Situations of Group-Robot Interaction
The Collaborative Practice of “Robot Speak”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v8i1.149434Nøgleord:
human-robot interaction, multi-party interaction, gaze, socially interactive robotResumé
Social robots are designed to mimic embodied human interaction capabilities and are envisioned as social interaction partners either for individuals or groups of people. To interact with such robots, human sensemaking and active practical effort is required. In this microanalytic study, we examine video-recorded multi-party interactions with the social robot Pepper to illustrate some interactional and collaborative practices that humans engage in to achieve interactions with the robot. We examine situations where a group of university students engages in embodied practices trying to get responses from Pepper. We coined two concepts to describe these encounters: “robot speak” refers to embodied, spoken utterances directed at the robot with the aim of prompting a response. It is a specific, situated way of speaking shaped by assumptions about the robot’s interactional competence. “Framing talk” describes the participants’ collaborative commentary used to make sense of the situation, co-constructing the human-robot interaction as a meaningful social event. Additionally, in reference to our previous work, we illustrate a practical-ethical dimension related to social robots by examining how even a minor gaze shift of a robot can become immediately recognized as contextually significant for a participant, even when such are not explicitly designed as invitations to interact.
Referencer
Alač, M. (2016). Social robots: Things or agents? AI & SOCIETY, 31(4), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0631-6
Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B., & Mozqueda, G. (2020). Talking to a Toaster: How Everyday Interactions with Digital Voice Assistants Resist a Return to the Individual. Aesthetic Intersections, 9(1), 3–53.
Alač, M., Movellan, J., & Tanaka, F. (2011). When a robot is social: Spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Social Studies of Science, 41(6), 893–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711420565
Due, B. L. (2019, September 10). Laughing at the robot: Incongruent robot actions as laughables. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2019-ws-640
Fischer, K. (2016). Designing Speech for a Recipient: The roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called “simplified registers” (1st ed., Vol. 270). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fischer, K., Langedijk, R. M., Nissen, L. D., Ramirez, E. R., & Palinko, O. (2020). Gaze-Speech Coordination Influences the Persuasiveness of Human-Robot Dialog in the Wild. In A. R. Wagner, D. Feil-Seifer, K. S. Haring, S. Rossi, T. Williams, H. He, & S. Sam Ge (Eds.), Social Robotics (Vol. 12483, pp. 157–169). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62056-1_14
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X
Garfinkel, H. (1963). A Conception of, and Experiments with, “Trust” as a Condition of Stable Concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive approaches (pp. 187–238). Ronald Press.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Edited and Introduced by Anne W. Rawls. Rowman & Littlefield.
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. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444670
Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. 26(4–5), 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
Guo, E., Katila, J., & Streeck, J. (2020). Touch and the Fluctuation of Agency and Motor Control in Pediatric Dentistry. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120249
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Jarske, S. (2025). Strange Machines: Robot sociality as a challenge for human-centred design. Tampere University. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/163543
Jarske, S., Raudaskoski, S., & Kaipainen, K. (2020). The “Social” of the Socially Interactive Robot: Rethinking Human-Robot Interaction Through Ethnomethodology. Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics, 335, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200915
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–33). NY: Free Press.
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 Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Krummheuer, A. (2015). Technical Agency in Practice: The enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents. PsychNology Journal, 13(2), 179–201.
Krummheuer, A. L. (2015). Users, Bystanders and Agents: Participation Roles in Human-Agent Interaction. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015 (pp. 240–247). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22723-8_19
Krummheuer, A., & Rehm, M. (2024). Dealing with Moral Assistance in Robot-Supported Decision Making for Sustainable Consumption. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557753
Levinson, S. (2006). On the Human ”Interaction Engine”. In N. J. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture cognition and interaction. Berg, Oxford.
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), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137380
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016
Nevile, M. (2015). The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499
Parviainen, J., van Aerschot, L., Särkikoski, T., Pekkarinen, S., Melkas, H., & Hennala, L. (2019). Motions with Emotions?: A Phenomenological Approach to Understanding the Simulated Aliveness of a Robot Body. Techné, 23(3), 318–341. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne20191126106
Pelikan, H., & Broth, M. (2016). Why That Nao? How Humans Adapt to a Conventional Humanoid Robot in Taking Turns-at-Talk. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4921–4932. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858478
Pelikan, H., 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). Association for Computing Machinery. 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), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v5i3.129915
Pitsch, K. (2020). Answering a robot’s questions: Participation dynamics of adult-child-groups in encounters with a museum guide robot. Réseaux, 220221(2), 113–150.
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor’s Introduction. In A. W. Rawls (Ed.), Harold Garfinkel. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. (pp. 1–64).
Rudaz, D., & Licoppe, C. (2024). ‘Playing the robot’s advocate’: Bystanders’ descriptions of a robot’s conduct in public settings. Discourse & Communication, 17504813241271481. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813241271481
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. 1. University Press.
Sebo, S., Stoll, B., Scassellati, B., & Jung, M. F. (2020). Robots in Groups and Teams: A Literature Review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4(CSCW2), 176:1-176:36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415247
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis (1st edition). Wiley-Blackwell.
Staudte, M., & Crocker, M. W. (2011). Investigating joint attention mechanisms through spoken human–robot interaction. Cognition, 120(2), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.005
Stommel, W., de Rijk, L., & Boumans, R. (2022). “Pepper, what do you mean?” Miscommunication and repair in robot-led survey interaction. 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900528
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01608-7
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2025 Author and Journal
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse – Ikke-kommerciel – Ingen Bearbejdede Værker (by-nc-nd).
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.
