People adapt their word choice to both humans and computers. In this study, language style (elaborated vs. restricted) and perceived conversational partner (human vs. spoken dialogue system) were varied. Convergence was greater when reacting to a restricted language style. Participants preferred human partners and an elaborated language style. In line with communication accommodation theory, results suggest that considering restricted capabilities (cognitive organization) constitutes a central motive for convergence. Implications for spoken dialogue system design are discussed.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278.
3.
BradacJ. J.MulacA.HouseA. (1988). Lexical diversity and magnitude of convergent versus divergent style shifting: Perceptual and evaluative consequences. Language & Communication, 8, 213-228.
4.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.PearsonJ.McLeanJ. F. (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2355-2368.
5.
BraniganH. P.PickeringM. J.PearsonJ.McLeanJ. F.BrownA. (2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition, 121, 41-57.
6.
BunzU.CampbellS. W. (2004). Politeness accommodation in electronic mail. Communication Research Reports, 21, 11-25.
7.
BuzzanellP. M.BurrellN. A.StaffordR. S.BerkowitzS. (1996). When I call you up and you’re not there: Application of communication accommodation theory to telephone answering machine messages. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 310-336.
8.
DahlbäckN.JönssonA.AhrenbergL. (1993). Wizard of Oz studies: Why and how. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 193-200). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
9.
De AngeliA.GerbinoW.NodariE.PetrelliD. (1999). From tools to friends: Where is the borderline? In Proceedings of the UM’99 Workshop on Attitude, Personality and Emotions in User-Adapted Interaction (pp. 1-10). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
10.
EdlundJ.GustafsonJ.HeldnerM.HjalmarssonA. (2008). Towards human-like dialogue systems. Speech Communication, 50, 630-645.
11.
FergusonC. A. (1975). Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1-14.
12.
GalloisC.OgayT. T.GilesH. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Theorizing about communication and culture (pp. 121-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
GilesH. (2008). Accommodating translational research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 121-127.
14.
GilesH.CouplandN.CouplandJ. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In GilesH.CouplandJ.CouplandN. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 1-68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GilesH.SchererK. R.TaylorD. M. (1979). Speech markers in social interaction. In SchererK. R.GilesH. (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 343-381). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HoneK. S.GrahamR. (2000). Towards a tool for the Subjective Assessment of Speech System Interfaces (SASSI). Natural Language Engineering, 6, 287-303.
17.
HoneK. S.GrahamR. (2001). Subjective assessment of speech-system interface usability. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Eurospeech 2001-Scandinavia (pp. 2083-2086). Aalborg, Denmark: International Speech Communication Association. Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/eurospeech_2001/e01_2083.html
18.
JucksR.BeckerB. M.BrommeR. (2008). Lexical entrainment in written discourse: Is experts’ word use adapted to the addressee?Discourse Processes, 45, 497-518.
19.
KarrerK.GlaserC.ClemensC.BruderC. (2009). Technikaffinität erfassen—der Fragebogen TA-EG [Assessing interest in technology: The TA-EG questionnaire]. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme, 8, 196-201.
20.
LitmanD. J.PanS. (2002). Designing and evaluating an adaptive spoken dialogue system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12, 111-137.
NassC.LeeK. M. (2000). Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In Proceedings of the CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 329-336). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
23.
PickardM. D.BurgoonJ. K.DerrickD. C. (2014). Toward an objective linguistic-based measure of perceived embodied conversational agent power and likeability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30, 495-516.
24.
QuasthoffU.RichterM.BiermannC. (2006). Corpus portal for search in monolingual corpora. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on LREC 2006 (pp. 1799-1802). Genoa, Italy: European Language Resources Association.
25.
SolizJ.GilesH. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. In CohenE. (Ed.), Communication yearbook38 (pp. 106-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
ThomsonR.MurachverT.GreenJ. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language?Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
27.
TomkoS.RosenfeldR. (2004). Speech graffiti vs. natural language: Assessing the user experience. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004: Short Papers (pp. 73-76). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
ZueV.SeneffS.GlassJ. R.PolifroniJ.PaoC.HazenT. J. (2000). JUPITER: A telephone-based conversational interface for weather information. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 8, 85-96.
