“You Can Do It Baby”: Non-Task Talk with an In-Car Speech Enabled System

References

• Baum, L. F. (1900). The wonderful wizard of oz. New York, NY: George M. Hill Company.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, M. (2009). The social and cultural realization of diversity: An interview with Donal Carbaugh. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9, 230–241. doi:10.1080/14708470903203058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carbaugh, D. (1990). Cultural communication and intercultural contact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 167–182. doi:10.1080/17475750701737090
   Google Scholar
• Carbaugh, D. (2012). A communication theory of culture. In A. Kurylo (Ed.), Inter/Cultural communication: Representation and construction of culture (pp. 69–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Carbaugh, D., Molina-Markham, E., van Over, B., & Winter, U. (2012). Using communication research for cultural variability in human factor design. In N. Stanton (Ed.), Advances in human aspects of road and rail transportation (pp. 176–185). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carbaugh, D., Winter, U., van Over, B., Molina-Markham, E., & Lie, S. (2013). Cultural analyses of in-car communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 195–201. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.782422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993, January). Wizard of Oz studies: Why and how. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 193–200), Orlando, FL, ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dumas, B., Lalanne, D., & Oviatt, S. (2009). Multimodal interface: A survey of principles, models and frameworks. In D. Lalanne & J. Kohlas (Eds.), Human machine interaction: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 3–26). Berlin/Heidelberg: Germany: LNCS-Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5(01), 25–66. doi:10.1017/S0047404500006849
   Google Scholar
• Ervin-Tripp, S., Guo, J., & Lampert, M. (1990). Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 307–331. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(90)90085-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitch, K. L. (1994). A cross-cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance-gaining research. Communication Monographs, 61(3), 185–209. doi:10.1080/03637759409376333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. M., & Gilbert, G. N. (1991). Simulating speech systems. Computer Speech & Language, 5, 81–99. doi:10.1016/0885-2308(91)90019-M
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk—An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(4–5), 515–543. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, C. (2013). Beyond the observer’s paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research, 13(3), 299–317. doi:10.1177/1468794112442771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic in conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts 3 (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haddington, P. (2010). Turn-taking for turntaking: Mobility, time, and action in the sequential organization of junction negotiations in cars. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(4), 372–400. doi:10.1080/08351813.2010.518068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddington, P., & Keisanen, T. (2009). Location, mobility and the body as resources in selecting a route. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1938–1961. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, B. (1988/1989). Norms, action, and alignment: A discursive perspective. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 22, 23–44. doi:10.1080/08351818809389296
   Google Scholar
• Hall, B. (2005). Among cultures: The challenge of communication. New York, NY: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. R. (2014). Contextual design. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/contextual_design.html
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–52). Washington, DC: The Anthropological Society of Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D. (1972). Models for the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, J. M. (1975). Normative power and conflict potential. Sociological Methods & Research, 4, 237–263. doi:10.1177/004912417500400205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokinen, K., & McTear, M. (2009). Spoken dialogue systems. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Koppel, S., Charlton, J., Kopinathan, C., & Taranto, D. (2011). Are child occupants a significant source of driving distraction? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 1236–1244. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the ninth regional meeting (pp. 292–305). Chicago, IL, Chicago Linguistic Society.
   Google Scholar
• Laurier, E. (2005). Searching for a parking space. Intellectica, 41–42(2–3), 101–115.
   Google Scholar
• Laurier, E. (2011). Driving: Pre-cognition and driving. In T. Cresswell & P. Merriman (Eds.), Geographies of mobilities: Practices, spaces, subjects (pp. 69–82). Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Laurier, E., Brown, B., & Lorimer, H. (2007). Habitable cars: The organisation of collective private transport: Full research report ESRC end of award report, RES-000-23-0758. Swindon, UK: ESRC.
   Google Scholar
• Laurier, E., Brown, B., & Lorimer, H. (2012). What it means to change lanes: Actions, emotions and wayfinding in the family car. Semiotica, 191, 117–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurier, E., Lorimer, H., Brown, B., Jones, O., Juhlin, O., Noble, A.,…Weilenmann, A. (2008). Driving and “passengering”: Notes on the ordinary organization of car travel. Mobilities, 3(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/17450100701797273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäkäräinen, M., Tiitola, J., & Konkka, K. (2001). How cultural needs affect user interface design? In M. Reed Little & L. Nigay (Eds.), Engineering for human-computer interaction (pp. 357–358). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mao, J., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P., & Carey, T. (2005). The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 105–109. doi:10.1145/1047671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C. I., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C. I., & Yen, C. (2010). The man who lied to his laptop: What machines teach us about human relationships. New York, NY: Current.
   Google Scholar
• Oviatt, S. (2003). Advances in robust multimodal interface design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 23(5), 62–68. doi:10.1109/MCG.2003.1231179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passonneau, R. J., Epstein, S. L., Ligorio, T., & Gordon, J. (2011, June). Embedded wizardry. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2011 conference (pp. 248–258). Portland, OR.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rieser, V., & Lemon, O. (2008, June). Learning effective multimodal dialogue strategies from wizard-of-oz data: Bootstrapping and evaluation. Proceedings of ACL (638–646). Columbus, OH.
   Google Scholar
• Scollo, M. (2011). Cultural approaches to discourse analysis: A theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh’s cultural discourse theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 1–32. doi:10.1080/17447143.2010.536550
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. (1990). A classification of illocutionary acts. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 349–372). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Shahrokhi, M., & Bidabadi, F. S. (2013). An overview of politeness theories: Current status, future orientations. American Journal of Linguistics, 2(2), 17–27.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2004). Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37(4), 399–420. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsimhoni, O., Winter, U., & Grost, T. (2009, August). Cultural considerations for the design of automotive speech applications. Paper presented at the 17th World Congress on Ergonomics IEA, Beijing, China.
   Google Scholar
• Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Winschiers, H., & Fendler, J. (2007). Assumptions considered harmful: The need to redefine usability. In N. Aykin (Ed.), Usability and internationalization, Part I (pp. 452–461). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
   Google Scholar
• Winter, U., Shmueli, Y., & Grost, T. (2013, July). Interaction styles in use of automotive interfaces. In Proceedings of the Afeka AVIOS 2013 Speech Processing Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel.
   Google Scholar
• Winter, U., Tsimhoni, O., & Grost, T. (2011, June). Identifying cultural aspects in use of in-vehicle speech applications. In Proceedings of the Afeka AVIOS 2011 Speech Processing Conference, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
   Google Scholar