Managing Turn-Taking in Human-Robot Interactions
The Case of Projections and Overlaps, and the Anticipation of Turn Design by Human Participants
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137380Keywords:
human-robot interaction, conversation analysis, turn-taking, projection, overlapsAbstract
This study deals with turn-taking in human-robot interactions (HRI). Based on 15 sessions of video-recorded interactions between pairs of human participants and a social robot called Furhat, we explore how human participants orient to violations of the normative order of turn-taking in social interaction and how they handle those violations. As a case in point, we present sequences of HRI to show particular features of turn-taking with the robot and also how the robot may fail to respond to the human participants’ bid to take a turn. In these sequences, the participants either complete the turn in progress and ignore the overlap caused by the robot’s continuation of its turn, or they cut short their own turn and restart in the next possible turn-transition place. In all cases in our data, the overlaps and failed smooth turn-transitions are oriented to as accountable and in some sense interactionally problematic. The results of the study point not only to improvables in robot engineering, but also to routine practices of projection and the ways in which human subjects orient toward normative expectations of ordinary social interactions, even when conversing with a robot.
References
Clift, R. (2021). Embodiment in dissent: the eye roll as an interactional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(3), 261–276. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2021.1936858.
Fischer, K., Jung, M., Jensen, L. C. & aus der Wieschen, M. V. (2019). Emotion Expression in HRI – When and Why. Conference Proceedings: 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 29–38.
Fischer, K. (2011b). How People Talk with Robots: Designing Dialogue to Reduce User Uncertainty. AI Magazine, 32(4), 31–38. DOI:10.1609/aimag.v32i4.2377.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gillet, S., Cumbal, R., Pereira, A., Lopes, J., Engwall, O. & Leite, I. (2021). Robot gaze can mediate participation imbalance in groups with different skill levels. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444670.
Goodwin, M. H. (1980) Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 303–317.
Jefferson, G. (1973) A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences, Semiotica 9: 47–96.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
Kwon, M., Jung, M. F. & Knepper, R. A. (2019). Human Expectations of Social Robots. Conference Proceedings, The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, 463-464.
Lala, D., Inoue, K. & Kawahara, T. (2019). Smooth Turn-taking by a Robot Using an Online Continuous Model to Generate Turn-taking Cues. Conference Proceedings, ICMI ’19, October 14–18, ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6860-5/19/10.
Levinson, S.C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:731, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731.
Mazeland, H. (2013). Grammar in conversation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds), The Handbook of conversation analysis, (pp.475–491). Willey-Blackwell.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and closing of the sequence.
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3): 336–366.
Mondada, L. (2021). How Early can Embodied Responses be? Issues in Time and Sequentiality. Discourse Processes, 58(4), 397–418.
Nilsson, J, Norrthon, S, Lindström, J. & Wide, C. (2018). Greetings as social action in Finland Swedish and Sweden Swedish service encounters - a pluricentric perspective. Intercultura Pragmatics, 15, 57–88.
Pelikan, H. & Broth, M. (2016). Why that Nao? How humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk. Conference Proceedings, CHI’16, May 07-12, San Jose, CA, USA. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858478.
Pelikan, H. R. M., Broth, M. & Keevallik, L. (2020). "Are You Sad, Cozmo?" How Humans Make Sense of a Home Robot’s Emotion Displays. Conference Proceedings: HRI ’20, March 23–26, 2020, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 461–470.
Petitjean, C. & González-Martínez, E. (2015). Laughing and smiling to manage trouble in French-language classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 6(2), 89–106.
Glenn, P. & Holt, E. (2013). Studies of laughter in interaction. London: Bloomsbury.
Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. Human Studies, 22: 139–162.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Volumes I & II. Blackwell publishing.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4): 696–735.
Schegloff, E.A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.
Schegloff, E.A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schönfeldt, J. & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 241–284. DOI: 10.1207/ S15327973RLSI3603_02.
Skantze, G. (2021). Turn-taking in Conversational Systems and Human-Robot Interaction: A Review. Computer Science & Language, 67. 101178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2020.101178.
Thomaz, A. L. & Chao, C. (2011). Turn-taking Based on Information Flow for Fluent Human-Robot Interaction. AI Magazine, 32(4), 53–63.
Tuncer, S., Gillet, S. & Leite, I. (2022). Robot-Mediated inclusive processes in groups of children: From gaze aversion to mutual smiling. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9:729146. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2022.729146.
Tuncer, S. Licoppe, C., Luff, P. & Heath, C. (2023). Recipient-design in human-robot interaction: the emergent assessment of a robot’s competence. AI & Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01608-7
Walton, C., Antaki, C. & Finlay, W.M.L. (2020). Difficulties facing people with intellectual disability in conversation: Initiation, co-ordination, and the problem of asymmetric competence. In. R. Wilkinson, J. P. Rae & G. Rasmussen (Eds). Atypical Interaction: The impact of communicative impairments within everyday talk. Springer International Publishing AG (pp. 93–127).
Yamazaki, A., Yamazaki, K., Kuno, K., Burdelski, M., Kawashima, M., & Kuzuoka, H. (2008). Precision Timing in Human-Robot Interaction: Coordination of Head Movement and Utterance. Conference Proceedings: CHI 2008, April 5–10, 2008, Florence, Italy. ACM 978-1-60558-011-1/08/04.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
