Adjusting Conceptual Pacts in Three-Party Conversation

被引:54
作者
Yoon, Si On [1 ,2 ]
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Psychol, Champaign, IL 61820 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Beckman Inst Adv Sci & Technol, Champaign, IL 61820 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
common ground; eye-tracking; three-party conversation; perspective-taking; conceptual pacts; AUDIENCE DESIGN; REFERENCE RESOLUTION; LANGUAGE PRODUCTION; SPEAKERS; COMPREHENSION; PERSPECTIVE; SPEAKING; SPEECH; UH; COMMUNICATION;
D O I
10.1037/a0036161
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
During conversation, partners develop representations of jointly known information-the common ground- and use this knowledge to guide subsequent linguistic exchanges. Extensive research on 2-party conversation has offered key insights into this process, in particular, its partner-specificity: Common ground that is shared with 1 partner is not always assumed to be shared with other partners. Conversation often involves multiple pairs of individuals who differ in common ground. Yet, little is known about common ground processes in multi-party conversation. Here, we take a 1st step toward understanding this problem by examining situations in which simple dyadic representations of common ground might cause difficulty-situations in which dialogue partners develop shared labels (entrained terms), and then a 3rd (naive) party joins the conversation. Experiment 1 examined unscripted, task-based conversation in which 2 partners entrained on terms. At test, speakers referenced game-pieces in a dialogue with their partner, or in a 3-party conversation including a new, naive listener. Speakers were sensitive to the 3rd party, using longer, disfluent expressions when additionally addressing the new partner. By contrast, analysis of listener eye-fixations did not suggest sensitivity. Experiment 2 provided a stronger test of sensitivity and revealed that listeners do cancel expectations for terms that had been entrained before when a 3rd, naive party joins the conversation. These findings shed light on the mechanisms underlying common ground, showing that rather than a unitary construct, common ground is flexibly adapted to the needs of a naive 3rd party.
引用
收藏
页码:919 / 937
页数:19
相关论文
共 52 条
[31]   Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production [J].
Horton, WS ;
Gerrig, RJ .
DISCOURSE PROCESSES, 2005, 40 (01) :1-35
[32]   Speakers' experiences and audience design:: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees [J].
Horton, WS ;
Gerrig, RJ .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2002, 47 (04) :589-606
[33]   When do speakers take into account common ground? [J].
Horton, WS ;
Keysar, B .
COGNITION, 1996, 59 (01) :91-117
[34]   REFERENCES IN CONVERSATION BETWEEN EXPERTS AND NOVICES [J].
ISAACS, EA ;
CLARK, HH .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 1987, 116 (01) :26-37
[35]   Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density [J].
Jaeger, T. Florian .
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 61 (01) :23-62
[36]   SOURCE MONITORING [J].
JOHNSON, MK ;
HASHTROUDI, S ;
LINDSAY, DS .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1993, 114 (01) :3-28
[37]   Toddlers use speech disfluencies to predict speakers' referential intentions [J].
Kidd, Celeste ;
White, Katherine S. ;
Aslin, Richard N. .
DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE, 2011, 14 (04) :925-934
[38]   CHANGES IN REFERENCE PHRASES AS A FUNCTION OF FREQUENCY OF USAGE IN SOCIAL-INTERACTION - A PRELIMINARY-STUDY [J].
KRAUSS, RM ;
WEINHEIMER, S .
PSYCHONOMIC SCIENCE, 1964, 1 (05) :113-114
[39]   CONCURRENT FEEDBACK CONFIRMATION AND ENCODING OF REFERENTS IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION [J].
KRAUSS, RM ;
WEINHEIMER, S .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1966, 4 (03) :343-+
[40]   Language in dialogue: when confederates might be hazardous to your data [J].
Kuhlen, Anna K. ;
Brennan, Susan E. .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2013, 20 (01) :54-72