Symbol Grounding as Social, Situated Construction of Meaning in Human-Robot Interaction | KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Symbol Grounding as Social, Situated Construction of Meaning in Human-Robot Interaction

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper views the issue of “symbol grounding” from the viewpoint of the construction of meaning between humans and robots, in the context of a collaborative activity. This concerns a core aspect of the formation of common ground: The construction of meaning between actors as a conceptual representation which is believed to be mutually understood as referring to a particular aspect of reality. The problem in this construction is that experience is inherently subjective—and more specifically, humans and robots experience and understand reality fundamentally differently. There is an inherent asymmetry between the actors involved. The paper focuses on how this asymmetry can be reflected logically, and particularly in the underlying model theory. The point is to make it possible for a robot to reason explicitly both about such asymmetry in understanding, consider possibilities for alignment to deal with it, and establish (from its viewpoint) a level of intersubjective or mutual understanding. Key to the approach taken in the paper is to consider conceptual representations to be formulas over propositions which are based in proofs, as reasoned explanations of experience. This shifts the focus from a notion of “truth” to a notion of judgment—judgments which can be subjectively right and still intersubjectively wrong (faultless disagreement), and which can evolve over time (updates, revision). The result is an approach which accommodates both asymmetric agency and social sentience, modelling symbol grounding in human-robot interaction as social, situated construction over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Allen JF, Perrault CR (1980) Analyzing intention in utterances. Artif Intell 15(3):143–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen JF, Litman DJ (1990) Discourse processing and common sense plans. In: Cohen PR, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds) Intentions and communication. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asher N, Lascarides A (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baldridge J, Kruijff GJM (2002) Coupling CCG and hybrid logic dependency semantics. In: Proc. ACL 2002, Philadelphia, PA, pp 319–326

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barwise J, Perry J (1983) Situations and attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Belnap N, Perloff M, Xu M (2001) Facing the future. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blackburn P, de Rijke M, Venema Y (2001) Modal logic. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, vol 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bochman A (1998) A logical foundation for logic programming I: biconsequence relations and nonmonotonic completion. J Log Program 35:151–170

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. J Auton Agents Multiagent Syst 19(3):297–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burke JL, Murphy RR, Coovert M, Riddle D (2004) Moonlight in Miami: an ethnographic study of human-robot interaction in USAR. Hum-Comput Interact 19(1–2):85–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cangelosi A (2008) The grounding and sharing of symbols. In: Dror IE, Harnad S (eds) Cognition distributed: how cognitive technology extends our minds, pp 83–92

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clark H (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Clark HH, Brennan SA (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. APA, Washington, pp 127–149

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen PR, Levesque HJ (1990) Intention is choice with commitment. Artif Intell 42:213–261

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen PR, Levesque HJ (1990) Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In: Cohen PR, Morgan J, Pollack ME (eds) Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 221–256

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cooper R (2008) Records and record types in semantic theory. J Log Comput 15(2):99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper R (2012) Type theory and semantics in flux. In: Kempson R, Asher N, Fernando T (eds) Philosophy of linguistics. Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol 14. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  18. Crespo I, Fernández R (2011) Expressing taste in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 15th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (SEMDIAL’11), Los Angeles, CA, pp 84–93

    Google Scholar 

  19. Denecker M, Marek V, Truszczynski M (2000) Approximations, stable operators, well-founded fixpoints and applications in nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Minker J (ed) Logic-based artificial intelligence. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, pp 127–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Denecker M, Marek V, Truszczynski M (2004) Ultimate approximation and its application in nonmonotonic knowledge representation systems. Inf Comput 192(1):84–121

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Kruijff GJM et al. (2012) Experience in system design for human-robot teaming in urban search & rescue. In: Proceedings of field and service robotics (FSR) 2012, Matsushima/Sendai, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ferguson G, Allen J (2007) Mixed-initiative dialogue systems for collaborative problem-solving. AI Mag 28(2):23–32

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fincannon T, Barnes LE, Murphy RR, Riddle DL (2004) Evidence of the need for social intelligence in rescue robotics. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2004), pp 1089–1095

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fitting M (1991) Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming. J Log Program 11(1&2):91–116

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ginsberg M (1988) Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in AI. Comput Intell 4:256–316

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ginzburg J (2011) Situation semantics and the ontology of natural language. In: Portner P, Maierborn C, von Heusinger K (eds) The handbook of semantics. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 830–851

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gorniak P, Roy D (2004) Grounded semantic composition for visual scenes. J Artif Intell Res 21:429–470

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grosz BJ, Sidner CL (1986) Attention, intention and the structure of discourse. Comput Linguist 12(3):175–204

    Google Scholar 

  29. Guizzo E, Ackerman E, Waibel M, Taylor M, Bouchard S (2011) Fukushima robot operator writes tell-all blog. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/fukushima-robot-operator-diaries, August 2011. Contains the English translation of the Japanese blog from the anonymous author S.H

  30. Hadelich K, Crocker MW (2006) Gaze alignment of interlocutors in conversational dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 19th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hanheide M, Hawes N, Wyatt J, Göbelbecker M, Brenner M, Sjöö K, Aydemir A, Jensfelt P, Zender H, Kruijff GJ (2010) A framework for goal generation and management. In: Proceedings of the AAAI workshop on goal-directed autonomy

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harnad S (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42:335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Janíček M (2011) Abductive reasoning for continual dialogue understanding. In: Proceedings of the ESSLLI student session 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kelleher JD, Kruijff GJM, Costello F (2006) Proximity in context: an empirically grounded computational model of proximity for processing topological spatial expressions. In: Proceedings of ACL/COLING 2006

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kiesler S (2005) Fostering common ground in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Klein G, Feltovich PJ, Bradshaw JM, Woods DD (2004) Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In: Rouse WB, Boff KR (eds) Organizational simulation. Wiley, New York, pp 139–184

    Google Scholar 

  37. Klein G, Woods DD, Bradshaw JM, Hoffman R, Feltovich P (2004) Ten challenges for making automation a team player in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intell Syst 19(6):91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kölbel M (2004) Faultless disagreement. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, vol 104. University of London, London, pp 53–73

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kracht M (1998) On extensions of intermediate logics by strong negation. J Philos Log 27:49–73

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Kruijff GJM (2001) A categorial-modal logical architecture of informativity: dependency grammar logic & lnformation structure. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, April 2001

  41. Kruijff GJM, Brenner M (2007) Modelling spatio-temporal comprehension in situated human-robot dialogue as reasoning about intentions and plans. In: Proceedings of the symposium on intentions in intelligent systems, AAAI spring symposium series 2007. Stanford University, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kruijff GJM, Janíček M, Lison P (2010) Continual processing of situated dialogue in human-robot collaborative activities. In: Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2010). IEEE Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kruijff GJM, Janíček M, Zender H (2012) Situated communication for joint activity in human-robot teams. IEEE Intell Syst 27(2):27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kruijff GJM, Kelleher JD, Hawes N (2006) Information fusion for visual reference resolution in dynamic situated dialogue. In: André E, Dybkjaer L, Minker W, Neumann H, Weber M (eds) Perception and interactive technologies (PIT 2006). Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kruijff GJM, Zender H, Jensfelt P, Christensen HI (2007) Situated dialogue and spatial organization: What, where... and why? Int J Adv Robotic Syst 4(2)

  46. Lison P, Ehrler C, Kruijff GJM (2010) Belief modelling for situation awareness in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lochbaum K, Grosz BJ, Sidner CL (1999) Discourse structure and intention recognition. In: Dale R, Moisl H, Somers H (eds) A handbook of natural language processing: techniques and applications for the processing of language as text. Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lohse M (2011) The role of expectations and situations in human-robot interaction. In: Dautenhahn K, Saunders J (eds) New frontiers in human-robot interaction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 35–56

    Google Scholar 

  49. Miller C, Parasuraman R (2007) Designing for flexible interaction between humans and automation: delegation interfaces for supervisory control. Hum Factors 49:57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moens M, Steedman M (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Comput Linguist 14:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nordström B, Petersson K, Smith JM (2001) Martin-löf’s type theory. In: Abramsky S, Gabbay DM, Maibaum TSE (eds) Algebraic and logical structures. Handbook of logic in computer science, vol 5. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  52. Parasuraman R, Barnes M, Cosenzo K (2007) Adaptive automation for human-robot teaming in future command and control systems. Int J Command Control 1(2):43–68

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pickering MJ, Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci 27:169–225

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rivieccio U (2010) An Algebraic Study of Bilattice-based Logics. PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona

  55. Roy D (2000) Integration of speech and vision using mutual information. In: Proc int conf acoustics, speech and signal processing

    Google Scholar 

  56. Roy DK (2002) Learning words and syntax for a scene description task. Comput Speech Lang 16(3):353–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shanahan MP (2005) Perception as abduction: turning sensor data into meaningful representation. Cogn Sci 29:103–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Steels L (2006) Semiotic dynamics for embodied agents. IEEE Intell Syst 21(3):32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Steels L (2008) The symbol grounding problem has been solved. so what’s next? In: De Vega M, Glennberg G, Graesser G (eds) Symbols, embodiment and meaning. Academic Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  60. Steels L, Baillie J-C (2003) Shared grounding of event descriptions by autonomous robots. Robot Auton Syst 43(2–3):163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Stepanović V (2012) Weak congruence representability of suborders and direct products. Bull Int Math Virtual Inst 2:123–131

    Google Scholar 

  62. Stone M (2004) Intention, interpretation and the computational structure of language. Cogn Sci 28(5):781–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stone M, Thomason RH (2002) Context in abductive interpretation. In: Proceedings of EDILOG 2002: 6th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stone M, Thomason RH (2003) Coordinating understanding and generation in an abductive approach to interpretation. In: Proceedings of DIABRUCK 2003: 7th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stubbs K, Hinds PJ, Wettergreen D (2007) Autonomy and common ground in human-robot interaction: a field study. IEEE Intell Syst 22:42–50. Special Issue on Interacting with Autonomy

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tellex S, Kollar T, Dickerson S, Walter MR, Gopal Banerjee A, Teller S, Roy N (2011) Understanding natural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  67. Thomaz AL, Breazeal C (2008) Experiments in socially guided exploration: lessons learned in building robots that learn with and without human teachers. Connect Sci 20(2&3):91–110. Special issue on social learning in embodied agents

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. van Linder B, van der Hoek W, Meyer J-JCh (1998) Formalizing abilities and opportunities of agents. Fundam Inform 34(1, 2):53–101

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Vogt P (2005) The emergence of compositional structures in perceptually grounded language games. Artif Intell 167(1–2):206–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Vogt P, Divina F (2007) Social symbol grounding and language evolution. Interact Stud 8(1):31–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Vogt P, Haasdijk E (2010) Modelling social learning of language and skills. Artif Life 16(4):289–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vojvodič G, Šešalja B (1988) On the lattice of weak congruence relations. Algebra Univers 25:121–130

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  73. Wansing H (2001) Negation. In: Goble L (ed) The Blackwell guide to philosophical logic. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 415–436

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zender H, Martínez Mozos Ó, Jensfelt P, Kruijff GJM, Burgard W (2008) Conceptual spatial representations for indoor mobile robots. Robot Auton Syst 56(6):493–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper was supported by the EU FP7 Integrated Project NIFTi, “Natural human-robot coordination in dynamic environments” (Grant #247870). For more on NIFTi, see http://www.nifti.eu. The author would like to thank Mira Janíček, Staffan Larsson, and Robin Cooper for discussion, Herb Clark for essential critical comments, and Jan de Ruiter (reviewer) and two other anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Talking Robots@the Language Technology Lab, DFKI GmbH, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Geert-Jan M. Kruijff

Authors
  1. Geert-Jan M. Kruijff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geert-Jan M. Kruijff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kruijff, GJ.M. Symbol Grounding as Social, Situated Construction of Meaning in Human-Robot Interaction. Künstl Intell 27, 153–160 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-013-0238-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-013-0238-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation