---
title: "The Semantics of Dialogue Acts — paper by Bunt (2011)"
description: "The paper addresses a gap in dialogue research. 20 references, cited by 13 papers here."
authors: ["Harry Bunt"]
year: 2011
venue: "Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011)"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/W11-0101/"
licence: "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bunt-2011-semantics-dialogue-acts/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bunt-2011-semantics-dialogue-acts/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2011](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2011/) / The Semantics of Dialogue Acts

# The Semantics of Dialogue Acts

**Authors:** [Harry Bunt](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/harry-bunt/) · **Year:** 2011 · **Venue:** [Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011)](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/iwcs/) ([International Conference on Computational Semantics 2011](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/iwcs/2011/)) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/W11-0101/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/W11-0101.pdf) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2121083649)

**Citations:** 29 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [13](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bunt-2011-semantics-dialogue-acts/cited-by/) in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
The paper addresses a gap in dialogue research. Dialogue acts are widely used but rarely defined formally, and competing tag inventories make annotated corpora hard to reuse. Bunt gives dialogue acts a formal information-state (context) update semantics, grounded in Dynamic Interpretation Theory (DIT). Each communicative function is modelled as a combination of very small "elementary update functions" that add beliefs, goals and assumptions to the addressee's context model. This decomposition separates closely related act types precisely and makes it possible to state entailment and exclusion relations between acts. The semantics is attached to the abstract syntax of DiAML, the markup language in the proposed ISO 24617-2 standard for dialogue act annotation, so it applies to any representation format that encodes the same annotation structures. The paper also covers:
- a five-part context model;
- a "pending context" that handles consistency;
- interpretations for certainty, conditionality and sentiment qualifiers.

Worked examples include an uncertain answer and a happily accepted offer. The work matters because it turns an informal annotation scheme into one with checkable meaning.

## Key points
- The DIT++ taxonomy, which underlies ISO 24617-2, uses 10 dimensions. Examples are Task, Auto-/Allo-Feedback, Turn and Time Management, and Social Obligations Management. Petukhova & Bunt justified this set by analysing 18 existing annotation schemes; by comparison, DAMSL has nine dimensions.
- Communicative functions come in two kinds:
  - general-purpose functions (e.g. Check Question, Answer), usable in any dimension;
  - dimension-specific functions (e.g. Turn Accept, Stalling).
- A DiAML dialogue act structure is a quadruple of sender, addressee, dimension and communicative function (optionally with qualifiers). The abstract syntax is separate from the XML concrete syntax.
- The context model has five components: Linguistic, Semantic, Cognitive, Physical/Perceptual and Social. Versions of it were implemented in the PARADIME dialogue manager.
- Qualifiers come in two types:
  - q-specifiers, which modify a function's updates: certain/uncertain map to "firm"/"weak" beliefs, and conditional/unconditional to a condition or an empty one;
  - q-additives (sentiment), which add a separate update, for example HAPPY recorded in the cognitive context.

## Interesting ideas
- Breaking each speech act into a union of tiny, reusable update operations turns act meanings into explicit sets, so entailment or conflict between acts can be computed rather than hand-listed.
- New information first goes into a "pending context" buffer and only merges into the main model after an evaluation step confirms it keeps the model consistent.
- Semantics is defined over abstract annotation structures, not over one file format, so any "ideal" format (one representing a unique structure) can be converted to any other without loss of meaning.
- Unmarked defaults: an utterance with no hedging is read as certain, and an offer or commitment with no stated condition is read as unconditional. Explicit markers tend to appear only after doubt has been voiced.
- Keeping the communicative function (how to update) apart from the semantic content and the dimension (what the act is about) lets one function, such as a check question, serve task talk and feedback alike.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): crate prag could define each speech act as a list of elementary belief/goal additions, letting it explain why "answer" implies "inform" and detect clashing acts.
- **I2** (world): incoming states and holdings from each sentence could be staged and consistency-checked before committing, giving a traceable record of rejected or revised facts.
- **I3** (tree): UD dialect conversion could target one abstract structure with format-specific renderings, making round-trip equivalence of treebank formats provable.
- **I4** (frames): the implicature module could assign default certainty and conditionality to speech acts and flag explicit "definitely" as a hint that earlier doubt exists.
- **I5** (answer): readers of dialogues in tales could tell a character's feedback question from a task question, attributing beliefs correctly when answering "what did X know?"

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Tilburg University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/tilburg-university/) — University, Tilburg, Netherlands · 40 works · 6,231 citations

📚 Shelves (4): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 9,085 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 8,888 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works

🧭 Topics (2): [🗨️ Dialogue systems](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/dialogue-systems/) · 401 works · [💬 Speech act theory](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/speech-act-theory/) · 160 works

## Cite

Cite as: Harry Bunt. 2011. The Semantics of Dialogue Acts. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011).

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{bunt2011semantics,
  title = {{The Semantics of Dialogue Acts}},
  author = {Harry Bunt},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011)},
  year = {2011},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/W11-0101/}
}
```

- [← previous A Unified Event Coreference Resolution by Integrating Multiple Resolvers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/chen-2011-unified-event-coreference-resolution-integrating/)
- [next → Semi-Supervised Frame-Semantic Parsing for Unknown Predicates](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/das-2011-semi-supervised-frame-semantic-parsing/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2011](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2011/)

## References

20 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Ahn, R. (2001). Agents, Object and Events: A computational approach to knowledge, observation and communication. PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ahn%2C+R%2E+%282001%29%2E+Agents%2C+Object+and+Events%3A+A+computational+approach+to+knowledge%2C+observation+and+communication%2E+PhD+Thesis%2C+Eindhoven+University+of+Technology%2E)
2. Bunt, H. (2000). Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In H. Bunt and W. Black (Eds.), Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics, pp. 81–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.1.03bun)
3. Bunt, H. (2006). Dimensions in dialogue annotation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), Genova, Italy, Paris, pp. 919–924. ELRA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282006%29%2E+Dimensions+in+dialogue+annotation%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+5th+International+Conference+on+Language+Resources+and+Evaluation+%28LREC+2006%29%2C+Genova%2C+Italy%2C+Paris%2C+pp%2E+919%E2%80%93924%2E+ELRA%2E)
4. Bunt, H. (2009). Multifunctionality and muldimensional dialogue semantics. In Proceedings of Dia-Holmia, 13th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Stockholm, pp. 3–14. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282009%29%2E+Multifunctionality+and+muldimensional+dialogue+semantics%2E+In+Proceedings+of+Dia%2DHolmia%2C+13th+Workshop+on+the+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+of+Dialogue%2C+Stockholm%2C+pp%2E+3%E2%80%9314%2E)
5. Bunt, H. (2010). A methodology for designing semantic annotation languages. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Global Interoperability for Language Resources, Hong Kong, pp. 29–46. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282010%29%2E+A+methodology+for+designing+semantic+annotation+languages%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+2nd+International+Conference+on+Global+Interoperability+for+Language+Resources%2C+Hong+Kong%2C+pp%2E+29%E2%80%9346%2E)
6. Bunt, H. (2011a). Formal specification of an update semantics for dialogue acts. TiCC Technical Report TR 2011-001, Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282011a%29%2E+Formal+specification+of+an+update+semantics+for+dialogue+acts%2E+TiCC+Technical+Report+TR+2011%2D001%2C+Tilburg+Center+for+Cognition+and+Communication%2E)
7. Bunt, H. (2011b). Multifunctionality in dialogue and its interpretation. Computer, Speech and Language (25), 225 – 245. Bunt, H. (forthc.). Interpretation and generation of dialogue with multidimensional context models. In A. Esposito (Ed.), Toward Autonomous, adaptive, and context-aware multimedia interfaces, pp. 81– 131. Berlin: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282011b%29%2E+Multifunctionality+in+dialogue+and+its+interpretation%2E+Computer%2C+Speech+and+Language+%2825%29%2C+225+%E2%80%93+245%2E+Bunt%2C+H%2E+%28forthc%2E%29%2E+Interpretation+and+generation+of+dialogue+with+multidimensio)
8. Bunt, H., J. Alexandersson, J. Carletta, J.-W. Choe, A. Fang, K. Hasida, K. Lee, V. Petukhova, A. Popescu-Belis, L. Romary, C. Soria, and Traum (2010). Towards an ISO standard for dialogue act formal annotation. In Proceedings 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010), Malta. Paris: ELRA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E%2C+J%2E+Alexandersson%2C+J%2E+Carletta%2C+J%2E%2DW%2E+Choe%2C+A%2E+Fang%2C+K%2E+Hasida%2C+K%2E+Lee%2C+V%2E+Petukhova%2C+A%2E+Popescu%2DBelis%2C+L%2E+Romary%2C+C%2E+Soria%2C+and+Traum+%282010%29%2E+Towards+an+ISO+standard+for+dialogue+act+formal+)
9. Cooper, R. (2000). Information states, attitudes and dependent record types. In L. Cavedon, P. Blackburn, N. Braisby, and A. Shimojima (Eds.), Logic, Language and Computation, Vol 3, pp. 85–106. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cooper%2C+R%2E+%282000%29%2E+Information+states%2C+attitudes+and+dependent+record+types%2E+In+L%2E+Cavedon%2C+P%2E+Blackburn%2C+N%2E+Braisby%2C+and+A%2E+Shimojima+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Logic%2C+Language+and+Computation%2C+Vol+3%2C+pp%2E+85%E2%80%93106%2E+Stanf)
10. Core, M. and J. Allen (1997). Coding dialogs with the DAMSL annotation schema. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines, Boston, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Core%2C+M%2E+and+J%2E+Allen+%281997%29%2E+Coding+dialogs+with+the+DAMSL+annotation+schema%2E+In+AAAI+Fall+Symposium+on+Communicative+Action+in+Humans+and+Machines%2C+Boston%2C+MA%2E)
11. Ide, N. and H. Bunt (2010). Anatomy of semantic annotation schemes: Mappings to GrAF. In Proceedings of the4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-IV), Uppsala. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ide%2C+N%2E+and+H%2E+Bunt+%282010%29%2E+Anatomy+of+semantic+annotation+schemes%3A+Mappings+to+GrAF%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the4th+Linguistic+Annotation+Workshop+%28LAW%2DIV%29%2C+Uppsala%2E)
12. Ide, N. and L. Romary (2004). [International standard for a linguistic annotation framework](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ide-2003-international-standard-linguistic-annotation-framework/). Natural Language engineering 10, 211–225. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s135132490400350x)
13. ISO (2010). DIS 24617-2: Semantic annotation framework Part 2: Dialogue acts. ISO, Geneva: Draft International Standard, July 2010. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ISO+%282010%29%2E+DIS+24617%2D2%3A+Semantic+annotation+framework+Part+2%3A+Dialogue+acts%2E+ISO%2C+Geneva%3A+Draft+International+Standard%2C+July+2010%2E)
14. Kievit, L., P.Piwek, R.-J. Beun, and H. Bunt (2001). Multimodal cooperative resolution of referential expressions in the DenK system. In H. Bunt and R.-J. Beun (Eds.), Cooperative Multimodal Communication, pp. 197–214. Berlin: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kievit%2C+L%2E%2C+P%2EPiwek%2C+R%2E%2DJ%2E+Beun%2C+and+H%2E+Bunt+%282001%29%2E+Multimodal+cooperative+resolution+of+referential+expressions+in+the+DenK+system%2E+In+H%2E+Bunt+and+R%2E%2DJ%2E+Beun+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Cooperative+Multimodal+Communica)
15. Morante, R. (2007). Computing meaning in interaction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tilburg University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Morante%2C+R%2E+%282007%29%2E+Computing+meaning+in+interaction%2E+Ph%2ED%2E+Dissertation%2C+Tilburg+University%2E)
16. Petukhova, V. and H. Bunt (2009a). Dimensions in communication. TiCC Technical Report TR 2009-003, Tilburg University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E+and+H%2E+Bunt+%282009a%29%2E+Dimensions+in+communication%2E+TiCC+Technical+Report+TR+2009%2D003%2C+Tilburg+University%2E)
17. Petukhova, V. and H. Bunt (2009b). The independence of dimensions in multidimensional dialogue act annotation. In Proceedings NAACL HLT Conference, Boulder, Colorado. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E+and+H%2E+Bunt+%282009b%29%2E+The+independence+of+dimensions+in+multidimensional+dialogue+act+annotation%2E+In+Proceedings+NAACL+HLT+Conference%2C+Boulder%2C+Colorado%2E)
18. Petukhova, V., H. Bunt, and A. Malchanau (2010). Empirical and theoretical constraints on dialogue act combinations. In Proceedings 14th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Poznan. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+H%2E+Bunt%2C+and+A%2E+Malchanau+%282010%29%2E+Empirical+and+theoretical+constraints+on+dialogue+act+combinations%2E+In+Proceedings+14th+Workshop+on+the+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+of+Dialogue%2C+Poznan%2E)
19. Poesio, M. and D. Traum (1998). Towards an axiomatisation of dialogue acts. In Proceedings of the twente Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Enschede, pp. 207 – 222. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Poesio%2C+M%2E+and+D%2E+Traum+%281998%29%2E+Towards+an+axiomatisation+of+dialogue+acts%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+twente+Workshop+on+the+Semantics+and+Pragmatics+of+Dialogue%2C+Enschede%2C+pp%2E+207+%E2%80%93+222%2E)
20. Traum, D. and S. Larsson (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 325 – 345. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_15)

*Updated 24 October 2026*