Multilingual Participation in Accepting or Declining an Offer Made by a Monolingually Programmed Robot
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v8i2.140128Keywords:
conversation analysis, human-robot interaction, multilingualism, monolingual participation frameworks, orientation to robots as co-participants, attributions of interactional competenceAbstract
This paper reports an investigation of the interactions between groups of German and Danish speakers and a service robot which was programmed to produce English at an international university campus. We analysed three sets of interactions that involved an offer of water by the robot, and we used Conversation Analysis to track the human participants’ responses to the robot in examining how their language choice featured in their participation. We found that the overall organisation of the interactions was monolingual: participants used German and Danish with each other to express wonderment, frustration and confusion, and to comment on the robot’s actions, and English to respond to the robot’s offer and to ridicule it when acceptance of the offer was missed. Language choice and variations in volume when speaking each language, as added dimensions in recipient design, thus established monolingual participation frameworks. We argue that these findings reveal a different orientation to the robot as co-participant and question the extent to which robots are oriented to as social members in settings that mirror real-life contexts. Findings also raise design issues in the future development of robots.
References
Amir, A. (2013). Self-policing in English as a foreign language classroom. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(2), 841–05.
Auer, P. (1998). Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation (pp. 1–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203017883
Bartneck, C., Belpaeme, T., Eyssel, F., Kanda, T., Keijsers, M., & Šabanović, S. (2020). Human-robot interaction: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676649
Bonacina-Pugh, F. (2020). Legitimizing multilingual practices in the classroom: The role of the ‘practiced language policy’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1372359
Bu, F., Fischer, K., & Ju, W. (2025). Making sense of robots in public spaces: A study of trash barrel robots. Transactions in Human-Robot Interactions. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 14(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3731252
Cao, S., Moon, J., Mahmood, A., Antony, V. N., Xiao, Z., Liu, A., & Huang, C. M. (2025). Interruption handling for conversational robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01568.
Chen, Q., & Bonacina-Pugh, F. (2021). Spotlights on ‘practiced’ language policy in the internationalised university. In D. Dippold & M. Heron (Eds.), Meaningful teaching interaction at the internationalised university (pp. 110–122). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329692-9
Clark, H. H., & Fischer, K. (2023). Social robots as depictions of social agents. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22000668
Cromdal, J. (2005). Bilingual order in collaborative word processing: On creating an English text in Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 329–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.006
Del Duchetto, F., Baxter, P., & Hanheide, M. (2019). Lindsey the tour guide robot-usage patterns in a museum long-term deployment. 28th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956329
Dobrosovestnova, A., Babel, F., & Pelikan, H. (2025). Beyond the user: Mapping subject positions for robots in public spaces. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 163–173). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI61500.2025.10974177
Filipi, A. (2007). A toddler's treatment of mm and mm hm in talk with a parent. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 1–17.
Filipi, A. (2015). The development of recipient design in bilingual child-parent interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993858
Filipi, A. (2018). Making teacher talk comprehensible through language alternation practices. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 183–202). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.295.10fli.
Filipi, A. (in press). Chinese international students’ language choice as a display of assessment anxiety in a higher education context in the Anglosphere. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01519-8
Filipi, A., & Markee, N. (Eds.). (2018). Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.295
Filipi, A., & Chuang, M.-S. K. (2023). Chinese whispers: International Chinese students’ language practices in an anglophone Higher Education context. Classroom Discourse, 14(3), 238-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2022.2072353
Fischer, K. (2011). Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In Proceedings of HRI'11, March 6–9th, 2011. Lausanne, Switzerland (pp. 53–60). https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957672
Fischer, K. (2016). Designing speech for a recipient: The roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called ‘simplified registers’. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fischer, K. (2020). Why collaborative robots must be social (and even emotional) actors. Techné: Research in Technology and Philosophy, 23(3), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20191120104
Fischer, K. (2021). Tracking anthropomorphizing behavior in human-robot Interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11, 1, Article 4 (March 2022), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442677
Fischer, K. (2023). Defining interaction as coordination benefits both HRI research and robot development: Entering service interactions. In 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 213–219). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309642
Fischer, K., Jung, M., Jensen, L. C., & aus der Wieschen, M. V. (2019). Emotional expression by robots: When and why. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Daegu, Korea (pp. 29–38). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673078
Gafaranga, J. (1999). Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organisation. The orderliness of language alternation. Text, 19, 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1999.19.2.201
Gafaranga, J. (2005). Demythologising language alternation studies: Conversational structure vs. social structure in bilingual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.002
Gafaranga, J. (2018). Overall order versus local order in bilingual conversation: A conversation analytic perspective on language alternation. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 35–60). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.295.03gaf
Gafaranga, J., & Torras, M. C. (2001). Language versus medium in the study of bilingual conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050020401
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Glenn, P. (2013). Interviewees volunteered laughter in employment interviews: A case of “nervous” laughter? In P. Glenn & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (pp. 255–276). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472542069.ch-013
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457
Groom, V., Srinivasan, V., Bethel, C. L., Murphy, R., Dole, L., & Nass, C. (2011). Responses to robot social roles and social role framing. 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) (pp. 194–203). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTS.2011.5928687
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.002
Jung, M., & Hinds, P. (2018). Robots in the wild: A time for more robust theories of human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 7(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3208975
Kahn Jr, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B. T., Shen, S., Gary, H. E., & Ruckert, J. H. (2015). Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot? Psychological intimacy in HRI. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 173–180). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696486
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
Krüger, N., Fischer, K., Manoonpong, P., Palinko, O., Bodenhagen, L., Baumann, T., & Dalgaard, L. (2021). The smooth-robot: A modular, interactive service robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 294. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.645639
Kunitz, S. (2018). L1/L2 alternation practices in students’ task planning. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 107–28). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.295.06kun
Lavin, D., & Maynard, D. W. (2001). Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone survey. American Sociological Review, 66, 453–479. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088888
Lee, H. R., Cheon, E., Lim, C., & Fischer, K. (2022). Configuring humans: What roles humans play in HRI research. 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 478–492). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889496
Li, W. (2002). “What do you want me to say?” On the conversation analysis approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society, 31, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501020140
Licoppe C., & Rollet N. (2020). “Je dois y aller”. Analyses de séquences de clôtures entre humains et robot. Réseaux, 220–221(2–3), 151–193. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.220.0151
Lombard, M., & Xu, K. (2021). Social responses to media technologies in the 21st century: The media are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 2, 29–55. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.2.2
Majlesi, A. R., Cumbal, R., Engwall, O., Gillet, S., Kunitz, S., Lymer, G., Norrby, C., & Tuncer, S. (2023). Managing turn-taking in human-robot interactions: The case of projections and overlaps, and the anticipation of turn design by human participants. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137380
Mizumaru, K., Satake, S., Kanda, T., & Ono, T. (2019). Stop doing it! Approaching strategy for a robot to admonish pedestrians. 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 449–457). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673017
Mlynář, J., de Rijk, L., & Liesenfeld, A. (2024). AI in situated action: A scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies. AI & Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01919-x
Mondada, L. (2004). Ways of ‘doing being a plurilingual’ in international work meetings. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 18–39). Continuum.
Mondada, L. (2012). The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings. Language in Society, 41(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451200005X
Mortensen, K., & Hazel, S. (2014). Moving into interaction—Social practices for initiating encounters at a help desk. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.009
Mutlu, B., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 287–294). https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349860
Oliveira, R., Arriga, P., & Paiva, A. (2021). Human-robot interaction in groups: Methodological and research practices. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(10), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5100059
Pelikan, H. R. M., & Broth, M. (2016). Why that nao? How humans adapt to a conventional humanoid robot in taking turns-at-talk. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4921–4932). https://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. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 461–470). https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374814
Pelikan, H., Broth, M., & Keevallik, L. (2022). When a robot comes to life: The interactional achievement of agency as a transient phenomenon. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i3.129915
Pitsch, K., Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Sussenbach, L., Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2009). “The first five seconds”: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI. RO-MAN 2009—The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 985–991). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326167
Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch11
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Sage.
Reichert, T., & Liebscher, G. (2018). Transitions with “okay”: Managing language alternation in role-play preparations. In A. Filipi & N. Markee (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language alternation: Capturing transitions in the classroom (pp. 129–148). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.295.07rei
Riek, L. D. (2012). Wizard of oz studies in HRI: A systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek
Rudaz, D., Tatarian, K., Stower, R., & Licoppe, C. (2023). From inanimate object to agent: Impact of pre-beginnings on the emergence of greetings with a robot. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(3), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3575806
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed., Vols. 1 & 2). Basil Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Sidnell, J. (2012). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch5
Silverman, D. (1997). Discourses of counselling: HIV counselling as social interaction. Sage.
Skårup, T. (2004). Brokering and membership in a multilingual community of practice. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 40–57). Continuum.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in talk. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
Vöge, M. (2011). Employing multilingualism for doing identity work and generating laughter in business meetings: A case study. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 237–264). University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (Eds.). (2021). Storytelling in multilingual interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2257082
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 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.
