On the disambiguation of multifunctional discourse markers in multimodal interaction

The goal of the paper is twofold: firstly, to uncover the roles of discourse markers (henceforth DMs) in expressing cognitive states, information states and interactional moves such as lexical search, uncertainty and topic shift; secondly, to identify sequential and nonverbal features that typically characterize and best distinguish these functions. Some of the controversial defining features of DMs are tested on the occurrences of three Hungarian discourse markers: (1) mondjuk (‘let’s say’), (2) ugye (‘is that so?’), and (3) amúgy (‘otherwise’) in twenty spontaneous dialogues of the HuComTech corpus. The features in question regard their contextual environment (lexical co-occurrences, presence or absence of surrounding silence), position in the utterance, prosodic features (duration, fundamental frequency, pitch movement) and nonverbal-visual markers (the presence or absence of accompanying hand movements). Consequently, the findings of multimodal corpus queries in ELAN 4.5.1 and the statistical tests performed on them in SPSS 19.0 aim to identify the machine-detectable features of the different uses of DMs and distinguish the two most salient functions of each of the three DMs analyzed: 1. (a) lexical search/approximation versus (b) contrast/concession (expressed by mondjuk); 2. (a) question as a directive act versus (b) explanation as a constative act (expressed by ugye); and 3. (a) topic change versus (b) commenting/topic elaboration (expressed by amúgy). The findings suggest that the defining features distinguishing different functions are the duration of the DM and the simultaneous performance or cessation of manual gesticulation.

[1]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[2]  B. Fraser Topic Orientation Markers , 2009 .

[3]  G. Redeker Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions , 2006, Approaches to Discourse Particles.

[4]  C. Creider Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought , 1994 .

[5]  Peter Baranyi,et al.  Cognitive infocommunications: CogInfoCom , 2010, 2010 11th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI).

[6]  Alexandra Markó,et al.  A Pilot Study of Hungarian Discourse Markers , 2010, Language and speech.

[7]  I. Szekrenyes,et al.  Annotation of spoken syntax in relation to prosody and multimodal pragmatics , 2012, 2012 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom).

[8]  A. Kendon Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance , 2004 .

[9]  Harry Bunt,et al.  Towards a Multidimensional Semantics of Discourse Markers in Spoken Dialogue , 2009, IWCS.

[10]  Piet Mertens,et al.  The Prosogram: Semi-Automatic Transcription of Prosody Based on a Tonal Perception Model , 2004 .

[11]  N. J. Enfield,et al.  The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances , 2009 .

[12]  B. Fraser An approach to discourse markers , 1990 .

[13]  Hennie Brugman,et al.  Annotating Multi-media/Multi-modal Resources with ELAN , 2004, LREC.

[14]  D. Massaro Speech Perception By Ear and Eye: A Paradigm for Psychological Inquiry , 1989 .

[15]  D. Schiffrin Discourse markers: Temporal adverbs: now and then , 1987 .

[16]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[17]  D. McNeill Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought , 1992 .

[18]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[19]  Wallace L. Chafe Consciousness and language , 2009 .

[20]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Empirical Studies on the Disambiguation of Cue Phrases , 1993, Comput. Linguistics.

[21]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .