Advertisement

Language Technology and 3rd Wave HCI: Towards Phatic Communication and Situated Interaction

  • Lars BorinEmail author
  • Jens Edlund
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

In the field of language technology, researchers are starting to pay more attention to various interactional aspects of language – a development prompted by a confluence of factors, and one which applies equally to the processing of written and spoken language. Notably, the so-called ‘phatic’ aspects of linguistic communication are coming into focus in this work, where linguistic interaction is increasingly recognized as being fundamentally situated. This development resonates well with the concerns of third wave HCI, which involves a shift in focus from stating the requirements on HCI design primarily in terms of “context-free” information flow, to a view where it is recognized that HCI – just like interaction among humans – is indissolubly embedded in complex, shifting contexts. These – together with the different backgrounds and intentions of interaction participants – shape the interaction in ways which are not readily understandable in terms of rational information exchange, but which are nevertheless central aspects of the interaction, and which therefore must be taken into account in HCI design, including its linguistic aspects, forming the focus of this chapter.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work on this chapter has been made possible by financial support from several sources: the Swedish Research Council through its funding of the Towards a Knowledge-based Culturomics Research Program and Swe-Clarin, the Swedish node of the European CLARIN ERIC research infrastructure, as well as the University of Gothenburg through its funding of the Språkbanken research infrastructure.

References

  1. Anderson B (2006) Imagined communities, 2nd edn. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bamman D, Eisenstein J, Schnoebelen T (2014) Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. J Socioling 18(2):135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein B (1973) Class, codes and control. Volume 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. Paladin, St AlbansGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickerton D (1990) Language & species. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: changing roles. ACM, Oslo, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  6. Bødker S (2015) Third-wave HCI, 10 years later—participation and sharing. Interactions 22(5):24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clavel C, Callejas Z (2016) Sentiment analysis: from opinion mining to human-agent interaction. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 7(1):74–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coupland J, Coupland N, Robinson JD (1992) “How are you?”: negotiating phatic communion. Lang Soc 21:207–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle G, Goldberg A, Srivastava S, Frank M (2017) Alignment at work: using language to distinguish the internalization and self-regulation components of cultural fit in organizations. In: Proceedings of ACL 2017. ACL, Vancouver, pp 603–612Google Scholar
  12. Dunbar RIM (1996) Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunbar RIM (2004) Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Rev Gen Psychol 8(2):100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenstein J (2015) Systematic patterning in phonologically-motivated orthographic variation. J Socioling 19(2):161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansegård NE (1968) Tvåspråkighet eller halvspråkighet. Bonniers, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansegård NE (1990) Den norrbottensfinska språkfrågan: En återblick på halvspråkighetsdebatten Uppsala universitet, Centrum för multietnisk forskning, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison S, Sengers P, Tatar D (2007) The three paradigms of HCI, presentation at the Alt. Chi session at the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems San Jose, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison S, Sengers P, Tatar D (2011) Making epistemological trouble: third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact Comput 23:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horton H (2016) Microsoft deletes ‘teen girl’ AI after it became a Hitler-loving sex robot within 24 hours. The Telegraph Published online 2016–03–24. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/24/microsofts-teen-girl-ai-turns-into-a-hitler-loving-sex-robot-wit/. Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  20. Hutchby I, Wooffitt R (1998) Conversation analysis. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Jönsson A, Dahlbäck N (1988) Talking to a computer is not like talking to your best friend. Scandinavian conference on artificial intelligence (SCAI’88). IOS, TromsøGoogle Scholar
  22. Jakobson R (1960) Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In: Sebeok TA (ed) Style in language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 350–377Google Scholar
  23. Jakobson R, Fant G, Halle M (1951) Preliminaries to speech analysis. The disctinctive features and their correlates, Techical report. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Jokinen K, McTear M (2009) Spoken dialogue systems. Synth Lect Hum Lang Technol 2(1):1–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones KS (2007) Last words: computational linguistics: what about the linguistics? Comput Linguist 33(3):437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones PE (2013) Bernstein’s ‘codes’ and the linguistics of ‘deficit’. Lang Educ 27(2):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jurgens D, Tsvetkov Y, Jurafsky D (2017) Incorporating dialectal variability for socially equitable language identification. In: Proceedings of ACL 2017. ACL, Vancouver, pp 51–57Google Scholar
  28. King B, Abney S (2013) Labeling the languages of words in mixed-language documents using weakly supervised methods. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2013. ACL, Atlanta, pp 1110–1119Google Scholar
  29. LaFrance A (2017) An artificial intelligence developed its own non-human language. The Atlantic Published online 2017-06-15; https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/artificial-intelligence-develops-its-own-non-human-language/530436/. Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  30. Laver J (1975) Communicative functions of phatic communion. In: Kendon A, Har-ris RM, Key MR (eds) Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction. Mouton, The Hague, pp 215–238Google Scholar
  31. Linell P (1982) The written language bias in linguistics. University of Linköping, Department of Communication Studies, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  32. Lui M, Lau JH, Baldwin T (2014) Automatic detection and language identification of multilingual documents. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist 2:27–40Google Scholar
  33. Malinowski B (1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: Ogden CK, Richards IA (eds) The meaning of meaning. K. Paul, Trend, Trubner, London, pp 296–336Google Scholar
  34. Martin-Jones M, Romaine S (1986) Semilingualism: a half-baked theory of communicative competence. Appl Ling 7(1):26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller V (2008) New media, networking and phatic culture. Convergence 14(4):387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monk A (2003) Common ground in electronically mediated communication: Clark’s theory of language use. In: Carroll JM (ed) HCI models, theories, and frameworks: toward a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fran-cisco, pp 265–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pang B, Lee L (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found Trends Inf Retr 2(1–2):1–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pavalanathan U, Eisenstein J (2015) Audience-modulated variation in online social media. Am Speech 90(2):187–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pavalanathan U, Fitzpatrick J, Kiesling S, Eisenstein J (2017) A multidimensional lexicon for interpersonal stancetaking. In: Proceedings of ACL 2017. ACL, Vancouver, pp 884–895Google Scholar
  40. Qvarfordt P (2004) Eyes on multimodal interaction. PhD thesis, Linköping University, Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  41. Reiter E (2007) Last words: the shrinking horizons of computational linguistics. Comput Linguist 33(2):283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutten G (2016) Historicizing diaglossia. J Socioling 20(1):6–30MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sacks H (1992) Lectures on conversation. Vols. I & II, Jefferson G (ed). Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Senft G (2009) Phatic communion. In: Östman JO, Verschueren J (eds) Culture and language use. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 215–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shneiderman B, Maes P (1997) Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions 4(6):42–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sidnell J, Stivers T (eds) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, D (2013) IBM’s Watson gets a ‘swear filter’ after learning the urban dictionary. International Business Times. Published online 2013-01-10; http://www.ibtimes.com/ibms-watson-gets-swear-filter-after-learning-urban-dictionary-1007734. Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  48. Solorio T, Liu Y (2008) Learning to predict code-switching points. In: Proceedings of EMNLP 2008. ACL, Honolulu, pp 973–981Google Scholar
  49. Spolsky B (2004) Language policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. .Google Scholar
  50. Stam JH (1976) Inquiries into the origin of languages. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Stenström AB, Jörgensen AM (2008) A matter of politeness? A contrastive study of phatic talk in teenage conversation. Pragmatics 18(4):635–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tsytsarau M, Palpanas T (2012) Survey on mining subjective data on the web. Data Min Knowl Disc 24:478–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vetere F, Howard S, Gibbs MR (2005) Phatic technologies: sustaining sociability through ubiquitous computing. In: CHI’05 workshop – first international workshop on social implications of ubiquitous computing at the 23th international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang V, Tucker JV, Rihll TE (2011) On phatic technologies for creating and main-taining human relationships. Technol Soc 33:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wikipedia (2017) Tay (bot). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot). Accessed on 10 Aug 2017
  56. Wintner S (2009) Last words: what science underlies natural language engineering? Comput Linguist 35(4), doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2009.35.4.35409, http: //aclanthology.coli.uni-saarland.de/pdf/J/J09/J09-4012.pdf., 641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yamaguchi H, Tanaka-Ishii K (2012) Text segmentation by language using minimum description length. In: Proceedings of ACL 2012. ACL, Jeju Island, pp 969–978Google Scholar
  58. Žegarac V, Clark B (1999) Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. J Linguist 35(2):321–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Simons GF, Fennig CD (2017) Ethnologue: languages of the world, 20th edn. SIL International, Dallas. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations