Discourse and Dialogue

Brennan, Susan E.; Kuhlen, Anna K.; Charoy, Jeanne

doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn305

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 177 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is therefore equally applicable to measuring convergence of speech signals in the same or different languages. We also use a measure of lexical matching (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Brennan, Kuhlen & Charoy, 2018; Garrod & Anderson, 1987; Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002) that can be applied to open-ended conversations without one-to-one alignment of words, although it does require some degree of translation for estimating semantic correspondences of lemmas used across languages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity matching and lexical matching in monolingual and bilingual conversations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people interact, aspects of their speech and language patterns often converge in interactions involving one or more languages. Most studies of speech convergence in conversations have examined monolingual interactions, whereas most studies of bilingual speech convergence have examined spoken responses to prompts. However, it is not uncommon in multilingual communities to converse in two languages, where each speaker primarily produces only one of the two languages. The present study examined complexity matching and lexical matching as two measures of speech convergence in conversations spoken in English, Spanish, or both languages. Complexity matching measured convergence in the hierarchical timing of speech, and lexical matching measured convergence in the frequency distributions of lemmas produced. Both types of matching were found equally in all three language conditions. Taken together, the results indicate that convergence is robust to monolingual and bilingual interactions because it stems from basic mechanisms of coordination and communication.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity matching and lexical matching in monolingual and bilingual conversations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such examples vividly demonstrate how senders' and receivers' expectations need to be aligned for communication to succeed. Importantly, senders need to be aware of the receivers' background (that might differ from their own) and need to carefully monitor the receivers' behavior in order to adjust their communicative signals if necessary, just as in conventional linguistic communication ( Brennan & Hanna, 2009 ; Brennan, Kuhlen, & Charoy, 2018 ; Clark & Kruch, 2004 ; Lockridge & Brennan, 2002 ). In the present study, senders designed their communicative signals based on the (implicit) assumption that crossmodal correspondences would provide a background shared by receivers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossmodal correspondences as common ground for joint action

Schmitz

Knoblich²,

Deroy

et al. 2021

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When performing joint actions, people rely on common ground – shared information that provides the required basis for mutual understanding. Common ground can be based on people's interaction history or on knowledge and expectations people share, e.g., because they belong to the same culture or social class. Here, we suggest that people rely on yet another form of common ground, one that originates in their similarities in multisensory processing. Specifically, we focus on ‘crossmodal correspondences’ – nonarbitrary associations that people make between stimulus features in different sensory modalities, e.g., between stimuli in the auditory and the visual modality such as high-pitched sounds and small objects. Going beyond previous research that focused on investigating crossmodal correspondences in individuals, we propose that people can use these correspondences for communicating and coordinating with others. Initial support for our proposal comes from a communication game played in a public space (an art gallery) by pairs of visitors. We observed that pairs created nonverbal communication systems by spontaneously relying on ‘crossmodal common ground’. Based on these results, we conclude that crossmodal correspondences not only occur within individuals but that they can also be actively used in joint action to facilitate the coordination between individuals.

show abstract

“…These two studies set the current debate on the cognitive underpinnings of referential interpretation of precedents. It is either a one-stage process, as proposed by Metzing and Brennan, or a two-stage process, as proposed by Barr and Keysar (for an overview of this debate, see Brennan et al, 2010Brennan et al, , 2018. In this debate, the main source of disagreement has been whether speaker-specific information influence comprehension at the same moment as linguistic information (Brown-Schmidt, 2009), or whether it plays a secondary role, expressed in a delayed influence compared with the linguistic input (Kronmüller and Barr, 2007).…”

Section: Referential Precedents and Speaker Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing Speaker-Specific Information in Two Stages During the Interpretation of Referential Precedents

Kronmüller

Guerra

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reduce ambiguity across a conversation, interlocutors reach temporary conventions or referential precedents on how to refer to an entity. Despite their central role in communication, the cognitive underpinnings of the interpretation of precedents remain unclear, specifically the role and mechanisms by which information related to the speaker is integrated. We contrast predictions of one-stage, original two-stage, and extended two-stage models for the processing of speaker information and provide evidence favoring the latter: we show that both stages are sensitive to speaker-specific information. Using an experimental paradigm based on visual-world eye tracking in the context of a referential communication task, we look at the moment-by-moment interpretation of precedents and focus on the temporal profile of the influence of the speaker and linguistic information when facing ambiguity. We find two clearly identifiable moments where speaker-specific information has its effects on reference resolution. We conclude that these two stages reflect two distinct cognitive mechanisms, with different timings, and rely on different representational formats for encoding and accessing information about the speaker: a cue-driven memory retrieval process that mediates language processing and an inferential mechanism based on perspective-taking abilities.

show abstract

Discourse and Dialogue

Cited by 9 publications

References 177 publications

Complexity matching and lexical matching in monolingual and bilingual conversations

Complexity matching and lexical matching in monolingual and bilingual conversations

Crossmodal correspondences as common ground for joint action

Processing Speaker-Specific Information in Two Stages During the Interpretation of Referential Precedents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About