Navigating joint projects with dialogue

Bangerter, Adrian; Clark, Herbert H.

doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3

Cited by 167 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More importantly, speech acts are often the product of a series of turns rather than a single turn (Levinson, 1983). Note, however, that much of the messiness of conversation is highly regular and reflects interactant coordination (Clark, 1996), with many of these regularities have processing consequences that can be examined experimentally (e.g., see Bangerter & Clark, 2003;Holtgraves, 2000).…”

Section: Conversation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing☆

Holtgraves

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Conversation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing☆

Holtgraves

2008

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…She argued that these markers could help speakers structure their descriptions (and so make them more comprehensible). In keeping with this, Bangerter and Clark (2003) proposed that discourse markers (in their terms, project markers) serve in part to manage dialogue by signalling ''vertical transitions'', such as a change of topic or a request for more information. Discourse markers might be helpful to listeners because they mark such vertical transitions and allow the addressee to follow the speaker's train of thought more easily.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes dialogues easy to understand?

Branigan¹,

Catchpole²,

Pickering³

2011

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigate the question of why dialogues tend to be easier for anyone to understand than monologues. One possibility is that overhearers of dialogue have access to the different perspectives provided by the interlocutors, whereas overhearers of monologue have access to the speaker's perspective alone (Fox Tree, 1999). Directors first described a set of geometric shapes to matchers in monologue or dialogue eight times. Experiment 1 found that descriptions taken from dialogue were easier to understand than descriptions taken from monologue or descriptions taken from dialogue in which the matcher's contributions were excised. This advantage occurred on early trials (when the matcher made a considerable contribution) but also on late trials (when the matcher simply accepted a description). Experiment 2 replicated this finding and ruled out an explanation in which the advantage of dialogue is due to its use of discourse markers. We argue that the ease of dialogue occurs because interlocutors negotiate a perspective that they can agree on (Clark, 1996). This grounded perspective is likely to be objectively easier to understand than a perspective that has not been grounded.Speakers tend to produce utterances that are intelligible not only to their addressees, but also to anyone who hears them (overhearers). Speakers might achieve this entirely independently, but (as we shall see) utterances produced in contexts in which the speaker and addressee both contribute (i.e., utterances produced in dialogue) tend to be more intelligible than utterances produced by Correspondence should be addressed to Holly Branigan,

show abstract

“…It would be also worthwhile to compare cues used in fictional simulations of dialogue with the cues in natural conversation that enable coordination (Bangerter & Clark, 2003;Brown-Schmidt & Tennenhaus, 2008) and alignment (Pickering & Garrod, 2004) between conversation partners. Contrasts derived from such comparisons might be able to point up different goals and functions of fictional and natural dialogue, for instance delineation of character (in fiction) versus cooperation and coordination (in conversation).…”

Section: Utterancementioning

confidence: 99%

Cues to the Imagination in Memoir, Science, and Fiction

Oatley¹,

Olson²

2010

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand psychological functions of writing, in which words achieve a certain permanency, we discuss Petrarch's memoir of his ascent of Mont Ventoux, Galileo's scientific account of the laws governing falling bodies, and Cervantes's fictional account of Don Quixote's confrontation with windmills. In each case, written words function as cues, instructions to the reader, to construct scenes in the imagination. We analyze the writing of Jane Austen's (1813/1980) Pride and Prejudice and find three categories of cues: utterance, thought, and observation. These are essential to fiction, but a comparable range of cues occurs in other genres, which have different purposes and can draw on cues in different proportions. Fiction is, perhaps, distinctive in reaching imaginatively toward psychological laws.

show abstract

Navigating joint projects with dialogue

Cited by 167 publications

References 45 publications

Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing☆

Automatic intention recognition in conversation processing☆

What makes dialogues easy to understand?

Cues to the Imagination in Memoir, Science, and Fiction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About