Cognitive Studies, 22(1), (March 2015) Conversational interactions contribute not only to the sharing of information and establishment of cons

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Cognitive Studies, 22(1), (March 2015) Conversational interactions contribute not only to the sharing of information and establishment of cons"

ゆきさんきち
4 years ago
Views:

1 Cognitive Studies, 22(1), (March 2015) Conversational interactions contribute not only to the sharing of information and establishment of consensus but also to the construction and sustenance of mutual trust among conversational participants in our daily lives. The interrelationship between trust and conversational interactions has not been studied extensively in cognitive science. One reason for this lack of research is the fact that a study of social emotions such as trust requires real fields, since social emotions in their natural, non-artificial forms are not readily observable in laboratory settings. We introduce a notion of concern alignment to describe the surface conversational processes toward mutual trust formation. Focusing on medical communications as our research field, we collected health guidance conversations between nurses and patients who were diagnosed as having metabolic syndrome, and we provide a qualitative analysis of the structure of conversations in terms of a set of dialogue acts we propose for the description of concern alignment processes. We demonstrate that the idea of concern alignment enables us to capture and elucidate both the local and the global structures of mutual trust formation in conversational consensus-building processes. We also discuss underlying mechanisms connecting concern alignment and mutual trust. Keywords: conversational interaction, medical communication, mutual trust, concern alignment model 1. (Sag, Wasow, A Concern Alignment Model for Consensus-Building in Conversations, by Yasuhiro Katagiri (Future University Hakodate), Masato Ishizaki (The University of Tokyo), Yasuharu Den (Chiba University), Katsuya Takanashi (Kyoto University), Mika Enomoto (Tokyo University of Technology), and Shogo Okada (Tokyo Institute of Technology). & Bender, 2003) (Cutler, 2005) (Grice, 1989; Levinson, 1983)

2 98 Cognitive Studies March 2015 (McEnery & Hardie, 2011) (Sidnell & Stivers, 2012) (Roschelle, 1992) (concern alignment) (1998) / (sharedcommitment) (Clark, 1996; Grosz & Sidner, 1990) (Wikipedia/, accessed on 5 July 2014)

3 Vol. 22 No :

4 100 Cognitive Studies March 2015 (Grosz & Sidner, 1990; Clark, 1996) (issue) (concern) (proposal) (issue) (concern) (proposal) (Katagiri, Takanashi, Ishizaki, Enomoto, Den, & Matsusaka, 2011, 2012) -

5 Vol. 22 No C-solicit : - C-introduce : - C-eval/positive : - C-eval/negative : - C-elaborate : - P-solicit : - P-introduce : - P-accept : - P-reject : - P-elaborate : 2 / ( 1 ) (concern solicitation) (concern introduction) (positive concern evaluation) (negative concern evaluation) (incremental concern alignment) 5 ( 1 ) (proposal solicitation) (proposal introduction) (proposal acceptance) (proposal rejection) (incremental proposal modification) (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969, 1985) (Allen & Core, 1997; Bunt, 2006)

6 102 Cognitive Studies March A B (turn) A B 4 A B

7 Vol. 22 No A B ( ) A B A B, ()

8 104 Cognitive Studies 図6 March 2015 関心擦り合わせ対話例: 禁煙交渉話進行の構造分析によって合意形成に至る交渉過によって合意内容遵守に対する期待性向説得程で生起している会話参加者間の価値基準情報の交などの表現を通じた相互信頼感形成構築の構造の可換や妥協点の模索の様子を関心擦り合わせと提案視化も可能になっている交換という形で抽出することに成功しているさらに合意形成進行の構造を関心と提案という具体的言 5.4 信頼感構築戦略としての関心擦り合わせ語表現から一段抽象化されたレベルでとらえること図 7 と同様に会話進行に現れる関心擦り合わせ

9 Vol. 22 No A-B: C-introduce:() C-eval/negative:() A-B: C-elaborate:() C-eval/negative:() A-B: C-introduce:() C-eval/negative:() B-A: C-introduce:() C-eval/positive: () B-A: C-introduce:() C-eval/negative:() B-A: C-introduce:() C-eval/positive: () B-A: C-introduce:() C-eval/positive: () B-A: C-introduce:() C-eval/positive: () A-B: P-introduce:( () ) B-A: P-accept: () 7 /: A-B: C-introduce: BMI C-eval/positive: () A-B: C-introduce: () C-eval/positive: () C-eval/negative:() A-B: C-solicit: (?) B-A: C-introduce: () B-A: C-introduce: () B-A: C-introduce: () B-A: C-introduce: () A-B: Reason () A-B: P-introduce: (/ or /) B-A: P-reject: ([/] ) A-B: P-introduce: (:) B-A: P-accept: () 8 /: A BMI B A 9 A B

10 106 Cognitive Studies March 2015 A-B: C-solicit: () A-B: C-introduce:() C-eval/negative:() A-B: C-introduce:() C-eval/positive: () A-B: C-introduce:() C-eval/positive: () A-B: C-introduce:() B-A: C-introduce:() A-B: P-solicit: (?) B-A: P-introduce:() A-B: P-solicit: (?) B-A: P-introduce:() A-B: P-elaborate: () B-A: P-reject: () A-B: P-introduce:() B-A: P-accept: () A-B: P-solicit: () B-A: P-introduce:( []) 9 /: % 82% 90% [] 6.2 (1) (2)

11 Vol. 22 No (3) (2) 7 (1)

12 108 Cognitive Studies March 2015 (2013) (Mann & Thompson, 1988) 7 (B) ( : ) Allen, J. F. & Core, M. G. (1997). DAMSL: Dialog act markup in several layers (Draft 2.1). Report No., Multiparty Discourse Group, Discourse Resource Initiative. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press. Bunt, H. (2006). Dimensions in dialogue act annotation. the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press. Cutler, A. (Ed.) (2005). Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones. Lawrence Erlbaun Associates. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press. Grosz, B. J. & Sidner, C. L. (1990). Plans for Discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication, chap. 20, MIT Press. Katagiri, Y., Takanashi, K., Ishizaki, M., Enomoto, M., Den, Y., & Matsusaka, Y. (2011). Concern alignment in consensus building conversations. the 15th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial2011), Katagiri, Y., Takanashi, K., Ishizaki, M., Enomoto, M., Den, Y., & Matsusaka, Y. (2012). Negotiation for Concern Alignment in Health Counseling Dialogues. the 16th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial2012), Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8 (3), McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2,

Vol. 22 No. 1 109 Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (2003).

University of Chicago Press. Searle, J. R. (1969).

Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1985).

Cambridge University Press. Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012).

Wikipedia/ (accessed on 5 July, 2014) http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/. (1998).

2015) () 1981 NTT ATR 2005 2007-2008 2010 11th SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse

13 Vol. 22 No Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. (2003). Syntactic Theory: a formal introduction, Second Edition. University of Chicago Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley- Blackwell. (2013).., 3 (II), Wikipedia/ (accessed on 5 July, 2014) (1998)... (Received 8 July 2014) (Accepted 28 Jan. 2015) () 1981 NTT ATR th SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, General Co-chair. Cognitive Science Society, IEEE, () 1997 The University of Edinburgh, The Centre for Cognitive Science, Ph.D ()2009 () 1993 ATR () 2000 () 2007 ( ) IDIAP Research Institute ()ACM, SI2004 FIT2012

Grice (1957) S x p S A x 1. A p 2. A S 1 3. A S 1 p (intention-based semantics) S p x (Strawson 1964; Grice 1969; Schiffer 1972; Harman 1974; Bennett

2016/10/21 1 (implicature) (presupposition) (speech act) Sperber & Wilson (1986/1995) (inferential model) 2 Sperber & Wilson (1986/1995) (code model) (1) (2) (3) (5) 1 Grice (1957) S x p S A x 1. A p 2.