Dialogue About Expressing Agreement And Disagreement
Keywords: multimodality, communication, agreement, subject, HuComTech We should not worry about things we cannot control. Agreements and disagreements usually relate to your personal thoughts and feelings about something. Phrases like “I think” or “in my opinion” clearly show that you have an opinion and not a fact. We can see that the frequency of the elements in the notes does not necessarily correspond to their frequency in the actual models: beware, the most common note element is only considered the third most common element in a sample, it is preceded in frequency by standard and consistent concordance. These frequency data give us an insight into the nature of recorded conversations: there were many moments of attention, as a natural component of a dialogue, but the fact that there were more moments of disagreement (by default) than the agreement also suggests that the interaction was fairly free. The small number of rejection objects, axis increases of doubts and surprise hands suggest that the interaction does not contain much direct confrontation. Another set of observations to determine the degree of agreement showed that there were 2331 cases of the uninteresting element – another reflection of the interlocutor on a moment of interaction. Its relatively low frequency shows once again that the actors were properly involved in the dialogues. During the development of the HuComTech Corpus, we wanted to identify a large number of multimodal behaviors during a certain observation period. Based on the resulting database data, this paper focuses on the discovery of time models related to agreement/disagreement.
It describes the methodological basis of the structure of the corpus, the analysis and interpretation of the data. Particular emphasis is placed on the Theme research tool: we describe both its theoretical bases facilitating the analysis of multimodal behavioral data and some methodological questions of its application to the HuComTech Corpus. Finally, we present a selection of the most common temporal patterns related to the pragmatic function of concordance detected in the body and show their actual context in recorded interactions. This is perhaps one of the weakest formulations of English. Normally, people say it when they don`t really have to do something, but don`t see why they should oppose it. Here is the example of the very short dialogue that consists of agreement and differences in the dialogue: Dialogue 5 Abi: The weather is getting warmer and warmer. Bio: This is one of the effects on global warming. Abi: Yes, I know. Bio: When I think about it, global warming shows us that our planet is dying. Abi: You agree! Without global warming, we didn`t even know we had to save our planet. Bio: Oh what an irony! We will not begin to take care of our planet as long as it is about to die. Abi: Yes, it`s a shame, but at least we`ll take care of it.
Table 10 confirms our discrepancies: it is strongly linked to head jolts in a series of files (records). Its orientation in time towards disagreements is also evident: the beginning of the disagreement ends with the beginning of the shake-head, its end with the end of the shake-head. It is also interesting to note that the forward launch can be associated with both the beginning and the end of disagreements, the direction that suggests certain cognitive processes corresponding to the current state of disagreement.