Closings in human-companion conversation

51Due论文代写网精选essay代写范文：“Closings in human-companion conversation” 关闭交互的数据,首先成为关注的焦点，在参与者的交互中。随后,我们分析了不同方式的交互系统终止。只有通过考虑可能发展的概念，关闭会话作为一个概念，它指的方向是参与者互动的社会规范有序。人与人之间的互动中,这个方向是理所当然的,这是不同的人机交互。在我们的数据中,我们可以区分,大约有五个不同类型的终止。下面的essay代写范文继续展开。

Instroduction
  Closings of interactions in our data were first brought into focus by a few video sequences where participants concluded an interaction with a greeting. Subsequently, we analysed systematically for the different ways in which interactions were terminated. Only through taking both presence and absence of closings into account was it possible to develop the concept of "closure". Closure as a concept is here distinguished from the conversational segment "closing". Rather than to observed behaviour, it refers to the orientation of participants to the social norm of bringing interaction to an orderly end. It is part of everyday politeness not to terminate a conversation strictly unilaterally. If it is done nonetheless, reasons or excuses have to be given, or else such behaviour is sanctioned. While closings are the mechanisms by which this is achieved, closure as a concept points to an attitude toward the other which makes them necessary and desirable. In human-human interaction, this orientation is taken for granted to such a degree as to be invisible. This is different in human-machine interaction.

  In our data, we could distinguish, roughly, five different types of termination: 
  • greeting: a verbal closing ending with a formal greeting, e.g. "bye", by the participant 
  • verbal: the participant closes with an utterance which marks a termination or adjournment of the conversation, but no greeting. 
  • nonverbal: in most cases, this is a nod by the participant before leaving or turning away. Turning away alone is not qualified as a closing, as it is already part of the action that follows the end of a conversation. 
  • waiting: this behaviour can occur, in principle, in addition to and typically before any of the other ways of terminating an interaction, but in most cases, no closing follows. It cannot be said with certainty what exactly the participants are waiting for in these instances: it can be a continuation, a new topic, or a move towards closing by the Nabaztag. The identification of these pauses as "waiting for closing" resides in the observation of the contrasting cases where a closing of some kind occurs. 
  • no closing: none of the above signs occur. The participant takes up whatever action occurs after the interaction: turning away, leaving the room, taking up some household task, etc.

  For the participant from whom most data were collected (P1), we mapped these types of closing (Fig. 3). Sequences where, for some reason or other, the end of the interaction was not recorded were ignored. Fig. 3: Types of closings and their distribution over time for P1; 0 = no closing, 1 = waiting, 2 = nonverbal, 3 = verbal, 4 = greeting What can be seen is that the cases of no closing become more frequent as the field study goes on. There are, roughly, three stages: the first is characterized by pauses (waiting), the second is a stage of more frequent verbal closings, culminating in greeting, while afterwards the closing sequences decrease in frequency. Contrary to expectations, however, they do not disappear, and we even find again a sequence with greeting towards the end of the data collection period. With such a small number of relevant interactions even in our best sample, this kind of analysis does not allow any conclusions on the development over time. The map is shown here only to illustrate occurrence and distribution of closing-types.

  Schegloff and Sacks [17] talk of the closing of conversations as a "problem", not for the analyst, but for the participants in the conversation itself, in the sense of a task that participants have to execute at the end of each conversation with different partners, situations, contents, and modalities. The end of a conversation is (except for the intervention of external forces) not something that just happens, but has to be brought about by the participants in a collaborative way. 

  Schegloff & Sacks have shown that closings and changes of topic are closely related, and that the closing problem can be seen as the opposite of the "turn-taking machinery" which is fundamental in generating turn after turn of a conversation in an orderly manner. To arrive at an orderly end of this stream, the participants have "to organize [their] simultaneous arrival ... at a point where one speaker's completion will not occasion another speaker's talk, and that will not be heard as some speaker's silence" [17]. At first sight, a terminal exchange e.g. of a greeting ritual, may appear as the closing of a conversation. But a closer look shows that a conversation cannot be brought to an orderly end just by greeting. It rather contains a closing sequence in which the greeting stands at the end as a formal sign which can occur in many different forms, or not at all.

  At this time, a dialog engine that can do closings will be considered better and more advanced than one that cannot. By doing closings, however, it invokes the social norm of closure and compels the human to comply with it. Example 1 shows how easy that is if the human is willing: the ambiguity of "okay" is sufficient to induce an extensive closing in a situation where the participant is interacting socially with the robot. The same utterance in example 2 leads to no such social closing. Repetitiveness and habituation are certainly an important reason for this, but we do not know whether a human would be willing to be drawn into social interaction with a machine at all times: note that the way of interaction in example 2 has its benefits for the participant. Dialog design today is struggling with the workings of conversation, and this is what conversational analysis provides. It is necessary to go one step beyond this level and to analyze also for the social norms invoked by such mechanisms. We have to consider carefully where it is legitimate and acceptable for machines to play this compelling game with humans, and where it is better to leave participants to their own choices.

  51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
  更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)