---
title: "Assessment of Sales Negotiation Strategies with ISO 24617-2"
description: "They define three use cases: probing questioning, customer-oriented behaviour, and persuasive… 56 references, cited by 1 paper here."
authors: ["Jutta Stock", "Volha Petukhova", "Dietrich Klakow"]
year: 2022
venue: "Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.2/"
licence: "CC BY-NC 4.0 (ELRA, LREC proceedings)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/stock-2022-assessment-sales-negotiation-strategies-iso/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/stock-2022-assessment-sales-negotiation-strategies-iso/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2022/page/6/) / Assessment of Sales Negotiation Strategies with ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotations

# Assessment of Sales Negotiation Strategies with ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotations

**Authors:** Jutta Stock, [Volha Petukhova](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/volha-petukhova/) and [Dietrich Klakow](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/dietrich-klakow/) · **Year:** 2022 · **Venue:** [Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/isa/) ([Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation 2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/isa/2022/)) · **Publisher:** [European Language Resources Association (ELRA)](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/european-language-resources-association-elra/) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC 4.0 (ELRA, LREC proceedings)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.2/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.2.pdf)

**Citations:** 1 in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Call centres want to know why some agents close sales while others with the same offers do not. Current speech analytics tools mostly convert speech to text and mine keywords. They cannot capture questioning tactics, customer orientation or persuasion. The authors test whether the ISO 24617-2 dialogue act standard (Second Edition, 2020) can support this kind of assessment. They define three use cases: probing questioning, customer-oriented behaviour, and persuasive negotiation. They then annotate authentic German call centre conversations from inbound service calls, where agents try to turn a service request into a sale. Each utterance gets multidimensional dialogue act labels, semantic content, qualifiers such as sentiment, and rhetorical relations between acts. The authors also propose domain extensions to the taxonomy. They conclude that the standard is a strong basis for analysing sales strategies. Its qualifier and rhetorical relation mechanisms turned out to be central for the use cases, but they need further specification, especially to model social and interpersonal aspects. This matters because sensitive dialogue data is rarely studied, and theory-driven annotation could later be automated.

## Key points
- The framework is ISO 24617-2, a multidimensional dialogue act taxonomy. The authors apply it to customer–agent sales negotiations in inbound calls and extend its communicative functions and semantic content for this domain.
- There are three use cases: pervasive questioning (open vs. closed questions, as in SPIN-style selling), customer-oriented behaviour, and persuasion, with the latter linked to the AECAL criteria (audibility, engagement, conviction, authority, likability).
- Existing tools such as AVOKE, Talkdesk, NICE and VERINT offer speech-to-text and text mining but no deep analysis of strategy.
- Sentiment qualifiers showed a role split. Customers mostly showed happy, dissatisfied and uncertain, for example uncertainty about cancelling. Agents mostly showed pleased and satisfied, often near the end of the call.
- Data access is a key obstacle. Call centres must purge recordings every 3–6 months and rarely share them. Follow-up studies are planned with expert annotators and broad access to call data.

## Interesting ideas
- Instead of building a new scheme, they took a general dialogue act standard and added domain-specific functions and content on top, which keeps the labels interoperable while still covering the domain.
- Each utterance is labelled in several dimensions at once (task, feedback, social obligations), so one turn can carry a request and a politeness move together.
- Qualifiers such as sentiment or certainty are attached to dialogue acts, and their distribution is compared by speaker role (customer vs. agent).
- Rhetorical relations between dialogue acts are treated as essential for judging argument and persuasion, not just isolated act labels.
- Before annotating, the authors define concrete use cases (questioning, customer orientation, persuasion) and use them to decide which parts of the scheme need extending.

## For Mova

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

- **I1** (frames): The speech-act layer in prag could keep an ISO 24617-2-style core and attach domain plug-ins (sales, school dialogues) as explicit, documented extensions.
- **I2** (frames): Speech acts in prag could be multi-valued per clause, letting implicature and irony readers see the secondary social function next to the literal task act.
- **I3** (world): Character states in the world of a fable could carry attitude qualifiers tied to specific acts, so answers like "why was the fox pleased" trace back to an annotated act.
- **I4** (answer): QA on fables could use explicit relations (justification, cause, contrast) between speech acts to explain how one character persuaded another.
- **I5** (learn): Evaluation sets could start from named use cases, with each annotation layer justified by a downstream question it must help answer.

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

📚 Shelves (2): [🎭 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: Jutta Stock, Volha Petukhova and Dietrich Klakow. 2022. Assessment of Sales Negotiation Strategies with ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotations. Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022.

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

```bibtex
@inproceedings{stock2022assessment,
  title = {{Assessment of Sales Negotiation Strategies with ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotations}},
  author = {Jutta Stock, Volha Petukhova and Dietrich Klakow},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022},
  year = {2022},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.2/}
}
```

- [← previous Arabic Text-To-Speech (TTS) Data Preparation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/masri-2022-arabic-text-speech-tts-data/)
- [next → Automated detection of pronunciation errors in non-native English speech employing deep learning](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/korzekwa-2022-automated-detection-pronunciation-errors-non/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2022](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2022/page/6/)

## References

56 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Adler, R. F., Iacobelli, F., and Gutstein, Y. (2016). Are you convinced? a wizard of oz study to test emotional vs. rational persuasion strategies in dialogues. Computers in Human Behavior, 57:75–81. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.011)
2. Allwood, J. (2000). An activity-based approach to pragmatics. Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue, pages 47–81. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.1.02all)
3. Anikina, T. and Kruijff-Korbayová, I. (2019). Dialogue act classification in team communication for robot assisted disaster response. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 399–410. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anikina%2C+T%2E+and+Kruijff%2DKorbayova%CC%81%2C+I%2E+%282019%29%2E+Dialogue+act+classification+in+team+communication+for+robot+assisted+disaster+response%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+20th+Annual+SIGdial+Meeting+on+Discourse+an)
4. Arndt, A. D., Rippé, C. B., and Castleberry, S. B. (2018). Any questions? questioning skill as a selling tactic for sales students. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 26(2). [↗](https://doi.org/10.63963/001c.150576)
5. Borbély, A., Ebner, N., Honeyman, C., Kaufman, S., and Schneider, A. K. (2017). A grand unified negotiation theory: In context. J. Disp. Resol., page 145. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Borbe%CC%81ly%2C+A%2E%2C+Ebner%2C+N%2E%2C+Honeyman%2C+C%2E%2C+Kaufman%2C+S%2E%2C+and+Schneider%2C+A%2E+K%2E+%282017%29%2E+A+grand+unified+negotiation+theory%3A+In+context%2E+J%2E+Disp%2E+Resol%2E%2C+page+145%2E)
6. Brady, M. K. and Cronin Jr, J. J. (2001). Customer orientation: Effects on customer service perceptions and outcome behaviors. Journal of service Research, 3(3):241–251. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brady%2C+M%2E+K%2E+and+Cronin+Jr%2C+J%2E+J%2E+%282001%29%2E+Customer+orientation%3A+Effects+on+customer+service+perceptions+and+outcome+behaviors%2E+Journal+of+service+Research%2C+3%283%29%3A241%E2%80%93251%2E)
7. Bunt, H. and Prasad, R. (2016). Iso dr-core (iso 24617-8): Core concepts for the annotation of discourse relations. In Proceedings 12th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-12), pages 45–54. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+and+Prasad%2C+R%2E+%282016%29%2E+Iso+dr%2Dcore+%28iso+24617%2D8%29%3A+Core+concepts+for+the+annotation+of+discourse+relations%2E+In+Proceedings+12th+Joint+ACL%2DISO+Workshop+on+Interoperable+Semantic+Annotation+%28ISA)
8. Bunt, H., Alexandersson, J., Choe, J.-W., Fang, A. C., Hasida, K., Petukhova, V., Popescu-Belis, A., and Traum, D. (2012). [Iso 24617-2: A semantically-based standard for dialogue annotation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bunt-2012-iso-24617-2-semantically-based/). In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), pages 430–437.
9. Bunt, H., Petukhova, V., Traum, D., and Alexandersson, J. (2017). Dialogue act annotation with the iso 24617-2 standard. In Multimodal interaction with W3C standards, pages 109–135. Springer. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42816-1_6)
10. Bunt, H. (1999). Dynamic interpretation and dialogue theory. The structure of multimodal dialogue, 2:139–166. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%281999%29%2E+Dynamic+interpretation+and+dialogue+theory%2E+The+structure+of+multimodal+dialogue%2C+2%3A139%E2%80%93166%2E)
11. Bunt, H. (2019). Plug-ins for content annotation of dialogue acts. In Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-15), page 33. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282019%29%2E+Plug%2Dins+for+content+annotation+of+dialogue+acts%2E+In+Workshop+on+Interoperable+Semantic+Annotation+%28ISA%2D15%29%2C+page+33%2E)
12. Burkhardt, F., Pelachaud, C., Schuller, B. W., and Zovato, E. (2017). Emotionml. In Multimodal interaction with W3C standards, pages 65–80. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Burkhardt%2C+F%2E%2C+Pelachaud%2C+C%2E%2C+Schuller%2C+B%2E+W%2E%2C+and+Zovato%2C+E%2E+%282017%29%2E+Emotionml%2E+In+Multimodal+interaction+with+W3C+standards%2C+pages+65%E2%80%9380%2E+Springer%2E)
13. Clark, C. M. (2011). Communication strategies of call center agents: a multi-method study of solidarity building and conversation control on agent performance. Ph.D. thesis, Nanyang Technological University. [↗](https://doi.org/10.32657/10356/45497)
14. Core, M. G. and Allen, J. (1997). Coding dialogs with the damsl annotation scheme. In AAAI fall symposium on communicative action in humans and machines, volume 56, pages 28–35. Boston, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Core%2C+M%2E+G%2E+and+Allen%2C+J%2E+%281997%29%2E+Coding+dialogs+with+the+damsl+annotation+scheme%2E+In+AAAI+fall+symposium+on+communicative+action+in+humans+and+machines%2C+volume+56%2C+pages+28%E2%80%9335%2E+Boston%2C+MA%2E)
15. Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., Apolloni, B., Taylor, J., Romano, A., Fellenz, W., et al. (1999). What a neural net needs to know about emotion words. Computational intelligence and applications, 404:5311– 5316. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cowie%2C+R%2E%2C+Douglas%2DCowie%2C+E%2E%2C+Apolloni%2C+B%2E%2C+Taylor%2C+J%2E%2C+Romano%2C+A%2E%2C+Fellenz%2C+W%2E%2C+et+al%2E+%281999%29%2E+What+a+neural+net+needs+to+know+about+emotion+words%2E+Computational+intelligence+and+applications%2C+404%3A53)
16. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., and Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Dynamics of communicator and audience power: The persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1):68–85. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw006)
17. Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review, 99(3):550–553. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.99.3.550)
18. Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 98(45-60):16. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ekman%2C+P%2E+%281999%29%2E+Basic+emotions%2E+Handbook+of+cognition+and+emotion%2C+98%2845%2D60%29%3A16%2E)
19. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., and Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fisher%2C+R%2E%2C+Ury%2C+W%2E+L%2E%2C+and+Patton%2C+B%2E+%282011%29%2E+Getting+to+yes%3A+Negotiating+agreement+without+giving+in%2E+Penguin%2E)
20. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., and Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(6):878. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878)
21. Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current directions in psychological science, 27(2):67–73. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825)
22. Freese, T. (2000). Secrets of question-based selling: How the most powerful tool in business can double your sales results. Sourcebooks, Inc. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Freese%2C+T%2E+%282000%29%2E+Secrets+of+question%2Dbased+selling%3A+How+the+most+powerful+tool+in+business+can+double+your+sales+results%2E+Sourcebooks%2C+Inc%2E)
23. Hastie, H., Prasad, R., and Walker, M. (2002). What’s the trouble: automatically identifying problematic dialogues in darpa communicator dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 384– 391. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hastie%2C+H%2E%2C+Prasad%2C+R%2E%2C+and+Walker%2C+M%2E+%282002%29%2E+What%E2%80%99s+the+trouble%3A+automatically+identifying+problematic+dialogues+in+darpa+communicator+dialogue+systems%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+40th+Annual+Meeting+of+)
24. Hobbs, J. R. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hobbs%2C+J%2E+R%2E+%281985%29%2E+On+the+coherence+and+structure+of+discourse%2E)
25. Homburg, C., Müller, M., and Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be king? on the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. Journal of marketing, 75(2):55– 74. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.2.55)
26. ISO. (2020). Language resource management – Semantic annotation framework – Part 2: Dialogue acts. ISO 24617-2, Second Edition. ISO Central Secretariat, Geneva. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ISO%2E+%282020%29%2E+Language+resource+management+%E2%80%93+Semantic+annotation+framework+%E2%80%93+Part+2%3A+Dialogue+acts%2E+ISO+24617%2D2%2C+Second+Edition%2E+ISO+Central+Secretariat%2C+Geneva%2E)
27. Kellermann, K. (2007). Persuasive question asking: how question wording influences answers. In Annual Meeting of the State Bar Association of California, Anaheim, CA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kellermann%2C+K%2E+%282007%29%2E+Persuasive+question+asking%3A+how+question+wording+influences+answers%2E+In+Annual+Meeting+of+the+State+Bar+Association+of+California%2C+Anaheim%2C+CA%2E)
28. Klein, M. (1999). Standardisation efforts on the level of dialogue act in the mate project. In Towards Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Klein%2C+M%2E+%281999%29%2E+Standardisation+efforts+on+the+level+of+dialogue+act+in+the+mate+project%2E+In+Towards+Standards+and+Tools+for+Discourse+Tagging%2E)
29. Lapina, V. and Petukhova, V. (2017). Classification of modal meaning in negotiation dialogues. In Proceedings of the 13th Joint ISO-ACL Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-13). [↗](https://doi.org/10.22028/d291-29410)
30. Larsson, S. (1998). Using a type hierarchy to characterize reliability of coding schemas for dialogue moves. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Larsson%2C+S%2E+%281998%29%2E+Using+a+type+hierarchy+to+characterize+reliability+of+coding+schemas+for+dialogue+moves%2E)
31. Lax, D. A. and Sebenius, J. K. (1986). Interests: The measure of negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 2(1):73–92. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00998936)
32. Leigh, T. W., DeCarlo, T. E., Allbright, D., and Lollar, J. (2014). Salesperson knowledge distinctions and sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 34(2):123–140. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.890902)
33. Malchanau, A. (2019). Cognitive architecture of multimodal multidimensional dialogue management. Saarländische Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek. [↗](https://doi.org/10.22028/d291-27856)
34. McFarland, R. G., Challagalla, G. N., and Shervani, T. A. (2006). Influence tactics for effective adaptive selling. Journal of Marketing, 70(4):103–117. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.103)
35. Mechinda, P. and Patterson, P. G. (2011). The impact of service climate and service provider personality on employees’ customer-oriented behavior in a high-contact setting. Journal of Services Marketing. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041111119822)
36. Mishne, G., Carmel, D., Hoory, R., Roytman, A., and Soffer, A. (2005). Automatic analysis of call-center conversations. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 453–459. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mishne%2C+G%2E%2C+Carmel%2C+D%2E%2C+Hoory%2C+R%2E%2C+Roytman%2C+A%2E%2C+and+Soffer%2C+A%2E+%282005%29%2E+Automatic+analysis+of+call%2Dcenter+conversations%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+14th+ACM+international+conference+on+Information+and+knowl)
37. Pallotta, V. and Delmonte, R. (2013). Interaction mining: the new frontier of customer interaction analytics. In New challenges in distributed information filtering and retrieval, pages 91–111. Springer. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31546-6_6)
38. Petukhova, V. and Bunt, H. (2020). [Adapting the iso 24617-2 dialogue act annotation scheme for modelling medical consultations](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/petukhova-2020-adapting-iso-24617-2-dialogue/). In 16th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation PROCEEDINGS, pages 75–87.
39. Petukhova, V., Gropp, M., Klakow, D., Schmidt, A., Eigner, G., Topf, M., Srb, S., Motlicek, P., Potard, B., Dines, J., et al. (2014). The dbox corpus collection of spoken human-human and human-machine dialogues. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Gropp%2C+M%2E%2C+Klakow%2C+D%2E%2C+Schmidt%2C+A%2E%2C+Eigner%2C+G%2E%2C+Topf%2C+M%2E%2C+Srb%2C+S%2E%2C+Motlicek%2C+P%2E%2C+Potard%2C+B%2E%2C+Dines%2C+J%2E%2C+et+al%2E+%282014%29%2E+The+dbox+corpus+collection+of+spoken+human%2Dhuman+and+human%2Dmachine)
40. Petukhova, V., Malchanau, A., and Bunt, H. (2015). Modelling argumentative behaviour in parliamentary debates: data collection, analysis and test case. In Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pages 26–46. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Malchanau%2C+A%2E%2C+and+Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282015%29%2E+Modelling+argumentative+behaviour+in+parliamentary+debates%3A+data+collection%2C+analysis+and+test+case%2E+In+Principles+and+Practice+of+Multi%2DAgent+System)
41. Petukhova, V., Stevens, C., de Weerd, H., Taatgen, N., Cnossen, F., and Malchanau, A. (2016). Modelling multi-issue bargaining dialogues: Data collection, annotation design and corpus. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), pages 3133– 3140. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Stevens%2C+C%2E%2C+de+Weerd%2C+H%2E%2C+Taatgen%2C+N%2E%2C+Cnossen%2C+F%2E%2C+and+Malchanau%2C+A%2E+%282016%29%2E+Modelling+multi%2Dissue+bargaining+dialogues%3A+Data+collection%2C+annotation+design+and+corpus%2E+In+Proceedings+)
42. Petukhova, V., Mayer, T., Malchanau, A., and Bunt, H. (2017). Virtual debate coach design: assessing multimodal argumentation performance. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 41–50. [↗](https://doi.org/10.22028/d291-29407)
43. Petukhova, V., Malchanau, A., Oualil, Y., Klakow, D., Luz, S., Haider, F., Campbell, N., Koryzis, D., Spiliotopoulos, D., Albert, P., et al. (2018). The metalogue debate trainee corpus: Data collection and annotations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Petukhova%2C+V%2E%2C+Malchanau%2C+A%2E%2C+Oualil%2C+Y%2E%2C+Klakow%2C+D%2E%2C+Luz%2C+S%2E%2C+Haider%2C+F%2E%2C+Campbell%2C+N%2E%2C+Koryzis%2C+D%2E%2C+Spiliotopoulos%2C+D%2E%2C+Albert%2C+P%2E%2C+et+al%2E+%282018%29%2E+The+metalogue+debate+trainee+corpus%3A+Data+collectio)
44. Popescu-Belis, A. (2005). Dialogue acts: One or more dimensions. ISSCO WorkingPaper, 62. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Popescu%2DBelis%2C+A%2E+%282005%29%2E+Dialogue+acts%3A+One+or+more+dimensions%2E+ISSCO+WorkingPaper%2C+62%2E)
45. Prasad, R. and Bunt, H. (2015). Semantic relations in discourse: The current state of iso 24617-8. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-11). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Prasad%2C+R%2E+and+Bunt%2C+H%2E+%282015%29%2E+Semantic+relations+in+discourse%3A+The+current+state+of+iso+24617%2D8%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+11th+Joint+ACL%2DISO+Workshop+on+Interoperable+Semantic+Annotation+%28ISA%2D11%29%2E)
46. Rackham, N. (2020). SPIN®-selling. Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rackham%2C+N%2E+%282020%29%2E+SPIN%C2%AE%2Dselling%2E+Routledge%2E)
47. Rafaeli, A., Ziklik, L., and Doucet, L. (2008). The impact of call center employees’ customer orientation behaviors on service quality. Journal of service research, 10(3):239–255. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670507306685)
48. Reychav, I. and Weisberg, J. (2009). Going beyond technology: Knowledge sharing as a tool for enhancing customer-oriented attitudes. International Journal of Information Management, 29(5):353–361. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.11.005)
49. Roy, S. and Subramaniam, L. V. (2006). Automatic generation of domain models for call-centers from noisy transcriptions. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 737–744. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roy%2C+S%2E+and+Subramaniam%2C+L%2E+V%2E+%282006%29%2E+Automatic+generation+of+domain+models+for+call%2Dcenters+from+noisy+transcriptions%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+21st+International+Conference+on+Computational+Linguistic)
50. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6):1161. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714)
51. Schröder, M., Baggia, P., Burkhardt, F., Pelachaud, C., Peter, C., and Zovato, E. (2011). Emotionml–an upcoming standard for representing emotions and related states. In International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, pages 316– 325. Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schro%CC%88der%2C+M%2E%2C+Baggia%2C+P%2E%2C+Burkhardt%2C+F%2E%2C+Pelachaud%2C+C%2E%2C+Peter%2C+C%2E%2C+and+Zovato%2C+E%2E+%282011%29%2E+Emotionml%E2%80%93an+upcoming+standard+for+representing+emotions+and+related+states%2E+In+International+Conference+on+A)
52. Shoemaker, M. E. and Johlke, M. C. (2002). An examination of the antecedents of a crucial selling skill: Asking questions. Journal of Managerial Issues, pages 118–131. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shoemaker%2C+M%2E+E%2E+and+Johlke%2C+M%2E+C%2E+%282002%29%2E+An+examination+of+the+antecedents+of+a+crucial+selling+skill%3A+Asking+questions%2E+Journal+of+Managerial+Issues%2C+pages+118%E2%80%93131%2E)
53. Takeuchi, H., Subramaniam, L. V., Nasukawa, T., and Roy, S. (2009). Getting insights from the voices of customers: Conversation mining at a contact center. Information Sciences, 179(11):1584–1591. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.11.026)
54. Tang, M., Pellom, B., and Hacioglu, K. (2003). Calltype classification and unsupervised training for the call center domain. In 2003 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (IEEE Cat. No. 03EX721), pages 204–208. IEEE. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tang%2C+M%2E%2C+Pellom%2C+B%2E%2C+and+Hacioglu%2C+K%2E+%282003%29%2E+Calltype+classification+and+unsupervised+training+for+the+call+center+domain%2E+In+2003+IEEE+Workshop+on+Automatic+Speech+Recognition+and+Understanding+%28IE)
55. Weingart, L. R. and Olekalns, M. (2004). Communication processes in negotiation: Frequencies, sequences, and phases. The handbook of negotiation and culture, pages 143–157. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Weingart%2C+L%2E+R%2E+and+Olekalns%2C+M%2E+%282004%29%2E+Communication+processes+in+negotiation%3A+Frequencies%2C+sequences%2C+and+phases%2E+The+handbook+of+negotiation+and+culture%2C+pages+143%E2%80%93157%2E)
56. Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., and Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of marketing, 50(4):174–191. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298605000404)

*Updated 24 October 2026*