Literature DB >> 20161117

Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog.

Sarah Brown-Schmidt1.   

Abstract

In dialog settings, conversational partners converge on similar names for referents. These lexically entrained terms (Garrod & Anderson, 1987) are part of the common ground between the particular individuals who established the entrained term (Brennan & Clark, 1996), and are thought to be encoded in memory with a partner-specific cue. Thus far, analyses of the time-course of interpretation suggest that partner-specific information may not constrain the initial interpretation of referring expressions (Kronmüller & Barr, 2007; Barr & Keysar, 2002). However, these studies used non-interactive paradigms, which may limit the use of partner-specific representations. This article presents the results of three eye-tracking experiments. Experiment 1a used an interactive conversation methodology in which the experimenter and participant jointly established entrained terms for various images. On critical trials, the same experimenter, or a new experimenter described a critical image using an entrained term, or a new term. The results demonstrated an early, on-line partner-specific effect for interpretation of entrained terms, as well as preliminary evidence for an early, partner-specific effect for new terms. Experiment 1b used a non-interactive paradigm in which participants completed the same task by listening to image descriptions recorded during Experiment 1a; the results showed that partner-specific effects were eliminated. Experiment 2 replicated the partner-specific findings of Experiment 1a with an interactive paradigm and scenes that contained previously unmentioned images. The results suggest that partner-specific interpretation is most likely to occur in interactive dialog settings; the number of critical trials and stimulus characteristics may also play a role. The results are consistent with a large body of work demonstrating that the language processing system uses a rich source of contextual and pragmatic representations to guide on-line processing decisions.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 20161117      PMCID: PMC2740920          DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mem Lang        ISSN: 0749-596X            Impact factor:   3.059


  23 in total

1.  Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices.

Authors:  Calion B Lockridge; Susan E Brennan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-09

2.  Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children's on-line reference resolution.

Authors:  Aparna S Nadig; Julie C Sedivy
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-07

3.  The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production.

Authors:  William S Horton; Richard J Gerrig
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2004-12-13

4.  If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: the on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension.

Authors:  Jennifer E Arnold; Carla L Hudson Kam; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Pragmatic expectations and linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground.

Authors:  Dale J Barr
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-08-28

6.  The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming.

Authors:  William S Horton
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2007

7.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.

Authors:  S E Brennan; H H Clark
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination.

Authors:  S Garrod; A Anderson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1987-11

Review 9.  Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts.

Authors:  K M Eberhard; M J Spivey-Knowlton; J C Sedivy; M K Tanenhaus
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  1995-11

Review 10.  Source monitoring.

Authors:  M K Johnson; S Hashtroudi; D S Lindsay
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 17.737

View more
  28 in total

1.  Anticipating who will say what: the influence of speaker-specific memory associations on reference resolution.

Authors:  William S Horton; Daniel G Slaten
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-01

2.  Memory for conversation and the development of common ground.

Authors:  Geoffrey L McKinley; Sarah Brown-Schmidt; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-11

Review 3.  Language in dialogue: when confederates might be hazardous to your data.

Authors:  Anna K Kuhlen; Susan E Brennan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-02

4.  Comprehenders model the nature of noise in the environment.

Authors:  Rachel Ryskin; Richard Futrell; Swathi Kiran; Edward Gibson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-09-06

5.  To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form.

Authors:  Daphna Heller; Kristen S Gorman; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-03-02

6.  Accent modulates access to word meaning: Evidence for a speaker-model account of spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Zhenguang G Cai; Rebecca A Gilbert; Matthew H Davis; M Gareth Gaskell; Lauren Farrar; Sarah Adler; Jennifer M Rodd
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language Use.

Authors:  Sarah Brown-Schmidt; Melissa C Duff
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2016-10-31

8.  Modeling Intensive Polytomous Time-Series Eye-Tracking Data: A Dynamic Tree-Based Item Response Model.

Authors:  Sun-Joo Cho; Sarah Brown-Schmidt; Paul De Boeck; Jianhong Shen
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 2.500

9.  Do priming effects in dialogue reflect partner- or task-based expectations?

Authors:  Victor S Ferreira; Daniel Kleinman; Tanya Kraljic; Yanny Siu
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-04

10.  What's learned together stays together: speakers' choice of referring expression reflects shared experience.

Authors:  Kristen S Gorman; Whitney Gegg-Harrison; Chelsea R Marsh; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 3.051

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.