Repair the common ground between the analysis of the conversation and the conversation Technologies

Abstract

Research on linguistics and computer dialogue systems share many terms and concepts with the analysis of conversations, but there are irreconcilable dials in the way in which key conversational phenomena are understood and operationalized between these areas. This leads to misunderstandings (at best) and errors from a full -fledged category (at worst) when we try to collaborate through disciplines that have a lot to gain from closer cooperation. In this presentation, I will use examples of a recent special issue of Discourse Studies (Stokoe, Albert, Buschmeier and Stommel, 2024) to identify reconciliation opportunities and targets for future interdisciplinary work.

References

Albert, H., Housley, W., Sikveland, RO, and Stokoe, E. (Find out). The conversational action test: detect the artificial sociality of the AI. New media and society.

Albert, S. and Hall, L. (2024). Agency distributed in smart home interactions: an analytical conversation case study. Speech & communication, 18 (6), 892–904.

Albert, S., Hamann, M. and Stokoe, E. (2023). Conversational user interfaces in smart home interactions: an analytical case study of conversation. In the acts of the 5th international conference on conversational user interfaces (pp. 1–12). ACM.

Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B., and Mozqueda, G. (2020). How daily interactions with digital vocal assistants resist a return to the individual. Evental aesthetic, 9 (1), 51.

Antaki, C. and Crompton, RJ (2015). Conversational practices favoring an agency discourse for adults with intellectual disability. Speech & Society, 26 (6), 645–661.

Antaki, C. and Kent, A. (2012). Tell people what to do (and, sometimes, why): the contingency, the law and the explanation of the requests of the staff to the adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (6), 876–889.

Brooker, P., Dutton, W., and Mair, M. (2019). The new ghosts of the machine: “pragmatist” AI and conceptual perils of anthropomorphic description. Ethnographic studies, 16, 272-298.

Button, G. (ed.). (1995). Computers, minds and conduct. Polite press.

Cooper, S., Di Fava, A., Vivas, C., Marchiis, L., and Ferro, F. (2020). ARI: The robot and the social assistance company. In 2020 29TH IEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 745–751). Ieeee.

Craven, A. and Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Law and possibility in action. Discourse Studies, 12 (4), 419–442.

CURL, TS and DREW, P. (2008). Convenience and action: a comparison of two forms of demand. Research on language and social interaction, 41 (2), 129–153.

Dingemanse, M. (2020). Assistance to recruitment and collaboration: a study of the West African corpus. In S. Floyd, G. Rossi and NJ Enfield (ed.), Make others to make others: a pragmatic typology of recruitments (pp. 369–421). Language Science Press.

Dreyfus, HL (1972). What computers cannot do. MIT PRESS.

Edwards, D. (1994). Imitation and artifice in monkeys, humans and machines. American Behavioral Scientist, 37 (6), 754–771.

Floyd, S., Rossi, G., and Enfield, NJ (2020). Bring others to do things: a pragmatic typology of recruitments. Zenodo.

Garfinkel, H. (2021). ARON GURWITSCH erroned ethnomethodological on the phenomenal field. Human studies, 44 (1), 19–42.

Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on the structure of history and the organization of participation. In JM Atkinson & J. Heritage (ed.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 225-246). Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive place. In E. Holt & R. Clift (ed.), Reporting Talk (pp. 16–46). Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C. (2017). Cooperative action. Cambridge University Press.

Hall, L., Albert, S., and Peel, E. (2024). Make the virtual company with Alexa. Social interaction. Video studies on human sociality, 7 (3), article 3.

Heinemann, T. (2006). “Do you want or can’t you?”: Display of law in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (7), 1081–1104.

Ivarsson, J. and Lindwall, O. (2023). Suspicious spirit: the problem of confidence and conversational agents. Cooperative work supported by computer (CSCW).

Jackson, L., Haagaard, A., and Williams, R. (2022). Dongle handicap. Platpus: The Casac blog.

Jaton, F. and Sormani, P. (2023). Activate “Ai”? The production located of commensurabilities. Social Studies of Science, 53 (5), 625–634.

Jefferson, G. (1989). Letter to the publisher Re: Anita Pomerantz epilogue to The Special Nichard on Sequential Organization of Conversation Activities, spring 1989. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53 (Automne), 427–429.

Kendrick, KH and DREW, P. (2016). Recruitment: offers, requests and organization of assistance in interaction. Research on language and social interaction, 49 (1), 1–19.

Liesenfeld, A. and Dingemanse, M. (2024). Interactive probes: towards an evaluation at the level of action for dialogue systems. Speech and communication. Advance the online publication.

Mlynář, J., de Rijk, L., Liesenfeld, A., Stommel, W., and Albert, S. (2024). AI in the action located: a review of reach of ethnomethodological and analytical conversation studies. IA and Society.

Pino, M. and Land, V. (2022). How the companions speak of the names of the patients without undermining their autonomy: results of an analytical study of conversation of palliative care consultations. Sociology of health and disease, 44 (2), 395–415.

PORCHERON, M., FISCHER, I, Reeves, S., and SHARPLES, S. (2018). Vocal interfaces in daily life. In the acts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in IT systems (pp. 1–12). ACM.

Rudaz, D. and Licoppe, C. (2024). “Playing the robot defender”: descriptions of passers -by of the driving of a robot in a public environment. Speech and communication. Advance the online publication.

Schütz, A. (2007). The phenomenology of the social world (1932). In Contemporary Sociological Theory (2nd ed., P. 32). [Original work published 1932]

Stokoe, E., Sikveland, Ro, Albert, S., Hamann, M., and Housley, W. (2020). Can humans simulate speaking like other humans? Comparison of simulated customers to real customers in service requests. Discourse Studies, 22 (1), 87–109.

Suchman, L. (2023). The uncontrolling “thing” of AI. Big Data & Society, 10 (2), 20539517231206794.