Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 2/2020

25-07-2018 | Original Article

The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue

Auteurs: Dominique Knutsen, Ludovic Le Bigot

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

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.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
The notion of conceptualisation in the current study can be linked with the literature on perspective-taking, and more specifically with the notion of “level 2 perspective-taking”, which refers to how people “view” a scene (see Flavell, Everett, Croft, & Flavell, 1981).
 
2
Precisely, a similar research question was addressed in an experiment reported by Wilkes-Gibbs (1995). However, in that experiment, the participants were primed to conceptualise the stimuli used in a certain way, in contrast to the current study where the participants’ own conceptualisations were taken into account.
 
3
Most experiments involving matching tasks only require the participants to perform one matching game. However, data collected previously (Knutsen & Le Bigot, 2016) suggested that the number of cases in which the participants would share the same initial conceptualisation of the picture under discussion would be quite small compared to the number of cases in which the participants would hold different initial conceptualisations of this picture. We thus required the participants to take part in four matching games to increase the number of observations per participant and per dyad.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
go back to reference Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference 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., & Bangerter, A. (2004). Changing conceptions of reference. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 25–49). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
go back to reference 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., & 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
go back to reference 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. (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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hupet, M., Chantraine, Y., & Nef, F. (1993). References in conversation between young and old normal adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 339–346.CrossRef Hupet, M., Chantraine, Y., & Nef, F. (1993). References in conversation between young and old normal adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 339–346.CrossRef
go back to reference 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 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/​0361092990883246​0.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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 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
Metagegevens
Titel
The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue
Auteurs
Dominique Knutsen
Ludovic Le Bigot
Publicatiedatum
25-07-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1060-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2020

Psychological Research 2/2020 Naar de uitgave