Abstract
The conversational mechanism of repetition appears to be strongly connected to the development of common ground among conversation participants. We report on three-party game-based interactions where two players participate in a quiz supervised by a facilitator. We use a semi-automatic method to detect alignment between players by observing linguistic repetitions in the dialogue transcripts and investigate the relation of the alignment to the type of the facilitator’s feedback. Results suggest that the repetitions detected with this method have a function in the interaction, as it is reflected in the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of an interaction facilitator: facilitators provided more encouragement than expected where alignment lacked evidence and less than expected where alignment was ample.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
If A says, “Let’s order cold brew coffee”, B might respond with “Cold brew coffee is nice”, to establish that common ground exists or with “Cold brew coffee?” to signal that repair is necessary.
- 2.
The extent of repetition across levels of linguistic repetition remains a subject of exploration: [12], for example, did not find repetition of structure to exceed chance, while repetition of lexis did exceed chance; [13] refine this further noting self-repetition of structure to exceed chance, but not repetition of others’ structures.
- 3.
Perhaps with a substantially larger data set (than the 23 dialogues collected), task-diverting interpersonal conflict or enchantment might have emerged.
- 4.
Correctness of the answers and their rankings is determined by responses to an independent survey of 100 people (see http://familyfeudfriends.arjdesigns.com/ last accessed 11.05.2018).
- 5.
http://trans.sourceforge.net/ last accessed 27.04.2018.
- 6.
https://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/ last accessed 27.04.2018.
- 7.
Figure 32.1 presents an association plot of residuals, determined by the difference between observed and expected values, using a loglinear model [23]: the magnitude of a box corresponds to the magnitude of residuals; shading intensity encodes significance (residuals between 2 and 4 are significant at the \(p < 0.05\) level); boxes projecting up from the horizontal line correspond to divergences in excess of expectations and boxed projecting down from the horizontal convey the extent to which observations are fewer than expected, where expectations are those of the null hypothesis, which is that there is no interaction among the categories examined.
References
Clark, H.H., Brennan, S.E., et al.: Grounding in communication. Perspect. Socially Shared Cogn. 13(1991), 127–149 (1991)
Tannen, D.: Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse, vol. 26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
Colman, M., Healey, P.: The distribution of repair in dialogue. Proc. Ann. Meet. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 33, 1563–1568 (2011)
Cushing, S.: Fatal words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)
Anderson, A.H., Bader, M., Bard, E.G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H.S., Weinert, R.: The HCRC map task corpus. Lang. Speech 34(4), 351–366 (1991)
Reverdy, J., Vogel, C.: Linguistic repetitions, task-based experience and a proxy measure of mutual understanding. In: Proceedings of CogInfoCom 2017, pp. 395–400. IEEE, Debrecen, Hungary (2017)
Reverdy, J., Vogel, C.: Measuring synchrony in task-based dialogues. In: Proceedings of INTERSPEECH’17, pp. 1701–1705. ISCA, Stockholm, Sweden (2017). https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1604
Branigan, H.P., Pickering, M.J., Cleland, A.A.: Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75(2), B13–B25 (2000)
Garrod, S., Anderson, A.: Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 27(2), 181–218 (1987)
Reitter, D., Moore, J.D.: Predicting success in dialogue. In: Proceedings of ACL 2007, pp. 808–815. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic (2007)
Giles, H., Coupland, J., Coupland, N.: Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)
Howes, C., Healey, P.G.T., Purver, M.: Tracking lexical and syntactic alignment in conversation. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2004–2009 (2010). http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2010/papers/0484/
Healey, P.G.T., Purver, M., Howes, C.: Divergence in dialogue. PLOS one 9(6), e98, 598 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098598
Taylor, T.J.: Mutual Misunderstanding: Scepticism and the Theorizing of Language and Interpretation. Duke University Press, Durham (1992)
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R., Yule, G.: Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)
Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., Fujita, N.: Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Comput. Educ. 58(3), 874–884 (2012)
van Dolen, W., de Ruyter, K., Carman, J.: The role of self- and group-efficacy in moderated group chat. J. Econ. Psychol. 27(3), 324–343 (2006)
Koutsombogera, M., Vogel, C.: Modeling collaborative multimodal behavior in group dialogues: The MULTISIMO corpus. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Paris, France (2018)
Vogel, C.: Attribution of mutual understanding. J. Law Policy 21(2), 377–420 (2013)
Vogel, C., Behan, L.: Measuring synchrony in dialog transcripts. Cognitive behavioural systems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7403, pp. 73–88. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (2012)
Schmid, H.: Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, pp. 154–164. Manchester, UK (1994)
Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., Westfall, P.: Multiple Comparisons Using R. CRC Press, Boca Rotan (2016)
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., Hornik, K.: The strucplot framework: visualizing multi-way contingency tables with VCD. J. Stat. Softw. 17(3), 1–48 (2006)
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from (a) the ADAPT Centre for Digital Content Technology, funded under the SFI Research Centres Programme (Grant 13/RC/2106) and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund, and (b) the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 701621 (MULTISIMO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reverdy, J., Koutsombogera, M., Vogel, C. (2020). Linguistic Repetition in Three-Party Conversations. In: Esposito, A., Faundez-Zanuy, M., Morabito, F., Pasero, E. (eds) Neural Approaches to Dynamics of Signal Exchanges. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 151. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8950-4_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8950-4_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8949-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8950-4
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)