Exploiting Under-specification for Semantic Co-ordination

1. Exploiting Under-specification for Semantic Co-ordination 1. Dialogue as Co-ordination Problems 2. Two Dialogue Tasks: The Maze Task Verbal Dialogue: Spatial Reference Task The Music Drawing Task Music Task Graphical Dialogue: Musical ‘Pictionary’ Task 3. Group-specific sub-languages. 4. Repair-driven Co-ordination

2. Lewis’s (1969) Model of Convention Many activities are co-ordinated by conventions • e.g., place and time to meet • specific place and time matter less than co-ordination of choice Co-ordination problems have at least two alternative ‘co-ordination equilibria’ Two features: • Shared repertoire of possible co-ordination equilibria • Choice between them is arbitrary • salience • precedence

3. The Maze Task • Recurrent problem of describing target locations • Target alternates and configuration changes on each trial Player A Player B

4. Maze Task: Description Types Figurative (Figural / Path): sensitive to particular configuration A: right on the right hand side there are four boxes, B: mmhum A: then there are two shapes and then there's another four linked boxes, B: yes A: right it's the second from the bottom. B: mmm, ummm, take the bottom left hand corner, A: yes B: up one box A: yes B: right one box A: yes B: up one box

5. Maze Task Description Types Abstract: (Line / Co-ordinate): abstracts underlying grid structure A: ummm, fourth row down and the second from the right, [12] B: okay it's the second row down and second in from the left, [13] B: er: two two, [3] A: six: six three, [4] B: four three, [5] (Kappa = 0.76, N =455, k= 2)

6. The Music Drawing Task: Exclusively graphical interaction via virtual whiteboard • Pairs seated in separate rooms • 30 sec piano piece each - SAME or DIFFERENT? • Draw picture of target: no letters or numbers Room A Room B

7. Music Drawing Task: Drawing Types Figurative: • Ad hoc associations: faces, figures, objects or situations Abstract: • Graph-like representation of domain structure e.g., pitch, intensity, rhythm Composite: • Mixture of Abstract and Figurative (Kappa = 0.9, N =287, k= 2)

8. Sequence of ‘Figurative’ Trials:

9. Sequence of ‘Abstract’ Trials:

10. Phase1: Community Development Subject 1 Subject 6 Round 1 = Round 2 = Round 3 = Round 4 = Subject 2 Subject 5 Subject 3 Subject 4

11. Phase 2: Experimental Manipulation Within Group = Between Group =

12. Both Tasks Phase 1: • Different partner on each round • Common ‘interaction history’ accumulates • Manipulations of group and dyad structure are hidden • Music task: 10 ‘communities’ of 6 people • 4 rounds of 12 trials • reliable increase in speed and accuracy • Maze Task: 4 ‘communities’ of 8 people • 5 rounds of 20 trials • Reliable increase in number of items completed

13. Music Drawing Results for Phase 2: Chi2(2) =19.0, p=0.00

14. Music drawing Results for Phase 2:

15. Maze Task Results for Phase 2

16. Maze Task Results for Phase 2 Crossing between sub-groups changes choice of description types • Cross-group vs. Within-Group: Chi2(3)= 129.6, p=0.00 And provokes twice as many clarifications • Clarifications: Cross Group 37%, Within Group 16% Cross-group pairs are not distinguishable from ‘naïve’ pairs on trial 1 • Cross-group vs. Naïve: Chi2(2)= 3.34, p=0.19.

17. Group-Specific Sub-languages • In both tasks co-ordination is group specific • Direct interaction plays an essential role in co-ordination • in addition to aggregate individual experience • expert-ese not expertise • In both tasks cross-group interaction is problematic • specifically de-stabilises ‘Abstract’ representations • Cross-group pairs are comparable to Naïve pairs Why are the ‘abstract’ representations more unstable?

18. Co-ordination Equilibria? Choice of ‘Abstract’ or ‘Figurative’ representations is not arbitrary ‘Abstract’ Semantic Models capture regularities across items • Musical structure - melody, tempo, intensity, • Grid structure - squares, rows, columns, diagonals More specifically: • Systematicity: support direct comparison within and between items • Proto-compositionality: (relatively) consistently individuated ontology But therefore require closer co-ordination • several ontological schemes are possible • not consistently manifest in particular items

19. Selection of Co-ordination Equilibira? Precedence? • Maze Task: • converge on the least frequent initial description type • after problems people switch ‘down’ not ‘up’ Interactive Alignment? • Within and Cross-group pairs have same level of alignment Explicit Negotiation? • Maze task: rare, agreement often violated, and most common after co-ordination has developed. • Music Task: no meta-language • Bootstrapping problem

20. Emergent Semantic Co-ordination Semantic convergence is a product of (not pre-condition for) interaction • consistent migration to ‘Abstract’ representations • driven by direct interaction • different varieties emerge in different communities • on inspection almost every pair’s solution differs • no convergence with passive overhearers What are the mechanisms?

21. Repair Driven Co-ordination? Miscommunication: breakdowns in understanding and their resolution are the key events • Try something. • If it works don’t worry (charitable interpretation) • If it fails • use under-specification (be ‘Figurative’ or ‘vague’) • semantic repair strategy • exploit potential for joint manipulation of representation • localise the representational problem reprise, partial repeat, circle, underline (‘meta-communicative’ interaction devices)?

22. Repair Driven Co-ordination? Evidence? • Both tasks: initial choice appear to be random • Maze task: no convergence with passive overhearers • Music Task: preventing people from editing / annotating each other’s drawingsde-stabilises ‘Abstraction’. • Maze task: spoof clarification (“what?”, “row?” ) de-stabilises ‘Abstraction’. • Communication is a special case of misunderstanding • persistent residual ambiguity • communicative success = mutual-indiscriminability • Miscommunication is a pre-requisite for semantic convergence • U shaped curve?