Ortak ve İşbirliğine Dayalı Eylem Bağlamında İletişim Sistemlerinin Gelişimi

Yıl 2023, , 785 - 800, 04.12.2023

Murat Ulubay

https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1351753

Öz

İletişim sistemleri, kolektif bilişsel faaliyetin gerektiği ortak-eylem alanının önemli bir unsuru olmuştur. (Sebanz and Knoblich, 2006). Çalışmada sanal bir deneysel ortamda katılımcı çiftlerin iletişim imkanları metin tabanlı bir arayüzde çok kısıtlı sayıda harf ve sembole sınırlanarak, sekiz deney oturumunun her birinde benzer ama farklı ortak eylem görevleri verilmiştir. Katılımcılar deneyler ilerledikçe ortak eylem kapasitelerini geliştirmiş ve her çift kendine özel bir iletişim sistemi geliştirmiştir. Yapılan analizlerde deneyler ilerledikçe, birçok niceliksel parametrelerle ilgili olan trendlerle beraber, Yönlendirici ve Saptayıcı-Betimleyici söz-eylemleri kullanım oranlarında sırasıyla azalan ve artan trendler saptanmıştır. Bu durumun olgunlaşmış işbirliği kapasitesini sağlayan bilişsel psikolojik mekanizmaların ve etkin iletişim sistemlerinin gelişiminin göstergesi olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ortak-eylem, kolektif zeka, söz-eylem, biliş, bağıntı kuramı, bilişsel psikoloji

Etik Beyan

Araştırma, yapıldığı dönemde geçerli tüm etik kural ve ilkelere uygun şekilde gerçekleştirilmiştir. O sıradaki uygulama nedeniyle etik kurul onayı gerekmediğinden bir onay alınmamıştır.

Teşekkür

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deep respect to my PhD supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Annette Hohenberger, for her invaluable guidance and unwavering support throughout my academic journey.

Emergence of Communication Systems in Collaborative and Joint Action

Öz

Communication is a focal point in studies of joint action, where collective cognitive activity required (Sebanz and Knoblich, 2006). In this study, a virtual experimental environment was utilized where participants’ communication was restricted to text messaging interface with a limited set of letters and symbols. In eight experimental sessions, similar but different joint action tasks were given; each couple improved their joint action skills and developed their own private communication systems. Analysis shows, in addition to several quantitative parameters, trends of diminishing use ratio of directive speech acts and increasing use ratio of assertive speech acts had been observed which are claimed to be characteristics of development of a mature and effective communication system and cognitive mechanisms of joint action.

Anahtar Kelimeler

joint-action, cognitive psychology, speech acts, relevance theory, cognition

Kaynakça

• Appling, D.S., Briscoe, E.J., Hayes, H & Mappus, R.L. (2013). Towards Automated Personality Identification Using Speech Acts. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
• Axelrod, R. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390-1396.
• Bach, K. (2005). Speech Acts. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/spchacts.html
• Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., & Arnau, J. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29.4, 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383
• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. In Analysis (Vol. 58, Issue 1, pp. 7–19). Oxford University Press (OUP). https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
• Clarks, H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737-767.
• Galantucci, B. (2005). An Experimental Study of the Emergence of Human Communication Systems. In Cognitive Science (Vol. 29, Issue 5, pp. 737–767). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1551670
• Galantucci, B., & Sebanz, N. (2009). Joint Action: Current Perspectives. In Topics in Cognitive Science (Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 255–259). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756 8765.2009.01017.x
• Gerard, S., & Pickering, M. (2004). Why is Conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 8
• Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. (P. Cole, & J. Morgan, Eds.) Syntax and semantics: Speech Acts, 3, 41-58.
• Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press.
• Hutchins, E., & Johnson, J. (2009). Modelling the Emergence of Language as an Embodied Collective Cognitive Activity. Topics inn Cognitive Science, 523-544.
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
• Nolfi, S. (2005). Emergence of communication in embodied agents: co-adapting communicative behaviours. Connection Science, 231 - 248.
• Origgi, G., & Sperberger, D. (2000). Evolution, communication and the proper function of language. In P. Carruthers, & A. Chamberlain (Eds.), Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Social Cognition (pp. 140-169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Qadir, A., & Riloff, E. (2011). Classifying Sentences as Speech Acts in Message Board Posts. Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 748-758. https://aclanthology.org/D11-1069
• Port, R. (1999). Language as a Formal System. https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/~port/pap/daviton/formal.lg.html
• Scott-Phillips, T. C., Kirby, S., & Ritchie, G. R. S. (2009). Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. In Cognition (Vol. 113, Issue 2, pp. 226–233). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.009
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76.
• Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less Is More: A Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication. In Topics in Cognitive Science (Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 260–273). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01018.x
• Shockley, K., Richardson, D., & Dale, R. (2009). Conversation and coordinative structures. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 305–319.
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2006). Pragmatics. (F. Jackson, & M. Smith, Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language, 468-501.
• Steels, Luc (2003). Language re-entrance and the 'inner voice'. Journal of Consciousness Studies (4-5):174-185.
• Steels, L. (2006). Experiments on the emergence of human communication. In Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Vol. 10, Issue 8, pp. 347–349). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.002
• Stenning, K., Lascarides, A., & Calder, J. (2006). Introduction to Cognition and Communication. The MIT Press.
• Thagard, P. (2005). Introduction to Cognitive Science. The MIT Press.
• Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675-691.
• Ulubay, M. (2013). Resilient Features of Re-Emerging Dyadic Communication Systems in an Interactive Virtual Environment. Ankara: METU. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12615502/index.pdf
• Vogt, W. (1999). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Non-Technical Guide for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Wagner, K., Reggia, J., Uriagereka, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2003). Progress in the Simulation of Emergent Communication and Language. International Society for Adaptive Behavior, 11(1), 37-69.