Literature DB >> 22845064

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

Kristen S Gorman1, Whitney Gegg-Harrison, Chelsea R Marsh, Michael K Tanenhaus.   

Abstract

When referring to named objects, speakers can choose either a name (mbira) or a description (that gourd-like instrument with metal strips); whether the name provides useful information depends on whether the speaker's knowledge of the name is shared with the addressee. But, how do speakers determine what is shared? In 2 experiments a naïve participant (director) learned names for novel objects, then instructed another participant (matcher), who viewed 3 objects, to click on the target object. Directors learned novel names in 2 phases. First, the director and the matcher learned (shared) names either together or alone; second, the director learned (privileged) names alone. Directors typically used a name for items with shared names and a description for items with privileged names. When the director and matcher learned the names individually but with knowledge of what the other learned, directors were much more likely to use privileged names than when director and matcher learned shared names together. Experiment 1b separated effects of collaborative learning from partner-specific effects, showing collaborative learning experience with 1 person helps a speaker distinguish shared and privileged information with a new partner who has the same knowledge. Experiment 2 showed that partner-specific effects persisted even when semantic category was a reliable cue to which names were privileged. The results are interpreted as evidence that ordinary memory processes provide access to shared knowledge in real-time production of referring expressions and that shared experience when learning shared names provides a strong memory cue to the ground status of names. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22845064      PMCID: PMC3811074          DOI: 10.1037/a0029467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  24 in total

1.  The effect of information overlap on communication effectiveness.

Authors:  Shali Wu; Boaz Keysar
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2007-02

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.  Examining the time course of indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Conor T McLennan; Paul A Luce
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.051

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

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

5.  Don't talk about pink elephants! Speaker's control over leaking private information during language production.

Authors:  Liane Wardlow Lane; Michelle Groisman; Victor S Ferreira
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-04

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

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

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

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

8.  The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension.

Authors:  Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-10

9.  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

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

Authors:  Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

View more
  12 in total

1.  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

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

Authors:  Dominique Knutsen; Ludovic Le Bigot
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-07-25

3.  Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language Use.

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

4.  Talker-specificity and adaptation in quantifier interpretation.

Authors:  Ilker Yildirim; Judith Degen; Michael K Tanenhaus; T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  Experimental investigations of weak definite and weak indefinite noun phrases.

Authors:  Natalie M Klein; Whitney M Gegg-Harrison; Greg N Carlson; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2013-05-15

6.  All P's or mixed vegetables?

Authors:  Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-05-08

7.  Capturing egocentric biases in reference reuse during collaborative dialogue.

Authors:  Dominique Knutsen; Ludovic Le Bigot
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12

8.  Adjustment of speaker's referential expressions to an addressee's likely knowledge and link with theory of mind abilities.

Authors:  Amélie M Achim; Marion Fossard; Sophie Couture; André Achim
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-06-17

9.  The influence of partner-specific memory associations on picture naming: a failure to replicate Horton (2007).

Authors:  Sarah Brown-Schmidt; William S Horton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  What's in a Name? Interlocutors Dynamically Update Expectations about Shared Names.

Authors:  Whitney M Gegg-Harrison; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-02-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.