Abstract
The use of findings from conversation analysis in the design of human-computer interfaces and especially in the design of computer-human speech dialogues is a matter of considerable controversy. For example, in “Going up a Blind Alley” (Button, 1990) and “On Simulacrums of Conversation” (Button and Sharrock, 1995), Button argues that conversation analysis is of only limited use in the computational modelling of interaction. He suggests that computers will never be able to “converse” with humans because of the fundamentally different ways in which humans and computers use rules in the production of language.
We show in this paper that these arguments are neither necessary nor sufficient to rule out the possibility of computers which can be said to converse. They depend on a view about the nature of rules which is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of computation. The way in which mathematical systems such as Context Free Grammars use rules is very different from the use of the rules in principle-based approaches to language or the “micro-rules” of neural networks. If there is a problem with conversing computers, it lies more with the true nature of the interaction that is taking place and with considerations about the nature of cognition than with the construction and use of rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Boden, D. (1990a) The world as it happens: Ethnomethodology, in Ritzer G. (ed),Frontiers of Social Theory. 7, 185–213. Columbia University Press, New York.
Boden, M. A. (ed). (1990b)The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bossemeyer, R. W. and Schwab, E. C. (1991) Automated alternate billing services at Ameritech: Speech recognition and the human interface.Speech Technology Magazine 5(3), 24–30.
Button, G. (1990) Going up a blind alley. in Luff, P., Gilbert, G. N., and Frohlich, D. (eds),Computers and Conversation 4 67–90 Academic Press, London.
Button, G. and Sharrock, W. (1995) On simulacrums of conversation: Towards a clarification of the relevance of conversation analysis for human-computer interaction.In: Thomas, P. (ed),The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Coulter, J. (1991) Cognition: ‘Cognition’ in an ethnomethodological mode. Button, G. (ed),Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. 8, 176–195of: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fodor, J. A. (1981) The mind-body problem.Scientific American, January, 124–132.
Franco, V. (1993) Automation of operator services at AT&T. InProceedings of Voice ′93.
Fraser, N. M. and Wooffitt, R. C. (1990) (July–August).Orienting to Rules. Presented at AAAI-90 Workshop, Boston, MA.
Frohlich, D. and Luff, P. 1990. Applying the technology of conversation to the technology for conversation. In (Luffet al. 1990).
Garfinkel, H. (1967)Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hirst, G. (1991) Does conversation analysis have a role in computational linguistics?Computational Linguistics, 17(2), 211–227.
Hunter, J. F. M. (1973) On how we talk, inEssays after Wittgenstein. 147–169. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993)Human and Machine Thinking. John M. MacEachran memorial lecture series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Lennig, M., Sharp, D., Kenny, P., Gupta, V., and Precoda, K. (1992) (October). Flexible vocabulary recognition of speech. 93–96of: ICSLP ′92.
Levinson, S. C. (1983)Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Luff, P., Gilbert, N. and Frohlich, D. (eds). (1990)Computers and Conversation. Computers and People. London: Academic Press.
Parret, H., and Verschueren, J. (1992) (on) Searle on conversation: An introduction. In Parret, H., and Verschueren, J. (eds),(On) Searle on Conversation. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Penrose, R. (1989)The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics. Vintage, London.
Sacks, H. (1966)Transcribed Lecture, Spring/15.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation.Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992) To Searle on conversation. In Parret, H., and Vershueren, J. (eds),(on) Searle on Conversation. 113–128. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Searle, J. R. (1969)Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Searle, J. R. (1992a) Conversation. In Parret, H., and Vershueren, J. (eds),(on) Searle on Conversation. 7–29. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Searle, J. R. (1992b)The Rediscovery of the Mind. Representation and Mind. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Suchman, L. A. (1987)Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wooffitt, R. C., Fraser, N., Gilbert, N. and McGlashan, S. forthcoming.Humans, Machines and Wizards: Conversation Analysis and Human (Simulated) Computer Interaction. Routledge, London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fordham, A., Gilbert, N. On the nature of rules and conversation. AI & Soc 9, 356–372 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01210587
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01210587