Understanding Referential Expressions in Context

Abstract

Listeners interpret utterances against the common ground, or network of presuppositions shared with the speaker. The first purpose of the study was to determine whether individuals with mental retardation use the major sources of common ground (i.e., physical copresence, linguistic copresence, and community membership) to resolve referential ambiguity. The second purpose was to determine whether they seek confirmation of their referent choices in accordance with the certainty of interpretation afforded by the common ground. The third purpose was to determine whether they signal noncomprehension when faced with ambiguity and common ground that is not informative. The final purpose was to evaluate the relationship between within-group variability in common ground use and measures of nonverbal cognition, receptive and expressive language, and social cognition. Participants were school-age individuals with mental retardation and typically developing children matched to them on nonverbal MA. Common ground use was examined in a role-playing task in which the participant responded to ambiguous utterances. Common ground was manipulated within participants. We determined whether referent selections were appropriate for the common ground, whether they were accompanied by confirmation requests, and whether noncomprehension was signaled. Both groups used all sources of common ground to resolve referential ambiguity at better than chance levels but were less successful in using community membership. Both groups also requested confirmation of their referent choices most often when the common ground was based on community membership. Both groups signaled noncomprehension when the common ground was not informative. Different aspects of common ground use were related to different predictors for the group with mental retardation.

Latent Semantic Similarity in Initial Computer-Mediated Interactions

“…Toassesshow-andhowwell-interactionpartnerscometounderstandeachotherthroughCMC, wemustfirstconsiderhowinteractionpartnersmanagetodothisinaface-to-faceinteraction.Many writershavearguedthatinteractionpartnersrelyheavilyonlanguagetodevelopa"common-ground understanding" (Abbeduto et al, 1998;Kecskes & Zhang, 2009) or an "intersubjective meaning context" (Morganti,2008).Ingeneral,thesewritersagreethatanimportantfirststepinthedevelopment ofa"common-groundunderstanding"istheinteractionpartnerssynchronizingtheirlanguageuseso thattheycanusethesamewordsinessentiallythesameway(i.e.,withthesameintendedmeanings). Thissynchronization-theextenttowhichtwopeopleusethesamewordsinessentiallythesame way-hasbeenassessedwiththelatentsemanticsimilarity(LSS)indexinpreviousstudiesofinitial face-to-faceinteractions (Babcock,Ta,&Ickes,2014;Ta,Babcock,&Ickes,2017).…”

“…To assess how-and how well-interaction partners come to understand each other through computer-mediated communication, we must first consider how interaction partners manage to do this in a face-to-face interaction. Many writers have argued that interaction partners rely heavily on language to develop a "common-ground understanding" (e.g., Abbeduto, Short-Meyerson, Benson, Dolish, & Weissman, 1998;Kecskes & Zhang, 2009;Krauss & Fussell, 1991;Schober & Clark, 1989;Wilkes-Gibbs & Clark, 1992) or an "intersubjective meaning context" (Gesn & Ickes, 1999;Morganti, 2008). In other words, the development of a "common-ground" understanding depends on the interaction partners first getting on the same LSS IN INITIAL COMPUTER-MEDIATED INTERACTIONS 5 page in a linguistic sense, so that they can use same words in essentially the same way (i.e., to have the same intended meanings).…”

“…How interaction partners manage to do this might be less of a mystery than it first appears, as suggested by Babcock, Ta, and Ickes (2014, p. 2) Even a casual observation of everyday social interaction suggests that this process depends on (1) how much the interaction partners talk to each other (a behavior that is essential for the sampling and eventual mutual alignment of what words are used and how they are used in relation to other words); (2) how much the interaction partners look at each other (a behavior that is essential for the detection of those nonverbal cues-including the emotional ones-that help the partners achieve a more qualified and nuanced understanding of what their partner's words mean in context); and (3) how much the interaction partners acknowledge each other, both verbally and nonverbally (behaviors that often, though not always, signal that one's partner feels that he or she has grasped one's intended meaning and wishes to express that perceived understanding, see Abbeduto et al, 1998).…”