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: 1.Shared repertoire of possible co-ordination equilibria 2.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 ARoom 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. Subject 2 Subject 1Subject 6 Subject 5 Subject 3Subject 4 Round 1 = Round 2 = Round 3 = Round 4 = Phase1: Community Development

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

12. Both Tasks Phase 1: 1.Different partner on each round 2.Common ‘interaction history’ accumulates 3.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. Chi 2 (2) =19.0, p=0.00 Music Drawing Results for Phase 2:

14. Music drawing Results for Phase 2:

15. Maze Task Results for Phase 2

16. Crossing between sub-groups changes choice of description types Cross-group vs. Within-Group: Chi 2 (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: Chi 2 (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: 1.Systematicity: support direct comparison within and between items 2.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 1.Try something. 2.If it works don’t worry (charitable interpretation) 3.If it fails a) use under-specification (be ‘Figurative’ or ‘vague’) – semantic repair strategy b) 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 drawings de-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?