Cover not available

In:Handbook of Pragmatics: 28th Annual Installment
Edited by Jana Declercq, Frank Brisard, Sigurd D’hondt and Mieke Vandenbroucke
[Handbook of Pragmatics 28] 2025
► pp. 63–80

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Pragmatics and human-robot interaction

 | University of Southern Denmark
Published online: 18 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.28.pra8
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Understanding the pragmatic processes involved in HRI
  • 3.Supporting robot design and development
  • 4.Robots as testbed for pragmatic research
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (69)
References
Allwood, Jens, Joachim Nivre, and Elisabeth Ahlsén. 1992. “On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback.” Journal of Semantics 9 (1): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alm, Maria, Jardar Eggesbø Abrahamsen, Åsa Abelin, Egil Albertsen, and Jacques Koreman. 2021. “Parameters of tonal variation in and between three Scandinavian languages.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tone and Intonation (TAI), Sonderborg, Denmark, 278–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrist, Sean, Erin Spannan, and Bilge Mutlu. 2013. “Rhetorical robots: Making robots more effective speakers using linguistic cues of expertise.” In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), 341–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrist, Sean, Xiang Zhi Tan, Michael Gleicher, and Bilge Mutlu. 2014. “Conversational gaze aversion for humanlike robots.” In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 25–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrist, Sean, Micheline Ziadee, Halim Boukaram, Bilge Mutlu, and Majd Sakr. 2015. “Effects of culture on the credibility of robot speech: A comparison between English and Arabic.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Iinteraction, 157–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asadi, Ali, and Kerstin Fischer. 2023. “The effect of an empathy-eliciting intervention on the perception of telepresence robot users.” In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 90–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asadi, Ali, Erica Chinzer, Davide Marocco, and Kerstin Fischer. 2024. “Mitigating the negative effect of telepresence robots via an empathy-eliciting robot moderator.” In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE), 1182–1187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bu, Frank, Kerstin Fischer, and Wendy Ju. 2025. “Making sense of robots in public spaces: A study of trash barrel robots.” ACM Transactions in Human–Robot Interaction 14 (4): 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, Elizabeth J., Samantha Reig, Xiang Zhi Tan, Gierad Laput, Stephanie Rosenthal, and Aaron Steinfeld. 2020. “Death of a robot: Social media reactions and language usage when a robot stops operating.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 589–597. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Wan-Ling, and Selma Šabanović. 2015. “Studying socially assistive robots in their organizational context: Studies with paro in a nursing home.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts, 227–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chun, Bohkyung, and Heather Knight. 2020. “The robot makers: An ethnography of anthropomorphism at a robotics company.” ACM Transactions on Human–Robot Interaction 9 (3): 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Kerstin Fischer. 2023. “Social robots as depictions of social agents.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46: 1–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cross, Toni G., Terry G. Nienhuys, and Maggie Kirkman. 2014. “Parent–child interaction with receptively disabled children: Some determinants of maternal speech style.” In Children’s Language, ed. by K. E. Nelson, 247–290. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, Kerstin, Bernard Ogden, and Tom Quick. 2002. “From embodied to socially embedded agents: Implications for interaction-aware robots.” Cognitive Systems Research 3 (3): 397–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Visser, Ewart J., Marieke M. M. Peeters, Malte F. Jung, Spencer Kohn, Tyler H. Shaw, Richard Pak, and Mark A. Neerincx. 2020. “Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams.” International Journal of Social Robotics 12 (2): 459–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. “On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.” Psychological Review 114 (4): 864–886. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. “Robots as confederates: How robots can and should support research in the humanities.” In Proceedings of the Robophilosophy 2016 Conference, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “Tracking anthropomorphizing behavior in human–robot interaction.” ACM Transactions on Human–Robot Interaction 11 (1): Article 4 (March 2022), 28 pages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, and Alicja D. Prondzinska. 2020. “Experimental contrastive pragmatics using robots.” Contrastive Pragmatics 1: 82–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, and Matous Jelínek. Submitted. “Towards a systematic model of transparency for calibrating trust in social robots.”
Fischer, Kerstin, Malte Jung, Lars C. Jensen, and Maria aus der Wieschen. 2019. “Emotional expression by robots: When and why.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Daegu, Korea.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Katrin S. Lohan, and Kilian Foth. 2012. “Levels of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 463–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin and Yoshiko Matsumoto. 2023. “An experimental exploration of quotidian framing.” Contrastive Pragmatics 1: 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, and Oliver Niebuhr. 2020. “Studying language attitudes using robots.” In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Oliver Niebuhr, and Maria Alm. 2021. “Robots for foreign language learning: Speaking style influences student performance.” Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8: 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Oliver Niebuhr, and Ali Asadi. 2022. “The voice of creativity: Effects of pitch range in the voice of a robot facilitator.” In Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation 103: Elektronische Sprachsignalverarbeitung, 121–130. Dresden: TUDPress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Oliver Niebuhr, Lars Christian Jensen, and Leon Bodenhagen. 2020. “Speech melody matters: How robots can profit from using charismatic speech.” ACM Transactions in Human–Robot Interaction 9 (1): Article 4, 1–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Stephen Yang, Brian K. Mok, Rohan Maheshwari, David Sirkin, and Wendy Ju. 2015. “Initiating interactions and negotiating approach: A robotic trash can in the field.” In AAAI Spring Symposia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fucinato, Karen, Oliver Niebuhr, Sladjana Nørskov, and Kerstin Fischer. 2023. “Charismatic speech features in robot instructions enhance team creativity.” Frontiers in Communication 8: 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fussell, Susan R., Sara Kiesler, Leslie D. Setlock, and Victoria Yew. 2008. “How people anthropomorphize robots.” In Proceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE international conference on Human–robot interaction, 145–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groom, Victoria, Leila Takayama, Paloma Ochi, and Clifford Nass. 2009. “I am my robot: The impact of robot-building and robot form on operators.” In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 31–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ham, Jaap, Mirjam van Esch, Yvonne Limpens, Jente de Pee, John-John Cabibihan, and Shuzhi S. Ge. 2012. “The automaticity of social behavior towards robots: the influence of cognitive load on interpersonal distance to approachable versus less approachable robots.” Social Robotics: 4th International Conference, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, October 29–31, 2012. Proceedings 4: 15–25. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarske, Salla, Kirsikka Kaipainen, Aino Ahtinen, Jari Varsaluoma, and Kaisa Väänänen. 2025. “How could social robots support societal participation? Findings from five design workshops with young people.” International Journal of Social Robotics 17: 563–585. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juel, William K., Frederik Haarslev, Eduardo R. Ramirez, Emanuela Marchetti, Kerstin Fischer, Danish Shaikh, Poramate Manoonpong, Christian Hauch, Leon Bodenhagen, and Norbert Krüger. 2020. “Smooth robot: Design for a novel modular welfare robot.” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 98: 19–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jung, Malte, and Pamela Hinds. 2018. “Robots in the wild: A time for more robust theories of human-robot interaction.” ACM Transactions on Human–Robot Interaction 7 (1): 1–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn Jr, Peter. H., Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian T. Gill, Solace Shen, Heather E. Gary, and Jolina H. Ruckert. 2015. “Will people keep the secret of a humanoid robot? Psychological intimacy in HRI.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 173–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kircher, Ruth. 2016. “The matched-guise technique.” In Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide, ed. by Zhu Hua, 196–211. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, Wallace E. 1967. “A social psychology of bilingualism.” Journal of Social Issues 23 (2): 91–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langedijk, Rosalyn M., and Kerstin Fischer. 2023. “Persuasive robots in the field.” In Persuasive Technology, ed. by Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Cees Midden, and Jaap Ham, 251–264. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lockridge, Calion B., and Susan E. Brennan. 2002. “Addressees needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (3): 550–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchesi, Serena, Davide De Tommaso, Jairo Perez-Osorio, and Agnieszka Wykowska. 2022. “Belief in sharing the same phenomenological experience increases the likelihood of adopting the intentional stance toward a humanoid robot.“ Technology, Mind, and Behavior 3 (3): 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mura, Piergiorgio. 2024. “Attitudes towards Sardinian and Italian finally compared via the matched-guise technique.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 288: 121–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mutlu, Bilge, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2008. “Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction.” In Proceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 287–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nass, Clifford, and Youngme Moon. 2000. “Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (1): 81–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paetzel, Maike, and Ginevra Castellano. 2019. “Let me get to know you better: Can interactions help to overcome uncanny feelings?” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Human–Agent Interaction, 59–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, Elizabeth, Daniel Ullman, Maartje M. A. de Graaf, and Bertram F. Malle. 2017. “What does a robot look like?: A multi-site examination of user expectations about robot appearance.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61 (1): 1215–1219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, Danielle. “Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (4): 375–398.
Pitsch, Karola. 2023. “Mensch–Roboter-Interaktion als Forschungsinstrument der Interaktionalen Linguistik.” In Linguistische Methodenreflexion im Aufbruch, 119–152. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pitsch, Karola, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Yuya Suzuki, Luise Sussenbach, Paul Luff, and Christian Heath. 2009. “‘The first five seconds’: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in HRI.” In The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 985–991. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Randall, Natasha, and Selma Šabanović. 2025. “Do you want me?: Exploring differences in consumer home robot preferences, perceptions, and purchase intent.” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 14 (3): Article 43, 39 pages. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Astrid M., Nicole C. Krämer, Laura Hoffmann, Sabrina Sobieraj, and Sabrina C. Eimler. 2013. “An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot.” International Journal of Social Robotics 5: 17–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenthal-Von Der Pütten, Astrid M., Frank P. Schulte, Sabrina C. Eimler, Sabrina Sobieraj, Laura Hoffmann, Stefan Maderwald, Matthias Brand, and Nicole C. Krämer. 2014. “Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI.” Computers in Human Behavior 33: 201–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudaz, Damien, Karen Tatarian, Rebecca Stower, and Christian Licoppe. 2023. “From inanimate object to agent: Impact of pre-beginnings on the emergence of greetings with a robot.” ACM Transactions on Human–Robot Interaction 12 (3): 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruijten, Peter A. M., Antal Haans, Jaap Ham, and Cees J. H. Midden. 2019. “Perceived human-likeness of social robots: Testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring anthropomorphism.” International Journal of Social Robotics 11: 477–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972. “Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place.” In Studies in Social Interaction ed. by David N. Sudnow, 75–119. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schober, Michael F., and Susan E. Brennan. 2003. “Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner.” In Handbook of Discourse Processes, ed. by Michael F. Schober, David N. Rapp, and M. Anne Britt, 128–169. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seo, Stela H., Denise Geiskkovitch, Masayuki Nakane, Corey King, and James E. Young. 2015. “Poor thing! Would you feel sorry for a simulated robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 125–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skantze, Gabriel. 2017. “Predicting and regulating participation equality in human–robot conversations: Effects of age and gender.” In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE InternationalCconference on Human–Robot Interaction, 196–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoll, Brett, Samantha Reig, Lucy He, Ian Kaplan, Malte F. Jung, and Susan R. Fussell. 2018. “Wait, can you move the robot? Examining telepresence robot use in collaborative teams.” In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 14–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torre, Ilaria, Adrian Benigno Latupeirissa, and Conor McGinn. 2020. “How context shapes the appropriateness of a robot’s voice.” In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 215–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry. 2020. “A nascent robotics culture: New complicities for companionship.” In Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics, ed. by Wendell Wallach and Peter Asaro, 107–116. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry, Cynthia Breazeal, Olivia Dasté, and Brian Scassellati. 2006. “Encounters with Kismet and Cog: Children respond to relational artifacts.” In Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication, ed. by Paul Messaris and Lee Humphreys, 1–20. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, Alan, and Paul Robinette. 2021. “An explanation is not an excuse: Trust calibration in an age of transparent robots.” In: Trust in Human–Robot Interaction, ed. by Chang S. Nam and Joseph B. Lyons, 197–208. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walters, Michael L., Kheng L. Koay, Sarah N. Woods, Dag S. Syrdal, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. “Robot to human approaches: Preliminary results on comfortable distances and preferences.” In AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics, 103–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkle, Katie, Gaspar Isaac Melsión, Donald McMillan, and Iolanda Leite. 2021. “Boosting robot credibility and challenging gender norms in responding to abusive behaviour: A case for feminist robots.” In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 29–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wykowska, Anna. 2021. “Robots as mirrors of the human mind.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 30 (1): 34–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue