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

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.

Talker-specificity and adaptation in quantifier interpretation

“…On the other hand, it is possible that such exposure also generalizes to expectations about other talkers. We briefly elaborate on these two possibilities, as we take them to be an interesting venue for future research (for related discussion, see also Gorman, Gegg-Harrison, Marsh, & Tanenhaus, 2013). …”

Capturing egocentric biases in reference reuse during collaborative dialogue

“…These references being reused more could also help explain why they were remembered better. Finally, reference accessibility after the end of the interaction depended on the role played during the interaction (in line with Gorman et al, 2013). This could be due to side participants not having the opportunity to produce the references under discussion themselves; it could also be due to references produced by others constituting weaker episodic traces and therefore being remembered less well (e.g., Andersson & Rönnberg, 1997).…”

What language processing can tell us about perspective taking: A reply to Bezuidenhout (2013)

“…This line of research is important because it shows that the memory underpinnings of common ground guide how it is used. For example, distinctiveness in memory of who-knows-what turns out to be a key factor modulating successful use of perspective in language production (Gorman et al, 2013;Horton and Spieler, 2007;Horton and Gerrig, 2002).…”