Repair of the common base between conversation analysis and conversation Technologies

Abstract

Computer linguistics research and dialogue systems share many terms and concepts with conversation analysis, but there are some irreconcilable Di5erences in the way the major conversation phenomena are understood and operationalized between these areas. This leads to a misunderstanding (at best) and category errors completely escaped (in the worst case) when we try to collaborate in disciplines that have a lot to click from closer cooperation. In this talk, I will use examples from a recent special outing of speech studies (Stokoe, Albert, Buschmeier & Stommel, 2024) to identify opportunities for reconciliation and targets for future cross-disciplinary work.

References

Albert, H., Housley, W., Sikveland, RO, & Stokoe, E. (following). Conversation action test: AI artificial social discovery. Media and new society.

Albert, S., & Hall, L. (2024). A distributed agency in smart homeCare interactions: an analytical conversation case study. Speech and Communication, 18 (6), 892–904.

Albert, S., Hamann, M., & Stokoe, E. (2023). Conversation user interfaces in smart homeCare interactions: an analytical conversation case study. In the proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversation User Interfaces (pp. 1–12). ACM.

Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B., & Mozqueda, G. (2020). How daily interactions with digital voice assistants resist return to the individual. Event Esthetics, 9 (1), 51.

Antaki, C., & Crompton, RJ (2015). Conversation practices that promote an adult agency speech with intellectual disabilities. Speech and Society, 26 (6), 645–661.

Antaki, C., & Kent, A. (2012). Tell people what to do (and sometimes, why): contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff claims to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (6), 876–889.

Brooker, P., Dutton, W., & Mair, M. (2019). The new ghosts in the machine: Ai ‘Pragmatista’ and the conceptual dangers of the anthropomorph description. Ethnographic studies, 16, 272–298.

Button, G. (ed.). (1995). Computers, brains and conduct. Politity Press.

Cooper, S., Di Fava, A., Vivas, C., Marchiis, L., & Ferro, F. (2020). Ari: the robot and the social assistive company. In 2020 29 International IEE conference on the interactive communication of the robot and man (RO-Man) (pp. 745-751). IEEE.

Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Speech studies, 12 (4), 419–442.

Curl, TS, & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and Action: Comparison of two forms of claim. Language research and social interaction, 41 (2), 129-153.

Dingemanse, M. (2020). Recruitment of assistance and collaboration: West-African Corpus study. In S. Floyd, G. Rossi, & NJ Enfield (EDS.), Having others do things: Pragmatic recruitment typology (pp. 369–421). A picture of language science.

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., & Enfield, NJ (2020). Having others do things: pragmatic typology of recruits. Zenodo.

Garfinkel, H. (2021). Ethnometodological deceiving Aron Gurwitsch on the phenomenal field. Human studies, 44 (1), 19–42.

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

Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive base. In e. Holt & R. Clift (EDS.), Talk Reporting (pp. 16–46). Cambridge University Press.

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

Hall, L., Albert, S., & Peel, E. (2024). Make a virtual company with Alexa. Social interaction. Video-based studies on human socialty, 7 (3), Article 3.

Heinemann, T. (2006). “Are you or can’t?”: Show the right in questioning claims. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (7), 1081–1104.

Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2023). Suspicious minds: the problem of trust and conversation agents. Cooperative work supported by the computer (CSCW).

Jackson, L., Haagaard, A., & Williams, R. (2022). Dongle disability. Platypus: Casac blog.

Jaton, F., & Sormani, P. (2023). Allow ‘AI’? The production of commensurabilities. Social science studies, 53 (5), 625-634.

Jefferson, G. (1989). Letter to the editor King: Anita Pomerantz Epilogue for the Special issue on a sequential organization of conversation activities, Spring 1989. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53 (Fall), 427-429.

Kendrick, KH, & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: offers, claims, and organization of assistance in interaction. Language research and social interaction, 49 (1), 1-19.

Liesenfeld, A., & Dingemanse, M. (2024). Interactive probes: Towards an action level evaluation for dialogue systems. Speech and communication. Online publication in advance.

Mlynář, J., De Rijk, L., Liesenfeld, A., Stommel, W., & Albert, S. (2024). AI Action Instance: Review of the scope of ethnometodological and conversation analytical studies. Ai & societyDecrease

Pino, M., & Land, V. (2022). How companions speak on behalf of patients without undermining their autonomy: findings from an analytical study of a conversation of palliative care consultations. Sociology of Health and Disease, 44 (2), 395–415.

Porcheron, M., Fischer, Je, Reeves, S., & Sharples, S. (2018). Voice interfaces in everyday life. In the 2018 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems (pp. 1–12). ACM.

Rudaz, D., & Licipe, C. (2024). “Robot lawyer game”: Descriptions of robot behavior in public settings. Speech and communication. Online publication in advance.

Schütz, A. (2007). The phenomenology of the social world (1932). In contemporary sociological theory (2 Ed., P. 32). [Original work published 1932]

Stokoe, E., Sikveland, RO, Albert, S., Hamann, M., & Housley, W. (2020). Can humans simulate talk like other humans? Comparing customers simulated with real customers in service inquiries. Speech studies, 22 (1), 87-109.

Suchman, L. (2023). The non-controversial ‘hingness’ of the AI. Big Data & Society, 10 (2), 20539517231206794.