Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
When two dialogue partners need to refer to something, they jointly negotiate which referring expression should be used. If needed, the chosen referring expression is then reused throughout the interaction, which potentially has a direct, positive impact on subsequent communication. The purpose of this study was to determine if the way in which the partners view, or conceptualise, the referent under discussion, affects referring expression negotiation and subsequent communication. A matching task was preceded by an individual task during which participants were required to describe their conceptualisations of abstract tangram pictures. The results revealed that participants found it more difficult to converge on single referring expression during the matching task when they initially held different conceptualisations of the pictures. This had a negative impact on the remainder of the task. These findings are discussed in light of the shared versus mutual knowledge distinction, highlighting how the former directly contributes to the formation of the latter.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001. CrossRef
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73184.108.40.2062. PubMed
Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? The costs and benefits of hedging. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on work activities coordination and collaboration (pp. 227–235). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/295665.295942.
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Clark, H. H., & Bangerter, A. (2004). Changing conceptions of reference. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 25–49). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. CrossRef
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004. CrossRef
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. (1978). Reference diaries. In D. L. Waltz (Ed.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 57–63). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (Vol. 2, pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children’s knowledge about visual perception: Further evidence of the level 1–level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-16220.127.116.11. CrossRef
Fox Tree, J. E. (2010). Discourse markers across speakers and settings. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00195.x.
Gann, T. M., & Barr, D. J. (2014). Speaking from experience: Audience design as expert performance. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29, 744–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.641388.
Gorman, K. S., Gegg-Harrison, W., Marsh, C. R., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). What’s learned together stays together: Speakers’ choice of referring expression reflects shared experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029467. PubMed
Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0. CrossRef
Hupet, M., & Chantraine, Y. (1992). Changes in repeated references: Collaboration or repetition effects? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067526.
Hupet, M., Seron, X., & Chantraine, Y. (1991). The effects of the codability and discriminability of the referents on the collaborative referring procedure. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1991.tb02412.x. CrossRef
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). Reference in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3418.104.22.168. CrossRef
Keselman, H. J., Algina, J., Kowalchuk, R. K., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1999). The analysis of repeated measurements: A comparison of mixed-model satterthwaite F tests and a nonpooled adjusted degrees of freedom multivariate test. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 28, 2967–2999. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610929908832460. CrossRef
Kiernan, K., Tao, J., & Gibbs, P. (2012). Tips and strategies for mixed modelling with SAS/STAT procedures. Presented at the 2012 SAS Global Forum, Orlando, FL.
Knutsen, D., & Le Bigot, L. (2012). Managing dialogue: How information availability affects collaborative reference production. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.06.001. CrossRef
Knutsen, D., Ros, C., & Le Bigot, L. (2018). Spoilt for choice: Initially considering several referential expressions affects subsequent referential decisions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 618–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1400080. CrossRef
McInnes, F., & Attwater, D. (2004). Turn-taking and grounding in spoken telephone number transfers. Speech Communication, 43, 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2004.04.001. CrossRef
Nückles, M., Winter, A., Wittwer, J., Herbert, M., & Hübner, S. (2006). How do experts adapt their explanations to a layperson’s knowledge in asynchronous communication? An experimental study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16, 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-006-9000-y. CrossRef
Rogers, S. L., & Fay, N. (2016). Stick or switch: A selection heuristic predicts when people take the perspective of others or communicate egocentrically. PLoS One, 11, e0159570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159570. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Vanlangendonck, F., Willems, R. M., Menenti, L., & Hagoort, P. (2016). An early influence of common ground during speech planning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1148747. CrossRef
Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1995). Coherence in collaboration: Some examples from conversation. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (Vol. 31, pp. 239–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossRef
- The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue
Ludovic Le Bigot
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772