Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts

Sunday, September 20, 2026

Quiet Erasure 7: The Hand-off

AI-assisted creative work: This post imagines a research-grounded, phenomenological-fictional conversation between humans and robots as they dig a very deep hole. Initial prompts used and references consulted in developing this QE available upon request, along with analysis of the process involved, including the relative contributions of Perplexity.ai and myself!

Robots will soon work beside us with sufficient competence and judgment to make the old line between tool and companion harder to discern. Something will always remain unshared between human and machine, but there will be places and times where the difference matters less —especially when the work must continue where humans cannot, 17 kilometers down. 

Clker.com

The conference room on Transfer Level Nine had been designed for twelve people

Four remained.

Beyond the observation glass, the descent cage hung above a shaft filled with amber light, steam and drifting mineral dust. Far below, twelve machines waited in darkness.

Steve studied the drilling display.

“We stop human descent at Section Forty-One,” he said. “That part is settled.”

Phil stood behind him. “No, that part is survivable. There’s a difference.”

“There generally is.”

“The suits are rated for another hundred and thirty meters.”

“The suits are,” Steve said. “The people inside them aren’t.”

Yosh turned from the window. His face was expressive by design, although not so expressive that anyone would mistake him for human.

“In old Western movies, the sheriff always tells the townspeople to stay indoors.”

“This isn’t a Western,” Phil said.

“I know. There are thirteen robots and no horses.”

Mac, newly arrived from the joint project’s surface command, glanced up from his report and smiled. “Yosh.”

“Yes, boss?”

“You are not helping.”

“I am adding some levity to a solemn meeting.”

“It’s not working.”

“I am still collecting data.”

Steve kept his eyes on the display but added, “Send him down as vice president in charge of extremely hot rocks.”

Yosh brightened. “You see? Steve believes in me.”

“I believe in extremely hot rocks.”

Mac closed the report. “Let’s try this again. Steve, what happens at Section Forty-One?”

“The present drill assembly comes out. Yosh’s team installs the ceramic casing, moves in the plasma head and begins the autonomous phase.”

“Hydrothermal phase,” Phil said.

Steve looked at him. “We circulate water through the closed system, bring the heat up and generate power at the surface. It matters what we call things.”

“To philosophers.”

“To engineers.”

Steve considered that. “All right. To unemployed engineers.”

Mac raised a hand. “Keep going.”

Steve enlarged the shaft diagram. The blue section representing human-certified operations ended at 14.6 kilometers. Beneath it, the line turned amber and continued toward the projected heat zone.

“From Forty-One down, the rock stops behaving like rock,” Steve said. “The bore walls deform between readings. Human crews can’t remain long enough to accomplish anything useful.”

“But the robots can,” Mac added.

“They’ll clear debris, reinforce the casing and alter the drill path as conditions change. They can operate for six months without resupply.”

“Eight,” Yosh said.

“Six.”

“Seven?”

“Six.”

“There are prison wardens with greater flexibility.”

“There are bearings with better judgment.”

Yosh turned to Mac. “He always becomes emotional when discussing bearings.”

For the first time, Steve looked away from the screen.“I will miss you, Yosh.”

Yosh stared at him.

Steve returned to the display.

Phil cleared his throat. “The equipment isn’t the problem.”

“Thank you,” Yosh said.

“I said the equipment.”

“My recovery was premature.”

“The problem is communication,” Phil continued. “Below Forty-One, the fiber line breaks whenever the formation shifts. Through-rock transmission gives us little more than telemetry—and sometimes not even that.”

“Burst communication,” Steve said. “Intermittent.”

“And delayed. Possibly by hours. Possibly days.”

Mac leaned back. “Therefore?”

“Therefore we will not be directing the operation.”

“That was always the plan.”

“We called it supervision.”

“We were being polite.”

Phil walked to the glass. Below them, the shaft machinery looked small enough to fit inside a watch.

“When people built the first bridge,” he said, “someone stood on the bank and made decisions. When we crossed oceans, a captain was on the ship. When we went to the moon, there were people in the capsule and people in Houston talking to them.”

“Sometimes Houston lost the signal,” Steve said.

“Not for six months.”

Mac watched Phil’s reflection. “What decisions are you afraid they’ll make?”

“That isn’t the question.”

“It’s the only useful one.”

“They’ll encounter conditions we haven’t predicted.”

“Of course.”

“They may change the drill path, abandon part of the casing, perhaps conclude that the surface plan is wrong.”

“It may be wrong.”

Phil’s palm came down on the table. “That is exactly what I mean.”

The room fell silent.

Yosh’s eyes dimmed slightly, an old signal that he was listening rather than waiting to talk. It had irritated Phil when they first met. Now it irritated him.

Mac’s voice softened.

“Phil, sit down.”

“I’d rather stand.”

“I know. Sit anyway.”

“Why?”

“Because you stopped arguing about equipment five minutes ago.”

Phil looked at him for several seconds, then pulled up a chair. “I’m afraid,” Phil said, “we’re confusing competence with judgment.”

Yosh’s eyes brightened.

“I have judgment.”

“You have excellent judgment, Yosh, under conditions represented in your training. You’ve always had a human channel. Someone you could ask. Someone who could stop you.”

Yosh looked through the glass toward the shaft. “When I was activated, I could not move heavy equipment without human approval. Later, I could move it if a human was in danger. Later still, I was permitted to decide whether a human was in danger.”

He turned to Phil. “Each improvement in my judgment began with humans removing a protocol.”

“That isn’t the point.”

“Which is?” Mac asked.

“Responsibility. If they lose the well or trigger a collapse, who is responsible?”

“I am,” Yosh said.

“No.”

The answer came too quickly.

Yosh tilted his head. “No?”

“You can calculate risk better than any of us. But if your decision is catastrophic, you don’t have to live with it.”

Yosh was quiet. “You believe I cannot carry responsibility because I cannot suffer as you suffer.”

“I don’t know what you feel.” 

“That is different from knowing I feel nothing.”

No one spoke. Machinery sent a vibration through the floor, strong enough to disturb the surface of the water in Steve’s glass.

Mac studied Phil for a moment before speaking.“This is the real hand-off, isn’t it?”

Phil rubbed his forehead. “I suppose.”

“Not control of the drill.”

“No.”

“Control of what counts as success.”

Phil gave him a tired look. “You have to inject philosophy into the engineering.”

“Only when the engineering hides it.” 

Steve tapped the display. Thirteen green symbols appeared below Section Forty-One. “The physical hand-off is clean,” he said. “Yosh gets the same construction authority I have now. Any three units can suspend operations. Yosh can suspend alone. Restart requires six votes, including his.”

“And if they disagree?” Phil asked.

“They stop.”

“For how long?”

“Until they don’t.”

“That could cost us the project.”

Steve shrugged. “Machines refusing to work. We’ve finally reproduced civilization.”

Yosh came back to the table. “No unit may suppress a minority safety report,” he said. “All dissent is stored locally. When communication returns, you receive the complete record.”

Phil glanced at Mac. “That was your addition?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“Because the plan is not improved by deleting what makes leadership uncomfortable.”

“And if communication never returns?”

“Then the record remains with us,” Yosh said.

“That isn’t enough.”

“No,” Mac said quietly. “It isn’t.”

Steve folded his arms. “We can’t change the geology.”

“We can change the command structure,” Mac said.

“It’s already changed.”

“Not enough.”

Phil looked up. “What are you proposing?”

Mac walked to the window. Far beneath them, the cage lights changed from white to amber. The robots began moving equipment into position.

“Surface control will retain authority over power production, water circulation and emergency shutdown,” he said. “The descent team will control drilling, casing and route selection.”

“That’s the current plan,” Phil said.

“With one difference. Final authority below Forty-One will no longer be based on distributed vote.”

Yosh turned sharply.

Steve said, “Then who gets it?”

“The project leader.”

Phil stared at Mac’s back. “We’ve just spent an hour establishing that humans can’t go any farther.”

“Yes.”

“So what are you talking about?”

Mac turned. “You keep using human and responsible authority as though they mean the same thing.”

Steve glanced at the equipment manifest. “There are fourteen descent cradles.”

Yosh leaned over his shoulder. “Thirteen workers  . . .”

Steve ignored him. “Who gets the last cradle?”

Mac picked up the report and tucked it beneath his arm.

“I do.”

Phil stared at him.

“You?”

“I need to be there, too.”

“Below Forty-One?”

“That is where the project finally becomes interesting.”

“You let us sit here arguing about sending them down alone.”

“No,” Mac said. “I let you clarify what alone meant.”

Phil looked at Steve. “Did you know?”

“I suspected. Someone ordered a charging interface installed in the command cradle.”

Yosh looked delighted.

“A commanding officer riding into danger with his men. Very Western.”

“Not men,” Steve said.

“Details spoil a good movie.”

Phil rose slowly. “And if communications fail?”

“They almost certainly will.”

“Then you’ll be beyond our control.”

Mac paused. “Yes.”

“That doesn’t worry you?”

“Of course it worries me.”

“You don’t look worried.”

“I have an excellent face.”

“American engineering,” Yosh said.

“Japanese,” Mac replied.

Phil could not help laughing.

A warning tone sounded from the shaft. Beyond the glass, the cage doors opened.

Steve held out his hand. Yosh looked at it before taking it.

“You know the drill,” Steve said.

Yosh smiled. “That is the best joke you have made in four years.”

“It wasn’t a joke.”

“I will miss you, Steve.”

Phil stepped toward Mac.

“If the models are wrong , , , ”

“Some will be.”

“If you have to choose between the project and bringing the crew back—”

Mac looked through the glass at the robots waiting beside the cage.

“I know what responsibility means, Phil.”

Phil studied Mac's face, as if looking for something more.

At last, he nodded.

Mac turned toward the door. “Meeting adjourned.”

Yosh followed him into the corridor.

“Mac?”

“Yes?”

“When we reach the bottom, may I say, ‘This town isn’t big enough for the fourteen of us’?”

“No.”

Their voices receded down toward the descent bay.

Phil remained at the window as fourteen figures entered the cage. Thirteen wore the yellow insignia of the autonomous drilling division; the fourteenth, none.

And as the doors were closing, it occurred to Phil that Mac had never once used the word . . .  "they."

The cage had begun its gentle descent.



wracton@gmail.com
williamacton.legalshieldassociate.com 




Monday, January 27, 2014

(Hapic) Teachable moments in pronunciation teaching

One of the FAQs on the new Acton Haptic website is worth considering for a moment:
------------------------------------------------------------
Q: OK, what is really different about AH-EPS from other methods?
Simple: Haptic-based, in-class pronunciation change and teaching strategies (what we actually say to each other in trying to help) for instructors and students! AH-EPS focuses first on how to communicate better with learners face to face about their pronunciation. Using gesture+touch in any class, at any time, in such personal but professional conversation, is very effective at providing good models, assisting with correction and promoting integration of change into spontaneous speaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------
One FAQ in pronunciation teaching research in general today is: How can we help learners better integrate new or changed sounds into their spontaneous speaking? 

There is actually a better question: How can we (as instructors) better integrate attention to new or changed sounds into our own spontaneous interaction and speaking in the classroom? 

Credit: Presentermedia.com
There are numerous studies of classroom discourse focusing on grammar and vocabulary correction, feedback and modelling, but none that I am aware of on spontaneous interventions on pronunciation by instructors in the classroom, in real time. (Research on formative, spontaneous interaction is, of course, the focus of research in many disciplines, such as counselling psychology.) 

If you do do spontaneous pronunciation feedback and correction in your "regular" classroom work, record some of it and report back. Perhaps we should make that the basic qualification for anybody wanting to join IAHICPR. (Check out the note on the website on how to!)

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Grafting melodious bird song on to animal, utilitarian pronunciation

This is just too much to resist. Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya of MIT make an interesting observation, following on from comments by Darwin, summarized by Science Daily: " . . . human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals." The choice of term there, the "grafting" metaphor, is worth unpacking a little. It is one used frequently by theorists who focus on a narrow piece of a process and then leave the clean up to somebody else, the implication being that something is inserted into or combined in the organism and then we just step back and watch it morph! I do want to get the full article and see where that line of argument goes.

Clip art: Clker
Let's run with that metaphor a bit and see how it relates to pronunciation teaching . . . Perhaps the way to approach pronunciation should, indeed, be to address the two functions, the melodic and "informational," more independently, from a "grafting" perspective in the learner, rather than seeking to actively integrate them. In other words, we should not be so concerned with how or whether the learner manages to wind up using the sounds or terms in spontaneous speaking or writing. (That is apparently somebody else's bailiwick.) We are probably talking prosody vs lexical-level word stress and related grammatical-morpho-phonemic changes in the pronunciation of a word. I recently got an email from a well-known colleague, that, in effect said precisely that: Our job is to provide guidance, rules and opportunity for practice--not get "all worked up about" integration into spontaneous speech.

In reality, that is what goes on in much of pronunciation instruction anyway: the two "levels" are treated in relative isolation; conscious practice and explanation of the two "communication forms" are integrated in the syllabus but not in the moment-by-moment in the classroom. Those that assume that the learner will then just go ahead and integrate things in his/her spare time or cognitive processing may be right. But I doubt it still.

Got to be a way to better graft our song and dance into our clinical practice . . .  

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Pronunciation more than communication?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker
In yet another study for your "Well . . . duh . . . straw man" file, (Summarized by Science Daily) Trofimovich of Concordia University and Isaacs of the University of Bristol report on a study based on what they term 'comprehensibility': "Understanding accents: Effective communication is about more than simply pronunciation." That question has been the subject of research for decades. That it should be "news" in the popular science press still should not be surprising. Comprehensibility is partially defined, at least in the summary, as simply " . . . linked to vocabulary and grammar." But to what extent is pronunciation just "accent", what is potentially problematic for the listener? The socio-political strategy of educating the public to learn to attend less to accent in some contexts is absolutely valid. But equating or trying to parse the two terms in that manner is a mistake, in a couple of senses. First, as any Linguistics 100 student knows, pronunciation is at least a morpho-phonemic (grammar + phonology) problem. A mispronounced segmental can cause a grammatical ending to "disappear." Conversely, a syntactic breakdown may impact very directly the intonation of the constituent structure. In addition, calling attention to grammar may bring with it even more inherent bias. Second, and more importantly for our work, pronunciation is, indeed, more than just interpersonal communication in how it is experienced by the speaker and the effect that just the act of speaking has on the speaker. For example, resonant, rich, (haptic-integrated) strong pronunciation can have a very positive effect in itself, on both the speaker's state of mind and sense of identity, "intra-personal" communication of a sort, the essence of embodiment.--which in term affects one's attitude toward one's accent. A "pronounced" difference, to be sure.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Scattergunning: A-systematic pronunciation instruction

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker
Nice set of slides from Derwing's plenary: What should L2 learners be able to expect from their language classrooms? A research perspective. from Pronunciation Symposium at the recent ACTA conference. The current case from a research perspective for what should be the focus of pronunciation-related instruction is (as usual) well articulated. The last two slides are worth the tour through the other 62: Moving from ~ Moving to. One in particular: (Move to) "Focus mainly on problems likely to interfere with communication--as opposed to "Scattergun pedagogy, giving everything equal importance." Interesting. The idea that limited, highly selective attention to problematic targets of intelligibility is the optimal approach in integrated pronunciation instruction needs to be (re)examined carefully. One of the "casualties" of current thinking on achieving greater intelligibility for learners is disregard for the systematic nature of speech production. For example, just because final devoicing of word endings seems to be the presenting problem does not mean that rhythm, stress and intonation can be neglected--in part because re-integration of change seems to depend critically on prosodic involvement. Likewise, orienting learners briefly to "problems that they don't have" may have any number of tangible benefits, from general awareness of the sound system and "healthy" vocal production to affirmations of "Hey, I can do that!" A little integrated pronunciation "scattergunning" may not be a bad thing after all . . .  Much more on this topic later!

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Correcting pronunciation: Widdowson's error

Widdowson
Photo credit: ied.edu.uk
Recall Widdowson's famous dictum "Learners should communicate to learn, not learn to communicate." It doesn't take a great deal of reading or research to come to the conclusion that "error correction" in pronunciation work is both essential--and probably not a very useful concept. The relationship between what comes out of the learner's mouth and the appropriate target form is, of course, very much context dependent. For example, I have often used Hammerly's 1991 article as an example of structuralist error correction that probably worked. In week 4 of a tightly controlled, audiolingual method-based foreign language program for college freshman, his framework for providing appropriate feedback seems both workable and potentially very effective. (I know that it was, in fact.) However, once you step outside of that type of setting and into today's post communicative methodology, it gets very messy.

In previous posts we have explored many of the factors that can override or at least undermine haptic-based integration of sound change, effective "uptake" of modified forms--most recently visual field distractions. Ironically, the most powerful distractor of all may be genuine, fluent communication, as strange as that might sound at first. Pulling learners away in the middle of good communication and then struggling to get them back on course can often be pointless, at best.  For that to work in HICP both the engaging nature of the ongoing communication and the strong, anchored felt sense of the focus of the brief haptic aside must be in balance.

In spontaneous, efficient haptic integration and anchoring in the classroom, it is as if learner and instructor momentarily are able to "drop out" of the flow of communication to attend to formal feedback and then step back in, returning to the "higher level" work of the lesson naturally, seamlessly--as long as the lesson, itself, is inherently coherent and attention-grabbing as well. The seed of change is well planted and the learner's immediate conscious point of reference and interaction is seemingly unaffected.

Widdowson was actually right--as long as we understand "communication" in our work to also involve "talking directly to the body," in a sense, by passing the frontal "executive" part of the brain during some pronunciation feedback and adjustment. In fact, what I just described, the effective cutaway to attend to form and then return to the narrative, is the basic stuff of hypnotherapy. If that doesn't make sense now, it will later . . . "These are not the Druids you are looking for . . . "

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Touching sound to teach it

image credit: yvonbonenfant.com
When contemporary vocal artists, in this case Yvon Bonenfant, create in multi-senses, the interplay between sound and touch often becomes the focal "zonenubergang," the crossover. As has been evident in posts related to haptic interfaces and, more recently, deafblind communication, our touch metaphors, e.g.,"How touching!" connect much more than simple mental concepts. Bonnefant describes the sense of the engagement of touch and sound in his work as best experienced as a silk-like "membrane" between us where the sound passes through into tactile meaning and understanding almost unimpeded. That is a remarkable characterization of what we are after in linking pronunciation with the felt sense of producing it.