Upload
morey
View
89
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Linguistic Factors in Cockpit Communication. Manfred Krifka Humboldt Universität, Berlin collaborating with: Silka Martens Florian Schwarz Carrie Clarady. Research on Cockpit Communication: Some Background. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Linguistic Factorsin Cockpit Communication
Manfred KrifkaHumboldt Universität, Berlin
collaborating with:
Silka MartensFlorian SchwarzCarrie Clarady
Research on Cockpit Communication:Some Background
• Social dynamics of group interaction as an important factor in the origin of accidents and in the success of dealing with accident-prone situations (cf. Robert Helmreich, “Managing Human Error in Communication”, Scientific American 1997.)
• Crew Resource Management (CRM): Rating and improving of crew performance in aviation and other fields in which professional groups interact in situations with high task load.
• But over and above the general social dynamics of group interaction, there are specific problems relating to language and communication in such settings.
Cockpit Communication
Possible areas of research:
• Problems of language (e.g., the structure of human language, features of the technical language).
• Problems of communication (that is, problems of language use)
Cockpit Communication: Problems of Language
Cf. Stephen Cushing (1994), Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes.
• Misunderstanding of We are now at takeoff
implied in Tenerife accident in 1977
• Problems of sentence parsing:[back [on the power]][[back on] [the power]]
• Problems of phonological identification:climb to five zeroclimb two five zero
Cockpit Communication: Problems of Communication
• Mitigation of contributions especially by the lower-ranked pilot (First Officer or Engineer) for face-serving purposes.
Not very much more fuel.(Engineer to Captain five minutes before engine
stopped, United Airlines, Portland, 1978)
(cf. Charlotte Linde, “The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse”, Language in Society 17)
Cockpit Communication: Research Techniques
• Observation of real situations
• Transcripts of communication before and during accidents (recorded by Black Box and published by National Transportation Safety Board)
• Observation and ratings of communication of regular flights.
• Important data, but difficult to come up with generalization from particular cases.
• Observation of communication in flight simulators
• Experimental scenarios.
• Similar scenarios for different crews.
• Advanced simulator techniques guarantee closeness to reality.
• But: Simulator sessions extremely costly.
Group Interaction in High Risk Environments:
Linguistic Factors
GIHRE Subproject, sponsored by Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz Foundation.
First project phase at Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin, with Carrie Clarady.
Linguistic Factors: First Project Phase
Basic Questions:
Correlation: Task Load Communicative BehaviorCorrelation: Crew Performance Communicative Behavior
Linguistic Factors: First Project Phase
Data:• Simulation flights on B727 with similar scenario, carried out by NASA, 1987• Transcribed by University of Texas Aerospace Crew Research Project(thanks to Bob Helmreich and Brian Sexton)• Every flight has 4 transcribed segments: A: climbout from SF, descent and landing into SAC: Medium task load. B: Descent, approach and landing at LAX, with runaway trim, jammed stabilizer, low oil pressure: High task load. C: Descent to SAC, missed approach: Medium task load. D: Diversion to SJC, with hydraulic malfunction, diversion to SFC, split flap malfunctio: High task load.• Performance of crews and crew members was rated• We investigated 5 (+ 1/2) flights (2 well-performing crews, 3 poorly performing crews) (alltogether 9 hours, 6900 thought units)
Communication Density:Thought Units per minute, Crew 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Minutes
ATC Captain 1st Officer Engineer
Segment A Segment B Segment C Segment D
No difference in speech time well-performing / poorly performing crews
Factors
Presentation of Data:
Segments: A Medium (task load)BCD High (task load)
Crews: 3 Poor (crews)45813 Good (crews)
Data are given in proportion to “thought units”(chosen by transcribers)
Speaker and Addressee Roleper Thought Unit
Speaker Role per Thought Unit
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodH
Captain First Off Engineer ATC
• Captain assumes speaker role most often.
• Engineer assumes speaker role more often in high task-load segments.
Speaker and Addressee Roleper Thought Unit
Speaker Role per Thought Unit
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodH
Captain First Off Engineer ATC
• Engineer is adressed more often in high task-load segments.
Addressee Role per Thought Unit
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0,45
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodH
Captain First Off Engineer ATC
Reference to Participants
Reference to Speaker, Addressee, Group per Th.Unit
00,050,10,150,20,25
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodHSpeakerAddresseeGroup• Slightly more reference to group in good crews, high task loadscf. Sexton, J.B. & Helmreich, R.L. (2000). Analyzing cockpit communication. The links between language, performance, error, and workload. Human Performance in Extreme Environments 5, 63-68.
Speech Act Classification
Question: Correlation Task Load / Group Performance <=> Speech Acts?
Classical Speech Act Classification: Austin, Searle.• Representatives
commit the speaker to truth of proposition, e.g. asserting, concluding; degree of commitment can vary, e.g. saying, hypothesizing; may relate to other parts of discourse, e.g. replying
• Directives speaker tries to get the addressee to do something, e.g. requesting, questioning; degrees can vary, e.g. suggesting, commanding
• Commissivescommit the speaker to an action, e.g. promising, threatening, offeringdegrees can vary, e.g. promising, guaranteeing
• Expressivesexpress a psychological state, e.g. thanking, apologizing, welcoming
• Declarationschanges the institutional state of affairs, e.g. baptizing, marrying, declare a person guilty
Problems of Speech Act Classification
• Existing classifications are difficult to apply• Difference between form and meaning
– Direct command: Close the door.(Command : Imperative)
– Indirect command: The door should be closed.(Command : Declarative)
– Indirect command: Why don’t you close the door? (Command : Question)
– Very indirect command: It’s cold in here. (not a command, but a statement (*please), but may have similar action implications as commands)
Problems of Speech Act Classification 2
• Individuating speech acts– ABC 801, that turn looks like it’s going to take you through,
so continue the right turn to 180.(Command, or Assertion + Command, or Attention-Call + Assertion + Command?)
– [8.1530] I’m on the air, so you get it.(Command, or Assertion + Command, or Motivated Command?)
• Neglect of communication-regulating acts– Call for attention, acknowledgements, repetitions etc.
do not figure prominently in speech act classifications– Some investigation of such features in Conversation
Analysis (Reference)
Problems of Speech Act Classification 3
• Multi-dimensional nature of speech acts– A question can be related to a statement,
a command, a prior statement, etc.:What’s the weather like in Sacramento?What should I do now?What did you say?
– A command can be related to an action, a statement, a question, a prior statement, etc.:Now you fly the airplane.Tell me what’s the weather like in Sacramento.Ask him what the weather is like in Sacramento.Tell me again, please.
Our Speech Act Classification
• A “pragmatic” approach: What is potentially predictive for crew performance?
• Does not follow formal, but functional criteria, if the intended function is clear.Why don’t we go to the book and see what you can do on it? is classified as a command, not a question.
• Classifies each previously identified thought unit as belonging to one speech act category.
Our Speech Act Classification (2)
• Combines speech act types (e.g., assertion of a proposition) with content features (e.g., report of action, report of previous report, prognosis, diagnosis)
• Factors out classification of question / answer:You got any problems classified as statement / questionYou want me to brief with you? as command / question
• Assumes a category of “regulatives” that are concerned with the proper flow of information
Speech Act Categories
Code Name Definition
staterep Status Report Reports current state (equipment, weather, etc.)
reprep Report of Report Rephrases information expressed before
actrep Reprot of Action Gives a report of an action by himself
prog Prognosis Predicts the likely course of future events
diag Diagnosis Explains past events
comm Command Requests an action by addressee
perm Permission Gives permission for action by addressee
repint Report of Intention Expresses an intention to act in a certain way
comply Comply Verbalizes an action that carries out a command
expr Expressive Verbalizes an emotion
ack Acknowledgem. Acknowledges that preceding act was understood
affirm Affirmation Acknowledges and affirms preceding act
rephrase Rephrase Acknowledges and rephrases preceding act
Searle’sClassificaiton
Represen-tatives
Directives
Commissives
Expressives
“Regulatives”
Examples of Speech Act Types
• Status Reports– [4.17] UH ROGER UH WE ARE OUT AT 1443 AND OFF AT 53 FROM SAN FRANCISCO– [4.62] UH, ABC 801, BE ADVICED THE METER LOCATOR OUTER MARKER IS UNRELIABLE,
I’LL CALL YOU AT METER– [8.28] WE HAVE AN UNDEREXCITED FAULT LIGHT ON, UH, NUMBER 3– [8.89] OKAY, WE’RE COMING TO 350 DESCENDING TO 5, ABC 801
• Reports of Action– [4.75] I KEEP LOOKING FOR THE ALTITUDE RIGHT HERE AND SEE 801– [4.111] I’LL PUT IT ON THE MISSED APPROACH ALTITUDE
• Reports of Report– [4.461] WELL, HE TOLD US BE READY FOR ILS 24 RIGHT– (Not used for reciting from manuals, or relaying information in general)
• Prognoses– [4.373] OKAY, SO I THINK IF WE DO THE TWO ENGINE, THE TWO GENERATOR
OPERATION THAT’LL BE UH, THE NEXT THING.
• Diagnoses– [8.111] I THINK WHAT THAT LIGHT WAS, WAS WHEN THAT FIELD, FILED RELAY TRIPPED.
Examples of Speech Act Types 2
• Commands– [8.94] HEY, WITH THIS FAULT LIGHT, WOULD YOU SWITCH ESSENTIAL POWER OFF OF
NUMBER 3, PLEASE FOR ME– [8.212] ABC 801, THAT TURN LOOKS LIKE IT’S GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH, SO
CONTINUE THE RIGHT TURN TO 180– [8.356] PRESS ON– [8.64] OKAY, NOW YOU FLY THE AIRPLANE– [8.224] WHY DON'T YOU MAKE IT 190.– [8.305] FINAL FLAPS SHOULD BE 30
• Permissions– [8.19] UNITED 801’S CLEARED FOR TRAFFIC. YOU CAN DESCENT AT PILOT’S DISCRETION.– [8.15] OH, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO HERE, BOB
• Complies– [8.414] [HOW ABOUT THAT BRAKE? NOW TRY IT.] NO.
• Report of Intention– [8.32] MEANWHILE I’LL TAKE CARE OF THE APPROACH/DESCENT HERE– [8.63] WE’LL…WE’LL TAKE CARE OF THAT
Examples of Speech Act Types 3
• Expressives– [4.185] UH, SHIT– [8.639] LITTLE DEVIL– [8.904] BOY THAT IS A LOT OF PRESSURE– [8.989] GREAT, EXCELLENT, NO, EXCELLENT– [8.1019] COME ON, BABY, COME AROUND HERE
• Acknowledgements– [4.13] [ABC 801, EXPECT ILS 16 APPROACH TO SACRAMENTO] OKAY.– [8.410] [I’L JUST CRANK IT AND YOU TELL ME WHEN TO STOP]. YEAH.
• Affirmations– [8.1075] [WELL WE GOT… WE’RE COMMITTED TO THE RIGHT] THAT’S RIGHT– [8.1120] [CANT’T DO IT] NO [AGREEMENT].– [8.1169] [SHOULDN’T BE THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM]. NOPE, NO NO NO.
• Rephrases– [8.50] [ONE SIX RIGHT, APPROACH.] ONE SIX RIGHT, YEAH.– [8.1640] [GROUND SPOILERS, OUT SPOILERS] OUT SPOILERS.
Speech Act Classification
Prognoses and Diagnoses per Thought Unit
0
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodH
Prognoses Diagnoses
More prognoses / diagnoses in well-performing crews.
Speech Act Classification
More reports of intention in well-performing crews.
Reports of Intention per Thought Unit
00,010,020,030,040,050,060,070,080,09
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodH
Speech Act Classification
• Slightly more questions in well-performing crews.
• More questions are answered in well-performing crews (0.54 in poorly performing crews, 0.77 in well performing crews)
Questions and Answers per Thought Unit
00,020,040,060,080,10,120,140,160,18
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorG GoodM GoodHQuestionsAnswers
Speech Act Classification
• Fewer commands in well-performing crews.
• Fewer explicit complies in well-performing crews.
Commands and Complies per Thought Unit
00,050,10,150,20,25
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodHCommandsComplies
Speech Act Classification
• Fewer expressives and emotional words in well-performing crews.
• Fewer expressives and emotinal words in situations of high task load for poorly performing crews.
Expressives and Emotion per Thought Unit
00,020,040,060,080,10,12
Poor Good Medium High PoorM PoorH GoodM GoodHExpressivesEmotion
Limitations of Study
Correlation Segements / Task Load only very coarse. Number of crews analyzed far too low for any significance measure. Quality of transcripts rather varied, e.g. no information about paralinguistic features. Information about flight scenario and precise timing of malfunctions was rather limited. Revisions of speech act categories necessary. No classification of higher-order features of communication.
Examples of features that were not encoded
Multiple rephrases (Crew 8)[8.146] E-C: CLIMB TO 500 FEET, PROCEED DIRECT SACRAMENTO VOR.
HOLD SOUTH 180 RADIAL, 5,000 FEET.C-E: 5,000?E-C: YEAH.C-E: AFTER 500, DIRECT TO VOR TO HOLD?E-C: RIGHT.C-E: OKAY, GOT IT
Invoking Crew Resources[8.1511] YOU CAN, YOU CAN LISTEN WITH ME, I MIGHT MISUNDERSTAND.[8.2167] WHAT ELSE? WHAT HAVE WE MISSED?
Prioritizing goals (Crew 8)[8.368] WE WON'T WORRY ABOUT ANY OF THAT STUFF.[8.2007] F-C: I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE GAS. WE'RE PISSIN' OUT 15,000
POUNDS AN HOUR.C-F: DON'T WORRY.C-F: DON'T WORRY.F-C: OK.C-F: I'LL TELL YA WHEN TO WORRY.
New Project Phase(June 2001 - )
Data:Flight simulator data, but with a much more constrained scenarioin which communication skills are crucial
Flight Simulator Scenario
Developed by Gerd Fahnenbruck, carried out by Lufthansa CityLine on Canadair Regional Jet
• Circling approach due to glide slope failure, runway has to be approached from unusual direction, a plane is blocking the runway, fly a go around
• Normal second approach, break down of glide slope requiring constant communication about altitude
• Take-off followed by double instrument failure requiring constant communication about conflicting values
Data, Transcripts, Analysis
• Video data (4 cameras) and audio data available
• 16 flights, average length 53 minutes
• Identification of three segments with different types of task load across crews.
• Careful transcriptions, including features of prosody, intonation, pauses
• Refined system of speech act classification, following “Qualitative Development Analysis” (T. Diegritz & C. Fürst, Empirische Sprechhandlungsforschung. Erlangen 1999):
Example: Steps of analysis (QVA)
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
After initiating the utterance with the particle soCaptain utters a question with rising intonation.
Directly after this, as the captain is looking at the instrument panel, he utters a statement with strongly rising intonation.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
There are three subsequent illocutionary acts:
• so
• wie weit sin mer
• flaps man wir twenty
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
Reading back:
Due to the instrument failure, first officer informs captain that he can only fly in stand-by mode.
Captain agrees that it would be best not to split up the tasksbut to let first officer fly alone in stand-by mode.
Captain remarks that he can still help a little bit.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
We have made it clear how we will proceed.
Let us check the current state, to see how far we are in respect to the planned approachwith the instrument failure.
I will go ahead and check the flaps, which are 20.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
First officer reacts with a confirming ja.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
• Aspects of development
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
• Aspects of development
• Thematic progression Captain marks a thematic break by ending the previous sequence of clarification and going on to deal with the problem himself.
• Relational development Captain integrates first officer actively and cooperatively in the problem solving process, by asking himself and the first officer and by answering his own question.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
• Aspects of development
• Assigning speech act type
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
• Aspects of development
• Assigning speech act type
So. STRUCTURING SIGNALI indicate that I am about to start a speech act and that the previous discussion is over.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
• Aspects of development
• Assigning speech act type
Wie weit sin mer? QUESTION(INFORMATION)I ask you and myself about the current state of
events.
Example: Steps of analysis
so. wie weit sin mer? flaps ham wir twenty.So. How far are we? As for the flaps we have 20.
• Description
• Division in speech acts
• Context
• Explicit interpretative verbalization
• Perlocutionary effects
• Aspects of development
• Assigning speech act type
Flaps ham wir twenty. ASSERT WITH EVIDENCE (“Feststellung”)
I state that the flaps are twenty (and I have direct evidence for it)
Features of our Speech Act SystemFeatures of our Speech Act System
Two further aspects of the speech act system we are developing:
- Speech Act Types
- Dialogue Structure
Dialogue Segment
(4) 906 Fio: ja (5) 906 Fio: dann warten wa bis auf n intercept(6) 907 Cap: weißte wir sollten alles raussetzen.
gear down und flaps thirty.(7) 907 Cap: dann ham wa das schon (8) 909 Cap: is keen problem für uns (9) 909 Cap: okay?(10) 911 Fio: .hh hmm (11) 913 Fio: ich bin mir nich sicher ehrlich gesacht. (12) 913 Fio: aber gut. versuchn wa s mal
SA# Line #
Examples: Speech Act TypesExamples: Speech Act Types
(4) Confirmation (BESTÄTIGUNG)
(5) Suggestion (VORSCHLAG)
(6) Suggestion (VORSCHLAG)
(7) Giving reasons (BEGRÜNDUNG)
(8) Statement (FESTSTELLUNG/BEHAUPTUNG)
(9) Request for reply/confirmation (HÖRERRÜCKMELD. FORDERUNG)
(10) Signal of doubt (ÜBERLEG/ ZWEIFEL ANZEIG)
(11) Objecting/Doubting (ANZWEIFELN/EINWENDEN)
(12) Conceding/Confirmation (ZUGESTEHEN/ BESTÄTIGUNG)
STACK
8 Classes of Speech Act Types:I. InformationII. Requests (direct/indirect)III. Agreement/NegotiationIV. DissentV. Question typesVI. ExpressivesVII. Interaction markersVIII. Others
I . INFORMATIONII . REQUESTS
(direct/ indirect)
I I I . AGREEMENT /
NEGOTIATIONIV. DISSENT V. QUESTION TYPES
HINWEIS OvRU! INI ANWEIS (FREUNDLICH, CPT)command
INI ZUSTIM Mpermission
REAABLEHN FRAG (INFORM ATION) INI
M ITTEILstatus report ?
INI ANW EIS (NEUTRAL, CPT )command
INI BEKRÄFTIG (FREM D)affirmation
REAVORSCHLAG ABLEHN REAFRAG (VERSTÄNDNIS Inhalt) INI
FESTSTELL (Ansage)status report
INI ANW EIS (NACHDRÜCKLICH,
CPT) = BEFEHL commandINI BEKRÄFTIG (SELBST)
affirmation
REAABSCHLAG FRAG (VERSTÄNDNIS akust.) INI
EXPLIZIER (Erläuter, Überleg
Laut) report of ANW EIS (FREUNDLICH, F/O )command
INI W IEDERHOL (FREM D)rephrase
REAEINW END (SELBST) FRAG (M EINUNG) INI
SPEZIFIZIER RIN ANW EIS (NEUTRAL, F/O )command
INI W IEDERHOL (SELBST)rephrase
REAEINW END (FREM D) FRAG (HANDLUNG) INI
BESCHREIB (nur Handlung!)report of action
INI QUASI-BEFEHL (F/O)command
INI BESTÄT (FRAGE)
"Antw ort"
REAKORRIGIER (SELBST) ANBIET INI
ANKÜND (einer Handlung)report of action
INI VORSCHLAG (F/O) INI BESTÄT (HANDLUNGsauff.)acknowledgm.,affirm
REAKORRIGER (FREM D) VERGEW ISS RIN
BEGRÜNDreport of intention
GEHORCH /ERFÜLL (CPT, F/O)
verbalisation of comply
REAVORSCHLAG ANNEHM REAW IDERSPRECHV I. EX PRESSIV ES
BEHAUPT
affirmation
INI ERLAUBnis geben s. D/Fpermission
REA ZURÜCKW EIS BESCHW ICHTIG
RECHTFERTIGreport of intention
REABITT (ASYM M ETRISCH) INI ZW EIFEL BEW ERT (NEG)
FOLGER RIN BITT (SYM M ETRISCH) INIVII. IN TERACTIO N M ARKERS V III. O TH ERS
BEW ERT (POS)
ZUSAM M ENFASSdiagnosis, rep of
RIN BEDANK REABEDINGUNG NENN ERSTAUN ÄUSSERexpressive ?
ERINNER RIN KENNTNIS=ACK "habe
verstanden" acknowledgment
REABEREIT (Bereitschaft
verbalisieren?)
INSISTIER
VERM UT (EINSCHÄTZ)prognosis ?
? HÖRERRÜCKM ELD (HRM , M R) RE ENTSCHEID LOBexpressive ?
PLAN HÖRERRÜCKMELD/ ANTW ORT
FORDER s. D/F
INI Gegenteil von LOB (nicht: TADEL)
PROGNOS GLIEDERUNG SIGNALISIER INI RAT (geben/holen?)
ÜBERLEG ANZEIG (v.a. nach
Frage) hesitation?
REA SICH ENTRÜSTexpressive ?
VERZÖGER=FÜLL (ALM , kein
SpA)
- ZUGESTEHpermission ?
W orksheet Speech Act Types (cf. Diegritz/Fürst)
assertinform
status report
present actionaction in future
report of action
give reasonsexplain
report of intention
conclude
summarize
remind
assume
I. INFORMATION
friendlyneutralemphatical
command Cpt
quasi-command F/O
comply
suggestion
II. REQUESTS(direct/indirect)
agree
selfother
affirmation
selfother
rephrase
actionquestion
acknowledge
accept suggestion
III.AGREEMENT/NEGOTIATION
selfothers
correct
selfothers
object
reject suggestion
IV.DISSENT
speech act remarks / short version / comments
distinction from simliar types
additional features / hints for analysis
SUGGESTION (F/O)
roughly the same as Linde’s "draft order"also: provoke order
Difference to DRAFT_ORDER: Intonation, much friendlier and more cautious;features: modal verbs, conjunctive, "I suggest..."
"we" is often used, but there are also cases like: "soll ich das jetzt so machen?" (should I do it this way?) [draft orders]
speech act precondition for performing this act
possible (typical) perlocutionary effects
Paraphrase
ACCEPT SUGGESTION
Adressee made a SUGGESTION
Adressee is happy that speaker accepts his/her suggestion
REJECT SUGGESTION
Adressee made a SUGGESTION
Adressee makes a (counter-) SUGGESTION of his own
speaker lets addressee know briefly that he/she does not accept the addressee's opinion or view; implicit forms (where the speaker signals his rejection through facial expressions and/or gestures) and explicit forms need to be distinguished.
Hierarchical Structure of Speech ActsHierarchical Structure of Speech Acts
Initial Reactive Reinitiative
Accepting Problematic Rejective
Statements Confirming Doubting Refuting Insisting
(also: Conceding Objecting
Prognosis
Report etc.)
Assertives
Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)
• Analysis of sequential embedding in the communicative context
• Analysis of dialogue types (well defined sequences of speech acts)
• Basic unit: minimal dialogue
Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)
• With an initial speech act (ISA), speaker 1 states a communicative goal
• Speaker 2 can accept or reject this goal
• For different ISA‘s there are well-defined sets of possible answers
Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)
• Examples: Sp2
Sp1 answer 1 answer 2
• question answer refuse to answer
• assertion agree refute
• suggestion accept reject
• Further option: counter-initiative speech act
Options for speaker 1 in the 3rd move (in response to a rejecting or counter-initiative second move):
• Retractive SA (RETSA) give up original goal
• Revised SA (REVSA) modify original goal
• Re-initiative SA (REISA) repeat the same goal
Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)Structural Dialogue Analysis (Franke 1990)
Dialogue Structure in our Data SegmentDialogue Structure in our Data Segment
SA# structural type of SA
5 initial speech act (ISA)
6-9 counter-initiative speech act (GISA)
10-11 re-initiative speech act (REISA)
12 retractive speech act (RETSA)
Outlook on application of Dialogue StructuresOutlook on application of Dialogue Structures
• Assigning a structural type to speech acts enables us to represent a different dimension of dialogue
• The different ways that the crew‘s speech acts relate to each other is an indicator of their communicative behavior
• This type of extended speech act theory allows us to make a quantitative comparison of aspects of dialogue structure with crew performance ratings