity of printed advertisements: Effects on consumers’ attitudes. Marketing Management Journal 21, 1, 152–159.
[9]
Sandra H. Vos, Thomas C. Gunter, Herman H.J. Kolk, and Gijsbertus Mulder. 2001. Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology 38, 1 (March 2003), 41–63. https://doi.org/10/cfzc84
[10]
Haitao Liu. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9, 2 (September 2008), 159–191.
[11]
Nelson Cowan. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 1 (October 2001), 87–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01003922
[12]
Nelson Cowan. 2010. The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science 19, 1 (March 2010), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277
[13]
George Armitage Miller. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63, 2, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343
[14]
Victor H. Yngve. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104, 5, 444–466. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/4453
[15]
Richard Futrell, Kyle Mahowald, and Edward Gibson. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, 33 (August 2015), 10336–10341. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112
[16]
Douglas C. Derrick, Thomas O. Meservy, Jeffrey L. Jenkins, Judee K. Burgoon, and Jay F. Nunamaker. 2013. Detecting deceptive chat-based communication using typing behavior and message cues. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 4, 2 (August 2013), 1–21. https://doi.org/10/gk9hrt
[17]
Jason A. Williams, Erin L. Burns, and Elizabeth A. Harmon. 2009. Insincere utterances and gaze: Eye contact during sarcastic statements. Perceptual and Motor Skills 108, 2 (April 2009), 565–572. https://doi.org/10/dbtqpv
[18]
Sara Bögels, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2015. Never say no … How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. PLOS ONE 10, 12 (December 2015), e0145474. https://doi.org/10/gcz8m8
[19]
Daniel Jurafsky, Elizabeth Shriberg, and Debra Biasca. 1997. Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL Shallow-discourse-function Annotation Coders Manual, Draft 13. Retrieved May 20, 2022 from https://web.stanford.edu/∼jurafsky/ws97/manual.august1.html
[20]
William Labov and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. Academic Press. New York, USA.
[21]
John L. Austin. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press. London, UK.
[22]
John R. Searle. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, 1 (April 1976), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
[23]
Haitao Liu. 2007. Probability distribution of dependency distance. Glottometrics 15 (June 2007), 1–12.
[24]
Jingyang Jiang and Haitao Liu. 2015. The effects of sentence length on dependency distance, dependency direction and the implications-Based on a parallel English-Chinese dependency treebank. Language Sciences 50 (July 2015), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.04.002
[25]
Lei Lei and Matthew L. Jockers. 2018. Normalized dependency distance: Proposing a new measure. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 27, 1 (August 2018), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2018.1504615
[26]
Lei Lei and Ju Wen. 2020. Is dependency distance experiencing a process of minimization? A diachronic study based on the State of the Union addresses. Lingua 239 (May 2020), 102762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102762
[27]
Yingqi Jing and Haitao Liu. 2015. Mean hierarchical distance augmenting mean dependency distance. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015). Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 161–170. https://aclanthology.org/W15-2119
[28]
Haitao Liu and Yingqi Jing. 2016. A quantitative analysis of English hierarchical structure. Journal of Foreign Languages 39, 6, 2–11. http://jfl.shisu.edu.cn/EN/Y2016/V39/I6/2
[29]
Saeko Komori, Masatoshi Sugiura, and Wenping Li. 2019. Examining MDD and MHD as syntactic complexity measures with intermediate Japanese learner corpus data. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling, SyntaxFest 2019). Association for Computational Linguistics, Paris, France, 130–135. https://doi.org/10/gmfwn8
[30]
Jiang Yang. 2018. Syntactic hierarchy depth: Distribution, interrelation and cross-linguistic properties. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 26, 2 (May 2018), 129–145. https://doi.org/10/gmwvpd
[31]
Lluís Alemany-Puig and Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho. 2021. Quick User Guide to the Linear Arrangement Library Version 21.07 [Unpublished Manuscript]. Department of Computer Science, Polytechnic University of Catalonia.
[32]
Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho. 2013. Hubiness, length, crossings and their relationships in dependency trees. Glottometrics 25 (April 2013), 1–21.
[33]
Annika Asp and Anna Decker. 2001. Designing with speech acts to elude disfluency in human–computer dialogue systems. Working papers/Lund University, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, 49, 2–5.
[34]
Maria Sifianou. 2012. Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of pragmatics 44, 12 (September 2012), 1554–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
[35]
Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
NLPIR '22: Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval
December 2022
241 pages
ISBN:9781450397629
DOI:10.1145/3582768
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 the author(s) 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: 27 June 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Cognitive load
  2. Dependency distance
  3. Dialog act
  4. the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

NLPIR 2022

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 30
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 14 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media