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

This work explores computational models of multi-party discourse, using transcripts from U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. The turn-taking behavior of participants is treated as a supervised sequence-labeling problem and modeled using first- and second-order conditional random fields (CRFs). We specifically explore the hypothesis that discourse markers and personal references provide important features in such models. Results from a sequence prediction experiment demonstrate that incorporating these two types of features yields significant improvements in accuracy. Our experiments are couched in the broader context of developing tools to support legal scholarship, although we see other natural language processing applications as well. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Steve J. Young,et al.  Partially observable Markov decision processes for spoken dialog systems , 2007, Comput. Speech Lang..

[2]  Michael H. Coen,et al.  Design Principles for Intelligent Environments , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  Jimmy J. Lin,et al.  Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research , 2006 .

[4]  M. Laver,et al.  Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Shallow Parsing with Conditional Random Fields , 2003, NAACL.

[6]  T. Johnson.  Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making , 2001 .

[7]  S. Fienberg,et al.  Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist , 1966 .

[8]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech , 2000, CL.

[9]  Martial Michel,et al.  The NIST Smart Space and Meeting Room projects: signals, acquisition annotation, and metrics , 2003, 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings. (ICASSP '03)..

[10]  Simon H. Corston-Oliver.  Identifying the Linguistic Correlates of Rhetorical Relations , 1998 .

[11]  D. Hutchinson,et al.  The Business of the Supreme Court, O.T. 1982 , 1983 .

[12]  Philip Resnik,et al.  Spin: lexical semantics, transitivity, and the identification of implicit sentiment , 2007 .

[13]  Daniel Marcu.  The rhetorical parsing of natural language texts , 1997 .

[14]  Timothy R. Johnson,et al.  The Influence of Oral Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court , 2006, American Political Science Review.

[15]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data , 2001, ICML.

[16]  Hugh Craig.  Stylistic Analysis and Authorship Studies , 2007 .

[17]  Christopher Cieri,et al.  Talkbank: Building an Open Unified Multimodal Database of Communicative Interaction , 2004, LREC.

[18]  Rob Malouf,et al.  Taking sides: user classification for informal online political discourse , 2008, Internet Res..

[19]  Sun-Yuan Kung,et al.  Environment adaptation for robust speaker verification by cascading maximum likelihood linear regression and reinforced learning , 2007, Comput. Speech Lang..

[20]  Gerard Salton,et al.  A vector space model for automatic indexing , 1975, CACM.

[21]  Rieks op den Akker,et al.  Towards Automatic Addressee Identification in Multi-party Dialogues , 2004, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[22]  Burr Settles,et al.  Biomedical Named Entity Recognition using Conditional Random Fields and Rich Feature Sets , 2004, NLPBA/BioNLP.

[23]  Philip Resnik,et al.  More than Words: Syntactic Packaging and Implicit Sentiment , 2009, NAACL.

[24]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates , 2007 .

[25]  I. Lancashire.  Empirically Determining Shakespeare's Idolect , 1997 .

[26]  Jimmy J. Lin,et al.  Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research: Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research , 2007 .

[27]  Sarah Levien Shullman,et al.  The Illusion of Devil's Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow Their Decisions During Oral Argument , 2004 .

[28]  Jeffrey A. Segal,et al.  Supreme Court Decision Making , 1975 .

[29]  Matt Thomas,et al.  Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from Congressional floor-debate transcripts , 2006, EMNLP.

[30]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  THE USE OF CONFIDENCE OR FIDUCIAL LIMITS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE BINOMIAL , 1934 .