Abstract
That human pragmatic action is heavily dependent on, and interacts with, the situation of utterance, is illustrated by Jacob Mey (J Pragmat 42:2882–2888, 2010) by contrasting human conversation with interactions with artificial intelligence, where the utterances produced are characterized by a lack of situatedness and are thus excellent examples of speech acts that are not pragmatic acts. In the current paper, I also use interactions with artificial communication partners to investigate the effects of different degrees of situatedness on pragmatic actions. In particular, I present an experiment in which people explain the use of an ordinary household item, a table-top lamp, either to their 10-month old children, or to a robot which resembles a young child. The robot’s behavior differs with respect to the degree to which the robot takes the joint interaction situation into account. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of tutors’ utterances shows that the communication partner, but also the degree of the robot’s situatedness, have a considerable impact on people’s verbal behavior. At the same time, tutors also bring in certain preconceptions about human-robot situations. Together, the results support a situated notion of the pragmatic act, the pragmeme.
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.
Three participants’ data were not taken into account, as they only contained attention getting devices and non-verbal demonstrations.
References
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do. A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and parent interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quadernidi Semantica, 6, 222–254.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fischer, K., Foth, K., Rohlfing, K., & Wrede, B. (2011). Mindful tutors – linguistic choice and action demonstration in speech to infants and to a simulated robot. Interaction Studies, 12(1), 134–161.
Fischer, K., Lohan, K. S, Rohlfing, K., & Foth, K. (2014). Partner orientation in asymmetric communication: Evidence from contingent robot response. HRI ’14 workshop on humans and robots in asymmetric interactions, 3rd March 2014, Bielefeld, Germany.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gogate, L. J., Bolzani, L. H., & Betancourt, E. A. (2006). Attention to maternal multimodal naming by 6- to 8-month-old infants and learning of word–object relations. Infancy, 9, 259–288.
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human ‘interaction engine’. In N. C. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 39–69). Oxford: Berg.
Lohan, K. S. (2011). A model of contingency detection to spot tutoring behavior and to respond to ostensive cues in human-robot interaction. PhD Thesis, Bielefeld University.
Lohan, K. S., Rohlfing, K. J., Pitsch, K., Saunders, J., Lehmann, H., Nehaniv, C. L., Fischer, K., & Wrede, B. (2012). Tutor spotter: Proposing a feature set and evaluating it in a robotic system. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4(2), 131–146.
Metta, G., Natale, L., Nori, F., Sandini, G., Vernon, D., Fadiga, L., von Hofsten, C., Rosander, K., Lopes, M., Santos-Victor, J., Bernardino, A., & Montesano, L. (2010). The iCub humanoid robot: An open-systems platform for research in cognitive development. Neural Networks, 23(8), 1125–1134.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. L. (2010). Reference and the pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2882–2888.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nückles, M., Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2006). How to make instructional explanations in human tutoring more effective. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
Rohlfing, K. J., Fritsch, J., Wrede, B., & Jungmann, T. (2006). How can multimodal cues from child-directed interaction reduce learning complexity in robots? Advanced Robotics, 20(10), 1183–1199.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Searle, J. R. (1984). Minds, brains, and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fischer, K. (2016). The Situatedness of Pragmatic Acts: Explaining a Lamp to a Robot. In: Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I. (eds) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_44
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_44
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43490-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43491-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)