Please wait a minute...
心理科学进展  2018, Vol. 26 Issue (6): 1019-1019    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019
     研究前沿 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
交流语言认知理论
张恒超()
天津商业大学法学院心理学系, 天津 300134
Communicative language cognition theory
ZHANG Hengchao()
Department of Psychology, School of Law, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134, China
全文: PDF(395 KB)   HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

交流语言认知是交流认知的典型代表, 语言是交流互动中的典型媒介。交流语言具有互动性、合作性、集体性奖赏和个人责任等特征, 这决定了交流语言认知过程特征的复杂性、灵活性和现实功用性。文章重点归纳和述评:交流语言加工的同伴特定性理论、时间过程理论、意识性理论。未来研究应进一步考虑:交流语言认知实验研究情境的自然性, 交流语言实验设计角度和目的的包容性, 交流语言认知和非语言认知间的关系特征等。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
张恒超
关键词 交流语言认知    
Abstract

Communicative language cognition is a typical representation of communicative cognition, and language is a typical medium in the process of communication and interaction. Communicative language has the characteristics of interaction, cooperation, collective reward and personal responsibility, which results in the complexity, flexibility and practical function of communicative language cognition process. The article focuses on induction and review: the theory of peer specificity, time process theory and consciousness theory in communicative language processing. Future research should furtherly explore: the naturalness of the experimental context of communicative language cognition, the inclusiveness of experimental angle and purpose, the relationship between language cognition and nonverbal cognition, etc..

Key wordscommunication    language    cognition
收稿日期: 2017-10-06      出版日期: 2018-04-28
ZTFLH:  B842  
基金资助:* 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(16YJC190029)
通讯作者: 张恒超     E-mail: zhhengch@126.com
引用本文:   
张恒超. (2018). 交流语言认知理论. 心理科学进展, 26(6), 1019-1019.
ZHANG Hengchao. (2018). Communicative language cognition theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 1019-1019.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/Y2018/V26/I6/1019
[1] 张恒超 . ( 2013). 参照性交流中的“听者设计”. 心理发展与教育, 29( 5), 552-560.
[2] 张恒超 . ( 2017 a). 共享因素对参照性交流双方学习的影响. 心理学报, 49( 2), 197-205.
[3] 张恒超 . ( 2017 b). 参照性交流双方学习和语言注意特征的比较. 心理研究, 10( 1), 24-30.
[4] 张恒超 . ( 2017 c). 共享方式对参照性交流学习过程和选择性注意的影响. 心理学探新, 37( 4), 307-312.
[5] 张恒超 . ( 2017 d). 参照性交流学习中语言内容和选择性注意的变化特点. 心理技术与应用, 5( 7), 385-393.
[6] 张恒超 . ( 2018). 交流语言认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26( 2), 270-282.
[7] Arnold J. E., Kahn J. M., & Pancani G. C . ( 2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19( 3), 505-512.
pmid: 22419403
[8] Arnold J. E., Tanenhaus M. K., Altmann R. J., & Fagnano M . ( 2004). The old and thee, uh, new. Psychological Science, 15, 578-582.
[9] Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46( 2), 391-418.
[10] Bell A., Brenier J. M., Gregory M., Girand C., & Jurafsky D . ( 2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60( 1), 92-111.
[11] Beyer, H., & Liebe, U. (2015). Three experimental approaches to measure the social context dependence of prejudice communication and discriminatory behavior. Social Science Research, 49, 343-355.
pmid: 25432623
[12] Branigan H. P., Pickering M. J., Pearson J., McLean J. F., & Brown A . ( 2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition, 121, 41-57.
pmid: 21723549
[13] Brennan S. E., Chen X., Dickinson C. A., Neider M. B., & Zelinsky G. J . ( 2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106( 3), 1465-1477.
pmid: 17617394
[14] Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H . ( 1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22( 6), 1482-1493.
[15] Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E . ( 2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274-291.
pmid: 25164933
[16] Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Language Emergence. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3( 1), 363-388.
[17] Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61( 2), 171-190.
pmid: 20161117
[18] Buz E., Tanenhaus M. K., & Jaeger T. F . ( 2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68-86.
pmid: 4927008
[19] Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B . ( 1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58( 2), 332-373.
[20] Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A . ( 2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50( 1), 62-81.
[21] Clark H. H. , & Marshall, C. R.( 1981) . Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, I. A. Sag, & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (10- 63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22] Davies, C. N . ( 2011). Over-informativeness in referential communication (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Cambridge.
[23] De Marco D., De Stefani E., & Gentilucci M . ( 2015). Gesture and word analysis: the same or different processes?. NeuroImage, 117, 375-385.
pmid: 26044859
[24] De Ruiter J. P., Bangerter A., & Dings P . ( 2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4( 2), 232-248.
pmid: 22389109
[25] Duff M. C., Hengst J., Tranel D., & Cohen N. J . ( 2006). Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia. Nature Neuroscience, 9( 1), 140-146.
pmid: 16341214
[26] Edelman, S. (2017). Language and other complex behaviors: Unifying characteristics, computational models, neural mechanisms. Language Sciences, 62, 91-123.
[27] Epley N., Keysar B., van Boven L., & Gilovich T . ( 2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339.
[28] Fay N., Garrod S., & Carletta J . ( 2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11, 481-486.
[29] Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S . ( 2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.
pmid: 10888342
[30] Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N . ( 2013). Collaborating in spatial tasks: How partners coordinate their spatial memories and descriptions. Cognitive Processing, 14( 2), 193-195.
pmid: 23413001
[31] Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E . ( 2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51.
[32] Galati A., Michael C., Mello C., Greenauer N. M., & Avraamides M. N . ( 2013). The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 140-159.
[33] Graham S. A., Sedivy J., & Khu M . ( 2014). That’s not what you said earlier: Preschoolers expect partners to be referentially consistent. Journal of Child Language, 41, 34-50.
pmid: 23398907
[34] Graziano, M., & Gullberg, M. (2013). Gesture production and speech fluency in competent speakers and language learners. In Tilburg Gesture Research Meeting (TiGeR) 2013. Tilburg University.
[35] Green T., Wilhelmsen T., Wilmots E., Dodd B., & Quinn S . ( 2016). Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 206-213.
[36] Greenaway K. H., Wright R. G., Willingham J., Reynolds K. J., & Haslam S. A . ( 2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41( 2), 171-182.
pmid: 25416042
[37] Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
[38] Haywood S. L., Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . ( 2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science, 16, 362-366.
pmid: 15869694
[39] Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86.
[40] Horton, W. S . ( 2007). The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22( 7), 1114-1139.
pmid: 2440709
[41] Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2002). Speaker’s experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589-606.
[42] Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1-35.
[43] Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.
pmid: 8857472
[44] Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36( 1), 143-159.
[45] Keysar B., Barr D. J., Balin J. A., & Brauner J. S . ( 2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11( 1), 32-38.
pmid: 11228840
[46] Keysar B., Barr D. J., & Horton W. S . ( 1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7( 2), 46-49.
[47] Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J . ( 2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from- preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 436-455.
[48] Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J . ( 2015) Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta- analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1-19.
[49] Kronmüller E., Noveck I., Rivera N., Jaume-Guazzini F., & Barr D . ( 2017). The positive side of a negative reference: The delay between linguistic processing and common ground. Royal Society Open Science, 4( 2), 160827.
pmid: 28386440
[50] Levinson, S. C . ( 2016). Turn-taking in human communication-origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20( 1), 6-14.
pmid: 26651245
[51] Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S . ( 1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127( 4), 331-354.
pmid: 9857492
[52] Matovic D., Koch A. S., & Forgas J. P . ( 2014). Can negative mood improve language understanding? Affective influences on the ability to detect ambiguous communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 44-49.
[53] Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E . ( 2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 201-213.
[54] Nappa, R., & Arnold, J. E . ( 2014). The road to understanding is paved with the speaker’s intentions: Cues to the speaker’s attention and intentions affect pronoun comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 58-81.
pmid: 24534295
[55] Novak-Marcincin J., Nicolescu A., & Teodorescu M . ( 2015). Neutrosophic circuits of communication: A review. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 43, 174-186.
[56] Nückles M., Wittwer J., & Renkl A . ( 2005). Information about a layperson’s knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 219-236.
pmid: 16393032
[57] O’Carroll S., Nicoladis E., & Smithson L . ( 2015). The effect of extroversion on communication: Evidence from an interlocutor visibility manipulation. Speech Communication, 69, 1-8.
[58] Perniss P., ?zyürek A., & Morgan G . ( 2015). The Influence of the visual modality on language structure and conventionalization: Insights from sign language and gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7( 1), 2-11.
pmid: 25565249
[59] Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190.
pmid: 15595235
[60] Regier T., Kemp C., & Kay P . ( 2015). Word meanings across languages support efficient communication. In The handbook of language emergence( pp. 237-263). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[61] Roberts G., Langstein B., & Galantucci B . ( 2016). ( In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication. Language & Communication, 47, 15-22.
[62] Rogers S. L., Fay N., & Maybery M . ( 2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PLoS One, 8( 2), e57211.
pmid: 3578794
[63] Tolins J., Zeamer C., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2017). Overhearing dialogues and monologues: How does entrainment lead to more comprehensible referring expressions?. Discourse Processes, 1-21, doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516.
doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516
[64] Vanlangendonck F., Willems R., Menenti L., & Hagoort P . ( 2013). The role of common ground in audience design: Beyond an all or nothing story. In The workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference the (PRE-CogSci 2013).
[65] Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G . ( 2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25( 7-9), 905-945.
[66] Yoon S. O., Koh S., & Brown-Schmidt S . ( 2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 699-707.
pmid: 22572985
[67] Yu C., Schermerhorn P., & Scheutz M . ( 2012). Adaptive eye gaze patterns in interactions with human and artificial agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 1(2), Article No.13.
[1] 索涛,杨雁,范增,王梦梦,赵国祥. 赌博游戏中的near-miss效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(9): 1689-1699.
[2] 潘文静,温芳芳,佐斌. 老年刻板印象威胁及其研究操纵[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(9): 1670-1679.
[3] 林博荣,何勍,赵金,杨佳,石迎珍,闫芳芳,席洁,黄昌兵. 经颅电刺激与视功能调控[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(9): 1632-1641.
[4] 黄欢,刘博,周晨琛,姬鸣. 前瞻记忆意图后效中执行错误的机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(9): 1600-1607.
[5] 谢和平,彭霁,周宗奎. 注意引导和认知加工:眼动榜样样例的教学作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(8): 1404-1416.
[6] 魏华,段海岑,周宗奎. 具身认知视角下的消费者行为[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(7): 1294-1306.
[7] 张慧会,张亮. 早期应激对情绪调节的影响及其神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(7): 1193-1203.
[8] 崔新, 苏萌萌, 舒华. 语言认知神经科学研究中的脑沟形态分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 994-1003.
[9] 李恒. “前”、“后”轴上的内隐时空映射及其影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 975-983.
[10] 李政汉, 杨国春, 南威治, 李琦, 刘勋. 冲突解决过程中认知控制的注意调节机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 966-974.
[11] 霍丽娟, 郑志伟, 李瑾, 李娟.  老年人的脑可塑性:来自认知训练的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(5): 846-858.
[12] 张恒超. 交流手势的认知特征[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(5): 796-809.
[13] 林文毅, 张静, 李广政.  文本−信念一致效应及其消除[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(5): 789-795.
[14] 刘子旻, 时勘, 万金, 陈晨.  认知闭合需要研究梳理与未来走向[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(4): 688-697.
[15] 路红, 张心园, 韦文琦, 刘毅.  空间物理秩序对心理和行为的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(3): 560-570.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn