心理科学进展, 2018, 26(6): 1019-1019 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019

研究前沿

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

通讯作者: 张恒超, E-mail: zhhengch@126.com

收稿日期: 2017-10-6   网络出版日期: 2018-06-10

基金资助: * 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目.  16YJC190029

Received: 2017-10-6   Online: 2018-06-10

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。

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..

Keywords: communication ; language ; cognition

PDF (395KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

张恒超. 交流语言认知理论 * . 心理科学进展[J], 2018, 26(6): 1019-1019 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019

ZHANG Hengchao. Communicative language cognition theory. Advances in Psychological Science[J], 2018, 26(6): 1019-1019 doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019

1 前言

交流以口头语言为特征, 是人际互动中认知和行为协调过程的核心媒介, 这决定了交流语言加工过程和个体自我语言认知过程的不同:交流语言加工以交流参与者的知识经验、意图期望和共同交流信念为基础; 受到交流情境中多种信息线索的综合影响, 如文化背景、社会团体身份特征、空间物理特征(面对面或远程交流)、非语言媒介(手势、注视、面部等)以及交流经历等, 并随着交流进程而不断发展(张恒超, 2013, 2017a, 2018; Beyer & Liebe, 2015; Brentari & Goldin-Meadow, 2017; Graziano & Gullberg, 2013; Levinson, 2016; Novak-Marcincin, Nicolescu, & Teodorescu, 2015; Regier, Kemp, & Kay, 2015)。

现实中的交流在形式上表现为两人或多人的语言互动, 每个人都拥有不同的知识背景、思想观念等, 语言交流过程是彼此通过例举不同的证据以获得他人支持的过程, 如日常聊天、专业对话、合作学习等各种情境。一方面, 各种交流情境下语言都是交流者思想的体现, 交流语言的探讨是了解交流者认知和思想的一扇窗口。另一方面, 交流语言认知和个人私语认知过程不同, 两者的差异来源于交流的人际互动性, 交流语言认知的探讨有助于揭示特定情境下的社会人际互动特征。现实交流情境具有多样性, 交流语言的内容和表达也相应具有多样性, 对于一次特定的交流, 只有身临其境才能理解特定观点间的“协调过程”和人际互动特征; 但是, 各种情境交流的共同性在于语言媒介性, 如果不考虑具体情境和内容的差异, 语言反映出的交流人际互动特征, 交流者间认知“冲突-协调”过程, 交流语言认知加工特征等, 又具有一定的共同性, 对于这些共性的理论探讨有助于更清晰理解现实语言交流的 特点, 进一步的借鉴和利用可以促进现实社会交流的效率, 而回避语言交流的冲突性和人际损害性等。

简单而言, 交流是参与者间的语言互动, 至少包含两个不同知识背景、经历经验的交流者, 通过语言争辩过程, 取得对交流对象和任务的一致性解释, 即共享性观点。原则上, 一个交流展现的是两个声音的互动, 以达成一致理解并发展共享性观点。交流语言认知的探讨涉及到语义、语用等多个方面, 以往研究者做了一定的研究分析并基于交流语言认知的不同角度提出了理论解释和争论, 实际上, 语言交流的功用性和理解性不是一个纯粹的逻辑问题, 不能靠单一的公式来决定特定现实交流中的语言特征和发展特点, 尤其是在学习思辨性语言交流过程中, 经常包含了语言选择性决策的多种可能性。本文拟从交流语言加工的同伴特定性特征、时间过程特征, 以及意识性特征三个方面, 分别对相关理论进行归纳和述评, 具体而言:“交流语言加工的同伴特定性特征”的理论探讨着眼于交流语言加工和内容的人际特征, “交流语言加工时间过程特征”的理论分析在此基础上探讨“同伴特定性特征”建立和发展的时间特点(即交流语言人际互动过程的时间特征), “交流语言加工意识性特征”的理论分析进一步探讨以上过程的意识性特征。

2 交流语言加工的同伴特定性理论

交流语言具有社会性特征, 以交流参与者共同理解为基础, 基本特征是对象指示性和人际互动性(Davies, 2011; Galati & Brennan, 2010)。从交流语言内容特征出发, 交流语言表现为对象语义的传递; 从语用特征出发, 交流语言认知过程包含了参与者间的认知和行为协调过程(Clark & Marshall, 1981; Kronmüller & Barr, 2015; O’Carroll, Nicoladis, & Smithson, 2015)。Grice (1975)强调交流语言的最大特征是“合作性”, 交流者彼此期望同伴遵守合作规则, 否则将导致交流互动的不和谐。当前, 研究者一致认为交流语言互动的这些具体特征源于交流语言加工中的“同伴特定性”特征——交流参与者基于特定交流情境和任务要求, 通过考虑与同伴的共同交流基础, 生成和接收理解语言信息(Horton & Keysar, 1996; Nappa & Arnold, 2014; Perniss, Özyürek, & Morgan, 2015)。诚然, 交流语言加工的“同伴特定性”特征提供了最小化交流错误的有力保障。围绕“同伴特定性”研究者提出了两种认知解释理论:说者特定性、听者特定性。

2.1 交流语言加工的说者特定性

说者特定性观点认为, 交流情境下特定说者的特征限制了语言内容的信息特征, 影响同伴交流语言的理解特征; 交流双方对“语言-对象”间特定映射关系的编码和译码(交流语言共享性的达成)主要依赖“特定说者语言认知过程的可预测性”, 交流过程中特定说者语言惯例的维持和违背影响同伴对共同意图的推理过程(Barr & Keysar, 2002; Brennan & Clark, 1996; Graham, Sedivy, & Khu, 2014; Kronmüller & Barr, 2015; Metzing & Brennan, 2003; Nappa & Arnold, 2014)。

探查交流语言说者特定性特征的典型实验范式中, 一般是在相同交流任务中, 安排同一听者面对不同的说者, 通过交流互动, 听者分别与每个说者建立不同的语言表达惯例(参照惯例, 交流双方针对特定交流对象而形成的, 共同理解、共同期望的特定语言表述); 之后, 在探查任务中, 记录分析听者对“‘说者-语言惯例’一致/不一致性交流语言”理解过程的时延特征、行为反应特征等。

Kronmüller和Barr (2015)将交流语言说者特定性特征分成两种效应:一是, “持续惯例的相同说者优势”效应(same speaker advantage formaintained precedents), 指交流互动中特定说者重复使用相同的语言惯例/先例(如, “跑车”), 同一听者将从对说者语言一致性期望中受益。二是, “打破惯例的不同说者优势”效应(different speaker advantage for broken precedents), 指不同说者使用不同语言惯例指称同一对象时, 并不会影响同一听者的语言理解性, 相反, 相同说者再次交流中改变先前语言惯例, (如, 先使用“跑车”, 后使用“法拉利”), 将为同一听者带来语言理解的延迟和认知加工损耗, 要么认为说者意指一个不同的对象, 要么认为说者表现出交流的不合作性。

Barr和Keysar (2002)使用了视觉交流情境任务, 要求交流被试合作选择和整理货架上的对象, 实验1证实了:特定说者参照惯例的重复表达使听者受益(操作时间减少了1300 ms)。实验2中区分出真实互动(说者为真人)、模拟互动(说者为录音, 以耳机呈现)两种条件, 发现真实与非真实互动情境下均出现“持续惯例的相同说者优势”, 但真实互动条件下听者反应比非真实互动条件相对更快(50 ms)。Metzing和Brennan (2003)研究中还发现, 特定说者违背原参照惯例而使用了新的表述, 将导致听者鉴别和选择对象的反应出现延迟; 并且特定说者打破参照惯例所带来的交流损耗, 不会因“新表述”曾被其他说者向同一听者提及过而降低(即, 新表述是其他说者与该听者建立的参照惯例), 表明打破参照惯例导致的认知损耗不是关联于“语义内容”本身, 而是源于“旧说者-新惯例”间新映射需要的认知努力, 即语言参照惯例与特定说者相联系, 具有说者特定性特征。Graham等(2014)研究中以儿童为交流被试, 也发现了上述相同的参照惯例说者特定性效应。Markman和Makin (1998)创设了类概念交流学习和使用任务, 证实交流语言的说者特定性特征, 在交流后的2~5天的延迟中仍然保持的相对稳定, 即交流者记忆中储存保持了特定说者的参照惯例, 听者表现出对说者重复使用惯例的敏感性。

概言之, 交流语言的说者特定性特征体现了, 语言和特定说者身份、交流假设等方面的多重映射和指向。例如当说者提及“大书签”时, 可以意指很多大小不同的书签, 而对于特定书签的辨别需要听者根据特定的交流条件和说者特征, 对语言做出特定性含义的解读, 即听者对于特定说者语言的译码依赖于彼此间多种共现信息的启发和支持:感知共现(对象是交流者观察中最大的那个书签)、语言共现(交流的先前阶段中彼此曾语言提及过该对象)、团体成员身份共现(特定的书签与交流者特定的团体身份相联系)等。语言说者特定性的交流意义在于, 一方面降低了说者语言的变异性, 使说者的交流意图易于推测, 这是交流双方消除语言互动分歧的有力保障; 另一方面, 通常交流过程中, 特定说者重复使用或改变参照惯例, 意在向同伴传递不同的交流意图:保持惯例意指相同对象; 打破惯例则意在向听者传达对象变化了的信息, 或者表明随着认识的不断深入自己对先前表述的进一步修正, 甚至向同伴传达自己对交流互动某种程度的不合作性。

2.2 交流语言加工的听者特定性

交流语言加工的听者特定性观点认为, 交流语言认知加工过程表现为“听者设计”过程, 语言互动中说者参照特定听者的特征产生和调整语言, 以联合双方共同意图、期望, 形成关于交流对象的共享性解释(Clark & Carlson, 1982; Horton & Gerrig, 2002; Kronmüller, Noveck, Rivera, Jaume-Guazzini, & Barr, 2017; Matovic, Koch, & Forgas, 2014; Vanlangendonck, Willems, Menenti, & Hagoort, 2013)。

Horton (2007)安排了两个实验者同谋, 实验中分别向被试提供类别线索, 被试据此生成不同的类别样例, 之后, 一个同谋在场的条件下被试对给定图片对象命名, 结果发现:当图片对象和在场同谋有关时(先前任务中共同合作过的对象), 被试命名过程中的语言表达更快也更为简洁。Rogers, Fay和Maybery (2013)的实验材料为七巧板图形拼出的抽象图案, 实验中变化听者的数量, 观察听者数量规模对于说者语言的影响性, 结果发现:无听者条件下, 说者语言最短(词汇数量), 随着听者数量的增加, 说者的语言信息越丰富(语句更长、词汇更多)。证实交流中语言加工的听者特定性特征。Duff, Hengst, Tranel和Cohen (2006)也采用七巧板实验材料, 被试为遗忘症患者, 结果显示:被试语言也一定程度上表现出听者特定性特征(语言因听者特征不同而表现出敏感性变化); 表明交流语言听者特定性认知加工过程中包含了无意识性成分。

Galati和Avraamides (2013)实验任务中, 首先, 安排说者被试观察实验对象, 同时控制说者对听者同伴的知识, 设立三种实验条件:不知晓条件(不告知说者接下来需要向听者描述), 知晓条件包含两种情形, 无经验听者条件(告知听者没有和自己一同观察过对象), 有经验听者条件(告知听者和自己一同观察过对象)。其次, 连续完成两个记忆任务:相对方向判断——说者观察对象并判断其相对位置(花瓶在桔子的哪个位置?), 回忆对象位置(在表中标注)。再次, 说者向三种实验条件下的听者回忆描述对象。最后, 重复安排记忆任务。结果发现:知晓条件下被试的记忆和语言信息均表现出听者特定性特征, 不知晓条件下被试最初的记忆编码是自我中心的, 交流互动后转而也表现了听者特定性特征; 另外, 交流语言信息中听者特定性特征受说者对听者预先知晓程度的影响, 预先知晓得越多, 语言信息同伴特定性特征越显著(Galati, Michael, Mello, Greenauer, & Avraamides, 2013, 实验结果同此)。

Yu, Schermerhorn和Scheutz (2012)的研究则进一步指出, 交流语言听者特定性特征受到交流互动真实性的影响。实验情境分为与真人交流、与人偶(等比例模型)交流, 结果显示:与真人交流条件下, 交流语言才会表现出同伴特定性特征, 并且被试对同伴偶发的非语言行为细节更为敏感。证实交流语言听者特定性体现的是真实互动中彼此共同的语言互动经历和相关记忆, 真实互动性调节听者特定性语言认知过程。

诚然, 从交流语言互动性来看, 语言参照惯例的建立及重复使用, 方便于听者的特定理解; 同样, 说者重复使用相同的语言表述, 会自觉认为同伴能够再次理解该表述。在特定的交流过程中, 基于听者特定性的交流语言认知加工过程, 实际上反映了交流认知推理过程中高水平的“观点采择过程”, 即说者倾向于以“自己的语言表述便于听者理解”为前提。这在现实交流中是比较常见的, 例如, A和B计划下午出去, A想在购物中心前面和B碰面, 但B不知道这个购物中心在哪里, 这种情况下, A将选择自认为便于B理解的表达方式来解释会面地点:如果A和B曾一起去过附近的电影院, A可以说“购物中心非常接近我们去过的电影院”, 这确保了听者同伴能够理解和准确判断。

2.3 基于交流语言加工同伴特定性的“语音变化假说”

围绕着交流语言同伴特定性的探讨, 研究者从交流语言语音变化特征的角度提出了语音变化假说(the acoustic variation hypothesis):交流口头语言的语音显著性、变化性等特征受同伴特定性理解性的影响, 典型表现为特定交流情境中交流者彼此间的可预测性使交流语言出现语音弱化特征(如较短的表达时间, 减弱的语调和变化性, 减弱的语音强度等), 反之, 语音强化导致语音显著性、丰富性和变化性特征增强(Arnold, Kahn, & Pancani, 2012; Brennan & Clark, 1996; Buz, Tanenhaus, & Jaeger, 2016; Hellbernd & Sammler, 2016; Wagner & Watson, 2010)。

部分研究支持交流语音变化是基于说者特定性, 认为语音变化性决定于说者语言生成的便利性。比如, 之前交流中曾经提及的对象, 当再次提及时自然会更容易, 因为语言发生的许多水平(如, 语义、语音等表征)先前曾被激活过, 表现在语音上即为弱化特征; 反之亦然(Bell, Brenier, Gregory, Girand, & Jurafsky, 2009; Brennan & Clark, 1996; Hellbernd & Sammler, 2016; Wagner & Watson, 2010)。部分研究支持交流语音变化是基于听者特定性, 认为说者根据听者的知识、意图、目标和假设等选择语言表达形式, 即语音变化受听者的交流需要驱动, 这源于交流高效性的要求(Arnold et al., 2012; Buz et al., 2016; Clark & Krych, 2004)。Arnold等(2012)研究中采用了参照性交流实验范式, 被试(说者)指导一个研究者同谋(听者)将物体放置在一个具有6个颜色点的木板上, 双方面对面站在桌子的两边, 听者背后有一个计算机屏幕, 呈现每个物体放置的位置, 实验中被试据此语言指导同伴放置每个物体于正确的位置, 但是听者不能看到计算机屏幕, 被试只语言指导而不允许接触或用手指点物体。实验中听者分别处于两种条件下:一是“期望条件”, 当被试语言指导之前, 听者就已经预先选择出并拿起了靶对象; 一是“等待条件”, 听者每次都是听完被试语言之后, 才选择出靶对象。结果发现:听者反馈影响说者交流语言语音的变化性, 具体而言, 在说者表述之前听者预先将对象挑选出来(听者表现出对靶对象的期望性), 说者语速更快, 词汇发音更短, 变化性更少, 即语音变化表现出听者特定性特征, 证实听者理解性促进语言生成过程。

实际上, 在现实交流互动情境下可能难以区分语音变化性受特定说者和听者的影响程度及界限, 语音变化的出现可能在听者理解性和说者语言生成效率方面存在一个平衡。两种观点的实验证据更多来自于实验设计思路和具体任务特征的差异性。未来研究需要给予交流实验情境自然性更多的考虑, 这有助于相对更真实地观察交流语言发生和理解过程的认知特征, 促进两种观点的融合性解释。

归纳以上, “换位思考”是交流语言同伴特定性加工过程的一种表现, 有助于交流者降低交流认知努力程度, 尤其是在陌生的交流情境下, 彼此消除语言歧义建立共同交流意图显得尤为重要, 语言互动同伴特定性协调模式有助于交流认知压力在交流参与者间协调分配。实际上, 交流同伴特征本身也是交流情境因素之一, 与其他因素一起共同限制和易化交流语言生成和理解的认知过程, 否则, 交流者就必须求助于个人认知过程和其他交流因素, 这将导致交流认知和行为的协调过程更加困难, 因为毕竟语言媒介是交流互动中的核心而显著的媒介。概言之, 交流语言同伴特定性认知加工过程降低了复杂交流认知推理过程的压力, 方便于交流活动的高效进行。基于以上分析可以说, 交流语言加工中的“换位思考”决定了同伴特定性特征可能表现为“说者特定性”, 也可能表现为“听者特定性”, 甚至交流的“互动性”决定了该过程更可能表现为一种混合特征, 即同一交流过程中语言加工的“说者特定性”和“听者特定性”是共同存在、相伴发生的。

3 交流语言加工的时间过程理论

至目前为止, 研究者一致认为交流语言认知互动过程是交流参与者认知“冲突-协调”的转换过程, 交流语言同伴特定性调整过程不是一蹴而就完成的, 代表性的如交流学习任务; 虽然交流过程中交流者间经常形成特定的语言参照惯例, 但是语言参照惯例的产生也不是一个全或无的过程, 而是随着交流者间认知“冲突-协调”过程的发展, 经历了“建立-完善-保持”的不断调整过程(张恒超, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d; Edelman, 2017; Greenaway, Wright, Willingham, Reynolds, & Haslam, 2015; Haywood, Pickering, & Branigan, 2005; Hellbernd & Sammler, 2016; Horton & Gerrig, 2005; Keysar, Barr, & Horton, 1998; Kronmüller & Barr, 2007; Vanlangendonck et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2012)。然而, 研究者对于交流语言认知加工时间过程解释的分歧在于:“同伴特定性”考虑是在语言互动过程的什么时间被引入的?简单而言, 在交流语言认知“冲突-协调”过程的共同前提下, 一种理论观点认为, 从交流之初交流者的语言加工即表现出“同伴特定性”特征; 一种理论观点认为, 交流之初的语言加工是“自我中心”的, “同伴特定性”特征是随着交流互动的发展才逐渐被引入到交流语言认知加工过程中的。相应地形成两种理论:基于限制的加工模型(Constraint-Based Processing models)、监测和调整理论(Monitoring and Adjustment theory)。

3.1 基于限制的交流语言加工模型

基于限制的加工模型认为, 从语言交流互动发生那一刻, 交流者即以一种随机、限制的方式考虑交流同伴的特征和交流需要, 并以同伴特定性特征限制语言发生发展过程, 交流语言共享性的探索始于交流之初, 即与交流同伴相关联的信息从交流的最早时刻引导语言加工决策(Arnold, Tanenhaus, Altmann, & Fagnano, 2004; Brennan & Hanna, 2009; Greenaway et al., 2015; Horton & Gerrig, 2002; Vanlangendonck et al., 2013)。

Vanlangendonck等(2013)的研究以参照性交流任务探查了交流语言同伴特定性特征的发生时间。实验中交流双方并排而坐, 彼此以隔板分开, 分别面对一台电脑, 任务要求一方语言指导另一方辨别和选择对象。每个trail中语言互动前说者电脑上会出现一个红圈, 标示需要描述的靶对象, 但禁止直接使用位置语言(实验中双方屏幕呈现并不相同), 听者据语言描述使用鼠标做出相应操作反应。

实验区分了宽容性交流条件和强制性交流条件。宽容性交流条件下, 每个trail中, 说者一方会同时呈现一个靶对象和一个竞争对象, 听者一方仅呈现靶对象; 强制性交流条件下, 每个trail中说者面对3个不同尺寸的同一对象, 一个是靶对象, 一个是双方共有的竞争对象, 一个是听者没有的竞争对象, 所有trail中, 靶对象保持为中等尺寸。因此, 宽容性交流条件下使用尺寸形容词与否, 不影响听者反应; 强制性交流条件下, 若说者仅据自己屏幕进行语言描述, 即语言表达自我认知, 而不考虑特定同伴, 听者反应正确率为50%。实验结果显示, 说者在考虑同伴特征和交流需要的基础上产生交流语言, 且跨实验条件表现出一致性。研究支持了基于限制的交流语言加工模型。但是, 研究也指出, 尽管说者在交流任务中始终注意区分个人信息和同伴信息, 但个人信息一定程度上干扰了语言生成过程(语言中包含了一定的赘余信息和不恰当信息), 尤其是强制性交流条件下显著影响到交流效率效果。

Metzing和Brennan (2003)以及Yoon, Koh和Brown-Schmidt (2012)在研究中均指出, 个人自我认知和同伴特定性认知并存于交流语言认知加工过程中, 是语言加工中的两类限制因素, 在现实交流情境下, 当交流之初交流者对任务、对象相对陌生的情形下, “同伴特定性”信息可能是一个相对弱的限制线索, 鉴于这种认知的不清晰性、不确定性, 使其很容易被其他竞争性信息所掩盖。

概言之, 基于限制的交流语言加工模型强调:交流之初的语言加工就已经表现出对同伴特定性特征的考量。该理论重视同伴特定信息在交流语言加工中的优先权, 体现在交流语言认知的时延敏感性上; 同时, 并不排斥交流语言认知加工过程中任何语境限制信息、甚至个人自我认知过程的影响性, 这一定程度上取决于不同信息的易得性和与交流目的的关联性特征。或者说, 基于限制的交流语言加工模型在强调“同伴特定性”显著影响性的前提下, 更为包容性地接受:交流语言认知加工过程是多线索、多信息的综合作用过程; 交流目的的现实性、语言交流的有效性最终决定, 不同交流时程中不同信息的恰当获取; 而同伴特定性语言认知过程不绝对排斥和抑制自我认知过程的影响作用, 尤其是当无法完全正确评估、监测和控制同伴特定性信息的条件下。

3.2 监测和调整的交流语言加工理论

与基于限制的交流语言加工模型不同, 监测和调整理论认为交流语言加工在时间进程上表现出两个阶段的不同认知过程, 交流之初表现出自我中心性特征, 同伴特定性信息或共享性信息是在交流后期逐渐表现出来并显著影响交流语言认知(张恒超, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d; Edelman, 2017; Horton & Gerrig, 2005; Keysar et al., 1998; Yu et al., 2012)。

监测和调整理论指出, 交流语言认知的同伴特定性调整与交流后期的记忆提取过程相关联; 因为交流即时加工过程中, 关注并推理交流同伴信息和交流语境信息将导致认知负担的繁重性, 尤其在交流之初交流双方间、以及对交流情境均相对陌生的条件下, 这难以成为常规语言加工策略的一部分, 因此表现出自我中心性特征, 即一种相对较简单和便利的语言认知加工过程, 这也可以解释交流语言互动中经常出现的彼此语言“感知不恰当”的现象(张恒超, 2017b; Keysar, Barr, Balin, & Brauner, 2000; Keysar et al., 1998; Kronmüller & Barr, 2007)。张恒超(2017c)的研究创设了交流学习任务并安排了标准化的10个学习阶段, 从交流学习过程的比较分析发现, 交流学习前半期(block 1~5), 交流者更为关注自我一般认知过程, 语言加工的这种自我认知过程, 一方面在交流参与者间表现出相对普遍性、一般性特征, 另一方面, 交流语言认知加工两阶段特征跨不同交流情境(共享语言、共享语言+对象、共享语言+对象+表情)表现出一致性。总之, 交流之初语言加工中监控同伴特定性调整过程对认知资源的要求相对较高, 此时同时监控个人自我信息和同伴特定性信息将导致认知系统负担过重, 因此, 交流早期的语言加工给予自我认知过程以优先权。

Brown-Schmidt (2009)提出对于交流语言认知加工时间进程特征的实验探讨, 应当考虑两个方面的重要问题:交流互动实验情境的真实性、交流者间先前的语言互动经验。Brown-Schmidt (2009)在研究中对比安排了两种交流情境:真实性语言交流(真人间的交流互动)和非真实性语言交流(听者与录音交流), 实验任务分两个阶段, 第一阶段中, 双方通过交流形成特定语言表述, 第二阶段中, 再次重复交流。结果显示:当交流者先前已经获得了特定交流经验(即通过第一阶段形成特定语言表述), 当再次重复交流时, 交流者(主要评价和分析了听者对交流语言的反应特征)即时表现出对同伴特定性语言的敏感性; 但是, 在两种交流情境对比中也发现, 对同伴特定性交流语言的敏感性, 仅表现于真人语言交流情境中, 而不表现于非真实语言交流情境。

归纳以上, 一方面, 两种理论均接受交流语言认知加工过程体现了交流者间认知“冲突-协调”过程的转换; 另一方面, 两种理论之争集中于交流语言加工过程, 尤其是交流之初, 是否存在同伴特定性信息的参照, 相比较而言, 监测和调整理论认为交流之初不包含这种调整过程, 纯粹体现为自我认知参照, 而基于限制的加工模型相对更为包容, 在强调同伴特定性语言调整即时发生的同时, 并不否认自我认知信息的影响性。实际上, 以往研究尚无法完全厘清交流之初语言加工中, 自我信息和同伴特定性信息的影响程度, 正如Brown-Schmidt (2009)所指出的, 这与各研究实验目的、角度和设计特点均存在关联性, 首先, 如果提高实验控制性, 创设陌生交流实验情境, 这将人为排除交流者间可能存在的语言互动经验, 更有助于支持交流语言加工之初的自我认知特征, 反之, 交流对象的熟悉性(如生活物品)、交流者彼此熟悉性、文化和团体背景因素等, 均有助于支持交流语言的同伴特定性参照; 其次, 交流互动“真实性”是影响理论之争的一个重要因素, 比如, 与人偶交流(Yu et al., 2012)、旁听语言交流(不参与语言互动) (Tolins, Zeamer, & Fox Tree, 2017)等情境下, 交流语言加工不表现出同伴特定性特征。基于此, 未来研究中交流实验情境的创设应尝试对以上方面做到综合考虑, 既有助于协调理论之争, 也有助于交流语言认知解释的自然性。

4 交流语言加工意识性理论

语言是交流互动的核心媒介, 语言互动过程是交流者间认知协调过程的表现, 但是这一过程是如何实现的呢?一种可能是通过精心推理和深思熟虑的过程实现, 这要求交流者在语言交流中时刻考虑并推理同伴的心理状态、知识经验, 精心规划语言并精心解释语言, 很容易理解交流语言的意识性、策略性加工过程可以最大程度监控和调节彼此间的互动过程, 以求最小化降低交流语言的错误性, 然而, 如此精心的语言推理需要交流者时刻保持语言认知的监控和不断更新, 既耗费时间, 认知压力又大。另一种可能是, 交流语言认知加工借助了交流情境中可能存在和利用的多种线索, 这些线索可以无意识、非策略性地为交流者提供语言加工之外的反馈信息, 进而促进语言认知加工的无意识和自动化过程。围绕交流语言加工的意识性特征, 以往研究提出了两种理论:经典理论(Classical Theories of Communication)和互动校准模型(The Interactive Alignment model)。

4.1 交流语言加工的经典理论

经典理论认为, 交流语言加工过程是一个意识性、策略性调整过程, 交流者意识性计划和理解语言, 换位思考是这一过程的典型特征, 最终建立共同的交流基础, 语言参照惯例(交流者间针对交流对象形成的共同理解、期望和假设的特定语言表述)是共享性语言的典型表现(张恒超, 2013; Brown-Schmidt, 2009; Brennan & Clark, 1996; Clark & Krych, 2004; De Marco, De Stefani, & Gentilucci, 2015; Jacquette, 2014; Kronmüller & Barr, 2015; Rogers et al., 2013)。

经典理论的意识性解释是以语言互动交流的社会性为前提的, 不同特征的交流者通过语言争论过程, 力争通过不同证据取得彼此的理解和支持, 交流者是各个不同的“思考者”, 语言互动及共享性的建立过程, 始终包含了某些认知冲突性, 所以, 交流语言轮流发生和理解过程中双方应明确语言互动努力的目的性, 即语言认知加工的意识性。Jacquette (2014)指出当交流者反思语言交流过程时, 将清晰地意识到该过程具有具体、明确的条理性、逻辑性, 如波折的争论、不断的举证、观点的修正过程等, 这尤其表现在思辨性交流过程中, 是无法在无意识过程中自动完成的。

Brennan, Chen, Dickinson, Neider和Zelinsky (2008)在交流实验中创设了“共享注视(借助眼动仪实现)” “共享语言” “共享语言和注视”三种交流方式, 交流任务为O-in-Qs搜索任务(从屏幕中呈现的字母Q中搜索靶字母O), 共享注视对靶对象的自觉引导和合作搜索(双方自觉分割搜索大约一半的目标), 促进了搜索效率, 证实交流语言对彼此认知和行为的意识性协调过程会招致更高的认知“成本”。De Ruiter, Bangerter和Dings (2012)进一步指出语言交流过程中始终伴随着非语言信息的同时影响, 在特定交流条件下, 对于非语言信息的高效利用, 将使语言的意识性调整过程显得相对赘余, 因为语言交流意识性过程对认知资源的要求过高, 因此, 特定交流条件下, 交流者如果可以借助非语言信息成功交流, 将可能较少借助语言的意识性、策略性交流过程。

诚然, 交流语言互动的意识性在于最小化交流错误性, 这一点典型表现在如上所述的打破“同伴特定性”语言惯例的情形下:如果交流中一方试图打破或违背先前阶段建立的语言惯例, 同伴相应会明确认为说者语言所指的对象发生了变化, 彼此将重新调整和更新语言认知(Yu et al., 2012)。Rogers等(2013)研究中所发现的, 交流者根据是否存在听者而相应调整语言表述的结果, 支持了交流语言加工的意识性特征。

从交流的共同目的性、合作性、集体奖赏性、人际互动性等特征出发, 经典理论对语言认知的意识性解释是科学的, 但是并不能完全排除语言认知中的非意识性成分。交流语言和个人思维过程头脑中的语言媒介不同, 即互动性的存在, 实际上, 研究者们也逐渐意识到:交流互动不是纯粹的语言互动, 语言认知不是交流认知的全部; 交流语言认知加工中的某些特征可能代表了无意识过程, 如自动表达成句、习惯用法等。

4.2 交流语言加工的互动校准模型

互动校准模型强调了交流语言认知加工过程中的非意识性过程, 交流语言的生成和理解包含了自动化、内隐性特征; 具体而言, 在交流语言加工过程中, 交流者不会有意识参照同伴具体特征和知识经验, 语言发生过程的句法特征, 是出于易化表达而非方便听者; 同理, 听者对于语言的理解和解释, 源于自我知识经验, 而非推理说者的特定特征; 在互动过程中, 说者的语言将自动激活听者的相似表征, 随着交流回合的发展, 交流角色的不断互换, 这些表征将被不断的存储和重复提取使用, 进而促进彼此共享性的交流认知(Branigan, Pickering, Pearson, McLean, & Brown, 2011; Epley, Keysar, van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Ferreira & Dell, 2000; Green, Wilhelmsen, Wilmots, Dodd, & Quinn, 2016; Nückles, Wittwer, & Renkl, 2005; Pickering & Garrod, 2004; Roberts, Langstein, & Galantucci, 2016)。

和经典理论一致的是, 互动校准模型不否认交流者对同伴的信念调节交流语言生成和理解过程, 有研究发现, 当交流者知晓自己的交流同伴是电脑而非真人时, 在图片命名任务中, 交流语言生成过程更为复杂, 因为被试潜在认为计算机不具备交流互动的能力, 这种信念影响了语言认知加工特征(Branigan et al., 2011; Green et al., 2016)。同样, 交流同伴专家还是新手的身份特征也影响交流语言认知过程, 面对新手语言更为详细和丰富, 面对专家语言显著简洁(Nückles et al., 2005)。可以说, 两个理论解释的分歧在于:基于同伴特定性信念前提下, 对语言发生和理解过程意识性特征的解释。互动校准模型倾向于将交流者间交流语言内容、表达方式、语调等的重复使用, 视为特定交流情境下的自动激活和记忆储存、提取过程, 这符合交流认知的节省性原则(Pickering & Garrod, 2004)。

部分研究者倾向于折中看待交流语言认知过程的意识性和非意识性特征。Rogers等(2013)通过变化实验范式和特点, 认为交流语言加工认知过程可能同时存在意识性和非意识性调整特征, 研究设计上一是比较了限制互动交流(要求被试语言描述对象, 并告知描述针对自己、或针对1个、4个、9个听者, 实际上听者不存在)和自由互动交流间的差异, 二是不断变化交流互动中的人数规模, 这两方面都与交流互动性相关。结果发现:说者为听者设计的语言均显著更长, 且不受听者数量影响, 这倾向于支持了经典理论的意识性解释; 进一步, 在真实互动交流中, 发现听者规模显著影响了交流语言特征, 听者数量越多, 语言越详尽, 听者人数的增加相应导致语言社会互动性和互动复杂性增强, 无意识诱发交流语言信息的变化性, 这是交流语言适应交流情境的自然变化。Fay, Garrod和Carletta (2000)的研究中设立了交流旁听者, 从旁听者对交流语言理解的角度, 发现旁听者更容易理解10人交流小组语言讨论的观点(相比5人小组而言)。总之, 折中观点倾向于认为, 交流语言信息沟通动态过程不同, 如互动人数导致互动变化性更多、交流回合更频繁发生等, 所带来的交流语言认知加工的变化性, 同时包含了意识性和非意识性特征。

归纳以上, 交流语言互动中意识性和非意识性共存是客观存在的, 正如交流认知中个人认知和公共认知共存性一样, 基于交流语言互动性、社会性和合作性而言, 交流语言认知加工的意识性解释是合理的; 同时, 基于交流情境的复杂性和多元性特征, 任何一个交流过程中, 语言和非语言信息间都一定程度上存在相互作用, 相互作用和交流情境线索带来的启发性将引发语言认知过程的非意识性调整。如上所述, 在对两种理论意识性特征之争的思考中, 有一点值得重视并需要未来研究进一步尝试解决:以往研究对于交流语言认知加工无意识性特征的探查, 没有区分出语言认知本身的无意识过程和交流情境中非语言因素所诱发的自觉性语言认知过程; 以及如何区分语言认知中的无意识成分和非语言因素无意识影响性间的关系。未来研究应通过实验思路和设计的改进进一步深入分析。

5 启示

纵观交流语言认知理论的多角度阐发, 简单而言, 交流语言发生和理解过程呈现的是两个或多个声音在交流时程上的互动, 最终将发展出某种共享性交流观点, 即对交流任务和对象的某种最低限度共同性解释, 这是交流现实功能实现的保证。虽然交流语言认知的研究者们关注了语言的这些具体特征, 但是应当承认交流语言认知加工系统比个体语言过程更为复杂而灵活, 这不仅涉及到语言发生、发展、理解、反馈等方面, 还涉及到交流注意、记忆和元认知过程等方面。因此, 未来研究应进一步同时关注实验研究思路的广度和深度, 充分考虑实验控制严格性和交流互动情境自然性间的平衡, 尽管交流互动认知研究的实验复杂性更高, 但是研究者们应努力尝试实验范式的新探索, 以及各种理论间融合性的探讨, 因为正是交流互动认知的这种复杂错综和多元化的特征, 决定了不适合武断性全或无的解释交流语言认知特征。具体来讲, 未来研究对交流语言认知特征的探讨, 应进一步考虑以下几个方面。

第一, 对于交流语言认知特征的探讨, 应充分关注交流语言的现实互动特点, 比如, 远程交流和面对面交流、多媒介交流(涉及面部表情、手势等)和单媒介交流、经验差异性交流(如教师和学生)等, 而不应单纯从实验控制的严格性角度来设计实验, 这种自然化或现实化考虑的实验设计对于消除交流语言认知理论间的分歧是有帮助的。进一步而言, 以往研究对于交流语言认知的探讨主要是在严格控制的实验条件下进行的, 较高的内部效度有助于特定变量关系的客观解释, 这也是出于现实情境下交流语言认知研究复杂性、多样性和困难性的考虑; 但是, 过于严格的实验控制在降低语言交流复杂性、多样性和解释困难性的同时, 也损害了交流语言的完整性、丰富性和真实人际互动性特征, 交流语言认知和个人自我语言认知的差异不仅在于语言的内容(如语音、语法、语义等)特征, 而主要在于交流语言认知的人际互动性和特定情境下的应用性(即语用特征), 这决定了交流语言认知研究自然性或现实性的重要意义, 一方面研究的自然性, 如交流情境的真实化、真实交流语料的选择和分析、交流者语言互动的自然性等, 有助于更为真实地反映、解释和集中呈现交流语言认知的现实特点, 另一方面研究现实性的考虑也有助于打破严格控制条件下各研究间实验条件差异造成的结果隔阂和分歧, 可能更有助于协调和融合各理论的解释。该问题的克服需要未来研究在研究思路、设计和范式上做出新的尝试和探索。

第二, 以往对于交流语言说者特定性、听者特定性间的争论, 与实验设计思路密切关联。验证说者特定性的研究典型的是变化说者语言, 而观察听者语言理解变化性特征; 反之, 变化听者特征, 观察说者语言发生特征的变化性, 有助于支持交流语言的听者设计特点。显然, 各研究在实验思路上各执一端, 一方面这是考虑到了实验控制的科学性和可操作性, 即降低交流互动的复杂性; 另一方面却人为割裂了交流互动的真实性和自然性。换言之, 交流互动特征不等于简单的“说者特征+听者特征”, 这必将导致对于交流语言认知过程特征复杂性、灵活应变性和现实功用性等的解释不足。

第三, 未来交流语言认知的探讨应明确一点, 交流语言认知不等同于交流认知的全部, 因此对于交流语言认知的分析, 不应离开非语言因素的考虑, 即交流的具体情境特征。

第四, 以往研究对于交流语言认知加工时间特征的探讨, 习惯创设简单的视觉交流情境, 如上所述, O-in-Qs搜索任务、图片匹配任务、对象命名任务、物品摆放任务等, 这不利于从时间进程上观察交流语言认知的变化性, 因而研究结果的解释力必然受到影响。因此未来研究应尝试创设标准化的长时交流任务, 在交流时间进程中分析不同阶段即时交流语言发生和理解特征的变 化性。

第五, 未来研究应进一步探索交流实验范式和任务的创新, 注意通过实验辨别交流语言认知本身的无意识过程和交流情境中非语言因素所诱发的无意识性语言加工过程; 以及区分语言认知中的无意识成分和非语言因素无意识影响性间的关系。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
作者已声明无竞争性利益关系。

参考文献

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

“听者设计”一直是参照性交流研究领域中的热点.参照性交流过程 中交流者通常会根据对交流同伴共享信息的评估来调整自己的行为,但是这些调整什么时候以及怎样发生的机制问题仍然存在争论.重点评述了“听者设计”的已有 研究角度和研究进展,并归纳总结了参照惯例视角、记忆和注意视角、交流情境视角的研究观点.未来研究应扩展已有研究设计,以深入探查“听者设计”的形成、 获得、发展变化过程,以及其与参照性交流其他限制因素间的相互作用;需要结合行为证据和眼动、脑成像证据等以帮助揭示“听者设计”过程的行为特点与认知机 制.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

采用参照性交流学习范式,探查共享因素对双方学习的影响。结果显示:从学习阶段6开始"共享语言+对象+表情"方式的成绩显著高于"共享语言+对象"方式,低分组条件下该方式成绩显著最高,且该方式高、低分组间无显著差异;"共享语言+对象"方式下揭开的维度数量显著最少。表明:"共享语言+对象+表情"方式下学习效率最高,集中表现于低分组学习效率更高且双方协调水平最高;"共享语言+对象"方式的选择性注意水平最低。

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.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

研究采用参照性交流学习范式,以大学生为被试,创设虚拟学习材料,通过对功能预测中学习双方成绩和语言的分析,探查比较参照性交流学习过程中双方学习成绩和选择性注意的特点。结果显示:(1)学习阶段1~2,高分组和低分组间成绩差异不显著,学习阶段3~10,高分组显著更高;高分组在学习阶段1~3成绩上升较快,学习阶段3~10表现出稳步上升特点,低分组在学习阶段1~5成绩上升缓慢,学习阶段6~10成绩无显著变化。(2)成绩组间语言描述的维度数量差异不显著;学习阶段3~6语言描述的维度数量存在变化性。结果表明:参照性交流学习过程中,学习双方学习成绩表现出不平衡性特点;学习双方选择性注意水平表现出一致性特点;学习者学习成绩和选择性注意的整体变化趋势具有一定的共同特点。

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.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

以288名大学生为被试,采用参照性交流范式,创设三种共享方式,通过学习任务和选择性注意任务,比较探查共享方式对参照性交流学习过程和选择性注意的影响。结果显示:(1)学习阶段6-10中,共享语言、共享语言+对象+表情两种条件间的正确率均无显著差异,但均显著高于共享语言+对象方式;(2)共享语言+对象+表情条件下被试揭开的维度数量极其显著高于共享语言+对象条件,共享语言条件极其显著高于其余条件。结果表明:各共享条件间的学习差异出现于参照性交流学习后半期,共享语言+对象方式的学习效果显著更差;共享语言条件下被试选择性注意水平显著更高,而共享语言+对象+表情条件极其显著高于共享语言+对象条件。

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

研究采用参照性交流范式,创设功能预测学习任务,探查参照性交流学习中语言内容和选择性注意的变化特点。结果表明:(1)参照性交流学习全程中,交流者语言内容表现出变化性特征,而在局部学习阶段上表现出稳定性特征;(2)选择性注意整体水平表现出平稳增高的趋势,前半期增长相对更快,后半期趋于稳定;(3)选择性注意指向性水平迅速提高,并表现出稳定性特点,集中性水平表现出不断变化的特点。

张恒超 . ( 2018).

交流语言认知特征

心理科学进展, 26( 2), 270-282.

[本文引用: 1]

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.

URL     PMID:22419403      [本文引用: 3]

In this article, we examine the hypothesis that acoustic variation (e.g., reduced vs. prominent forms) results from audience design. Bard et al. (Journal of Memory and Language 42:1–22, 2000 ) have argued that acoustic prominence is unaffected by the speaker’s estimate of addressee knowledge, using paradigms that contrast speaker and addressee knowledge. This question was tested in a novel paradigm, focusing on the effects of addressees’ feedback about their understanding of the speaker’s intended message. Speakers gave instructions to addressees about where to place objects (e.g., the teapot goes on red ). The addressee either anticipated the object, by picking it up before the instruction, or waited for the instruction. For anticipating addressees, speakers began speaking more quickly and pronounced the word the with shorter duration, demonstrating effects of audience design. However, no effects appeared on the head noun (e.g., teapot ), as measured by duration, amplitude, and perceived intelligibility. These results are consistent with a mechanism in which evidence about addressee understanding facilitates production processes, as opposed to triggering particular acoustic forms.

Arnold J. E., Tanenhaus M. K., Altmann R. J., & Fagnano M . ( 2004).

The old and thee, uh, new

Psychological Science, 15, 578-582.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Most research on the rapid mental processes of on-line language processing has been limited to the study of idealized, fluent utterances. Yet speakers are often disfluent, for example, saying thee, uh, candle instead of the candle. By monitoring listeners' eye movements to objects in a display, we demonstrated that the fluency of an article ( thee uh vs. the ) affects how listeners interpret the following noun. With a fluent article, listeners were biased toward an object that had been mentioned previously, but with a disfluent article, they were biased toward an object that had not been mentioned. These biases were apparent as early as lexical information became available, showing that disfluency affects the basic processes of decoding linguistic input.

Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002).

Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents

Journal of Memory and Language, 46( 2), 391-418.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Past research has shown that when speakers refer to the same referent multiple times, they tend to standardize their descriptions by establishing linguistic precedents. In three experiments, we show that listeners reduce uncertainty in comprehension by taking advantage of these precedents. We tracked listeners' eye movements in a referential communication task and found that listeners identified referents more quickly when specific precedents existed than when there were none. Furthermore, we found that listeners expected speakers to adhere to precedents even in contexts where it would lead to referential overspecification. Finally, we provide evidence that the benefits of linguistic precedents are independent of mutual knowledge-isteners were not more likely to benefit from precedents when they were mutually known than when they were not. We conclude that listeners use precedents simply because they are available, not because they are mutually known.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In a regression study of conversational speech, we show that frequency, contextual predictability, and repetition have separate contributions to word duration, despite their substantial correlations. We also found that content- and function-word durations are affected differently by their frequency and predictability. Content words are shorter when more frequent, and shorter when repeated, while function words are not so affected. Function words have shorter pronunciations, after controlling for frequency and predictability. While both content and function words are strongly affected by predictability from the word following them, sensitivity to predictability from the preceding word is largely limited to very frequent function words. The results support the view that content and function words are accessed differently in production. We suggest a lexical-access-based model of our results, in which frequency or repetition leads to shorter or longer word durations by causing faster or slower lexical access, mediated by a general mechanism that coordinates the pace of higher-level planning and the execution of the articulatory plan.

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.

URL     PMID:25432623      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Empirical research on discrimination is faced with crucial problems stemming from the specific character of its object of study. In democratic societies the communication of prejudices and other forms of discriminatory behavior is considered socially undesirable and depends on situational factors such as whether a situation is considered private or whether a discriminatory consensus can be assumed. Regular surveys thus can only offer a blurred picture of the phenomenon. But also survey experiments intended to decrease the social desirability bias (SDB) so far failed in systematically implementing situational variables. This paper introduces three experimental approaches to improve the study of discrimination and other topics of social (un-)desirability. First, we argue in favor of cognitive context framing in surveys in order to operationalize the salience of situational norms. Second, factorial surveys offer a way to take situational contexts and substitute behavior into account. And third, choice experiments - a rather new method in sociology - offer a more valid method of measuring behavioral characteristics compared to simple items in surveys. All three approaches - which may be combined - are easy to implement in large-scale surveys. Results of empirical studies demonstrate the fruitfulness of each of these approaches. Copyright 漏 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

URL     PMID:21723549      [本文引用: 2]

Five experiments examined the extent to which speakers’ alignment (i.e., convergence) on words in dialog is mediated by beliefs about their interlocutor. To do this, we told participants that they were interacting with another person or a computer in a task in which they alternated between selecting pictures that matched their ‘partner’s’ descriptions and naming pictures themselves (though in reality all responses were scripted). In both text- and speech-based dialog, participants tended to repeat their partner’s choice of referring expression. However, they showed a stronger tendency to align with ‘computer’ than with ‘human’ partners, and with computers that were presented as less capable than with computers that were presented as more capable. The tendency to align therefore appears to be mediated by beliefs, with the relevant beliefs relating to an interlocutor’s perceived communicative capacity.

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.

URL     PMID:17617394      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract Collaboration has its benefits, but coordination has its costs. We explored the potential for remotely located pairs of people to collaborate during visual search, using shared gaze and speech. Pairs of searchers wearing eyetrackers jointly performed an O-in-Qs search task alone, or in one of three collaboration conditions: shared gaze (with one searcher seeing a gaze-cursor indicating where the other was looking, and vice versa), shared-voice (by speaking to each other), and shared-gaze-plus-voice (by using both gaze-cursors and speech). Although collaborating pairs performed better than solitary searchers, search in the shared gaze condition was best of all: twice as fast and efficient as solitary search. People can successfully communicate and coordinate their searching labor using shared gaze alone. Strikingly, shared gaze search was even faster than shared-gaze-plus-voice search; speaking incurred substantial coordination costs. We conclude that shared gaze affords a highly efficient method of coordinating parallel activity in a time-critical spatial task.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E . ( 2009).

Partner-specific adaptation in dialog

Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274-291.

URL     PMID:25164933      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract No one denies that people adapt what they say and how they interpret what is said to them, depending on their interactive partners. What is controversial is when and how they do so. Several psycholinguistics research programs have found what appear to be failures to adapt to partners in the early moments of processing and have used this evidence to argue for modularity in the language processing architecture, claiming that the system cannot take into account a partner's distinct needs or knowledge early in processing. We review the evidence for both early and delayed partner-specific adaptations, and we identify some challenges and difficulties with interpreting this evidence. We then discuss new analyses from a previously published referential communication experiment (Metzing & Brennan, 2003) demonstrating that partner-specific effects need not occur late in processing. In contrast to Pickering and Garrod (2004) and Keysar, Barr, and Horton (1998b), we conclude that there is no good evidence that early processing has to be be "egocentric,""dumb," or encapsulated from social knowledge or common ground, but that under some circumstances, such as when one partner has made an attribution about another's knowledge or needs, processing can be nimble enough to adapt quite early to a perspective different from one's own.

Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017).

Language Emergence

Annual Review of Linguistics, 3( 1), 363-388.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009).

Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog

Journal of Memory and Language, 61( 2), 171-190.

URL     PMID:20161117      [本文引用: 4]

In dialog settings, conversational partners converge on similar names for referents. These lexically entrained terms [Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialog: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27 , 181–218] are part of the common ground between the particular individuals who established the entrained term [Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 , 1482–1493], and are thought to be encoded in memory with a partner-specific cue. Thus far, analyses of the time-course of interpretation suggest that partner-specific information may not constrain the initial interpretation of referring expressions [Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46 , 391–418; 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]. However, these studies used non-interactive paradigms, which may limit the use of partner-specific representations. This article presents the results of three eye-tracking experiments. Experiment 1a used an interactive conversation methodology in which the experimenter and participant jointly established entrained terms for various images. On critical trials, the same experimenter, or a new experimenter described a critical image using an entrained term, or a new term. The results demonstrated an early, on-line partner-specific effect for interpretation of entrained terms, as well as preliminary evidence for an early, partner-specific effect for new terms. Experiment 1b used a non-interactive paradigm in which participants completed the same task by listening to image descriptions recorded during Experiment 1a; the results showed that partner-specific effects were eliminated. Experiment 2 replicated the partner-specific findings of Experiment 1a with an interactive paradigm and scenes that contained previously unmentioned images. The results suggest that partner-specific interpretation is most likely to occur in interactive dialog settings; the number of critical trials and stimulus characteristics may also play a role. The results are consistent with a large body of work demonstrating that the language processing system uses a rich source of contextual and pragmatic representations to guide on-line processing decisions.

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.

URL     PMID:4927008      [本文引用: 2]

We ask whether speakers can adapt their productions when feedback from their interlocutors suggests that previous productions were perceptually confusable. To address this question, we use a novel web-based task-oriented paradigm for speech recording, in which participants produce instructions towards a (simulated) partner with naturalistic response times. We manipulate (1) whether a target word with a voiceless plosive (e.g.,pill) occurs in the presence of a voiced competitor (bill) or an unrelated word (food) and (2) whether or not the simulated partner occasionally misunderstands the target word. Speakers hyper-articulated the target word when a voiced competitor was present. Moreover, the size of the hyper-articulation effect was nearly doubled when partners occasionally misunderstood the instruction. A novel type of distributional analysis further suggests that hyper-articulation did not change thetargetof production, but rather reduced the probability of perceptually ambiguous or confusable productions. These results were obtained in the absence of explicit clarification requests, and persisted across words and over trials. Our findings suggest that speakers adapt their pronunciations based on the perceived communicative success of their previous productions in the current environment. We discuss why speakers make adaptive changes to their speech and what mechanisms might underlie speakers ability to do so.

Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B . ( 1982).

Hearers and speech acts

Language, 58( 2), 332-373.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

HEARERS AND SPEECH ACTS Herbert H. Clark and Thomas B. Carlson Stanford University In conversations involving more than two people, most utterances are intended to be understood not only by the people being addressed, but also by the others. These utterances cannot be accounted for in current theories of speech acts unless several basic changes are made. In our proposal, the speaker performs two types of illocutionary act with each utterance. One is the traditional kind, such as an assertion, promise, or apology; this is directed at the addressees. The other, called an informative, is directed at all the participants in the conversation—the addressees and third parties alike. It is intended to inform all of themjointly of the assertion, promise, or apology being directed at the addressees. We present evidence that every traditional illocutionary act is performed by means of an informative.* Although hearers play an essential role in speech acts, that role has never been fully examined. Consider requests, such as this one from 'Othello': (1) Othello, to Desdemona, in front of lago and Roderigo: Come, Desdemona. In Searle's 1969 theory and its descendants—the standard theories as we will call them—Othello's request 'counts as an attempt to get H to do A'. It is an attempt by Othello to get the 'hearer' H to go with him. This, of course, is incorrect: by 'hearer', Searle really means 'addressee'.1 Although Othello has an audience of three 'hearers'—Desdemona, lago, and Roderigo—he isn't trying to get all three of them to go with him. His request is for Desdemona alone. She is an addressee, notjust a hearer. The standard theories are theories about illocutionary acts directed at addressees. Are there illocutionary acts directed at hearers such as lago and Roderigo? The standard theories, by their silence on the question, appear to assume the answer is no.2 This too seems incorrect. Although Othello isn't addressing lago and Roderigo, he intends them to understand what he is saying. Indeed, he intends them to understand in the same way that he intends Desdemona to understand—by means of their recognition of his intentions, just as theories * The work reported here was supported in part by Grant MH-20021 from the National Institute of Mental Health. For advice and suggestions, we are indebted to many colleagues, especially Kent Bach, Keith Brown, Eve V. Clark, Helen B. Clark, David Evans, Charles Fillmore, James Fox, Gerald Gazdar, Jerry Hobbs, Paul Kay, George Lakoff, A. P. Martinich, Jerry Morgan, Geoffrey Nunberg, Mary Louise Pratt, Ivan Sag, and Robert Stalnaker. A version of this paper was presented at the Stanford Pragmatics Workshop, Asilomar, California, June 1980. 1 Searle is in good company. Austin 1962, Bach & Harnish 1979, Bennett 1973, Chomsky 1975, Davison 1975, Fraser 1975, Garner 1975, Gordon & Lakoff 1971, Kempson 1975, 1977, Lewis 1969, and Morgan 1977 all use 'hearer' for 'addressee'. Donnellan 1968 and Grice 1968 refer to an undifferentiated 'audience'. Others, including Fillmore 1972, Green 1975, and Katz 1977, have used 'addressee'—though still others, such as R. Lakoff 1972 and Ervin-Tripp 1976, have used this interchangeably with 'hearer'. 2 Allusions have been made to the effect of a third party on the significance of a speaker's utterance to an addressee (Bird 1975, Rubin 1978, Verschueren 1978), but no discussion of illocutionary acts toward these third parties has taken place (see also fns. 9 and 10, below). 332 HEARERS AND SPEECH ACTS333 of illocutionary acts require. The difference is that what lago and Roderigo are to understand is not that they are to go with Othello, but that he is requesting Desdemona to go with him. As a first conjecture, then, Othello is performing illocutionary acts directed at all three hearers. However, the ones he is directing at lago and Roderigo aren't the same as the ones he is directing at Desdemona. In this paper, we argue that this conjecture is correct: Speakers perform illocutionary acts not only toward addressees, but also toward certain other hearers. We define a type of hearer we call a participant, whose role as hearer is distinct from the roles of both addressee and overhearer. In ex. 1...

Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A . ( 2004)

Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding

Journal of Memory and Language, 50( 1), 62-81.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Speakers monitor their own speech and, when they discover problems, make repairs. In the proposal examined here, speakers also monitor addressees for understanding and, when necessary, alter their utterances in progress. Addressees cooperate by displaying and signaling their understanding in progress. Pairs of participants were videotaped as a director instructed a builder in assembling 10 Lego models. In one group, directors could see the builders’ workspace; in a second, they could not; in a third, they gave instructions by audiotape. Two partners were much slower when directors could not see the builders’ workspace, and they made many more errors when the instructions were audiotaped. When their workspace was visible, builders communicated with directors by exhibiting, poising, pointing at, placing, and orienting blocks, and by eye gaze, head nods, and head shakes, all timed with precision. Directors often responded by altering their utterances midcourse, also timed with precision.

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.

[本文引用: 1]

Davies, C. N . ( 2011).

Over-informativeness in referential communication (Unpublished doctorial dissertation)

University of Cambridge.

[本文引用: 1]

De Marco D., De Stefani E., & Gentilucci M . ( 2015).

Gesture and word analysis: the same or different processes?

NeuroImage, 117, 375-385.

URL     PMID:26044859      [本文引用: 1]

The present study aimed at determining whether elaboration of communicative signals (symbolic gestures and words) is always accompanied by integration with each other and, if present, this integration can be considered in support of the existence of a same control mechanism. Experiment 1 aimed at determining whether and how gesture is integrated with word. Participants were administered with a semantic priming paradigm with a lexical decision task and pronounced a target word, which was preceded by a meaningful or meaningless prime gesture. When meaningful, the gesture could be either congruent or incongruent with word meaning. Duration of prime presentation (100, 250, 400 ms) randomly varied. Voice spectra, lip kinematics, and time to response were recorded and analyzed. Formant 1 of voice spectra, and mean velocity in lip kinematics increased when the prime was meaningful and congruent with the word, as compared to meaningless gesture. In other words, parameters of voice and movement were magnified by congruence, but this occurred only when prime duration was 250 ms. Time to response to meaningful gesture was shorter in the condition of congruence compared to incongruence. Experiment 2 aimed at determining whether the mechanism of integration of a prime word with a target word is similar to that of a prime gesture with a target word. Formant 1 of the target word increased when word prime was meaningful and congruent, as compared to meaningless congruent prime. Increase was, however, present for whatever prime word duration. Experiment 3 aimed at determining whether symbolic prime gesture comprehension makes use of motor simulation. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation was delivered to left primary motor cortex 100, 250, 500 ms after prime gesture presentation. Motor Evoked Potential of First Dorsal Interosseus increased when stimulation occurred 100 ms post-stimulus. Thus, gesture was understood within 100 ms and integrated with the target word within 250 ms. Experiment 4 excluded any hand motor simulation in order to comprehend prime word. Thus, the same type of integration with a word was present for both prime gesture and word. It was probably successive to understanding of the signal, which used motor simulation for gesture and direct access to semantics for words.

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.

URL     PMID:22389109      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract The tradeoff hypothesis in the speech-揼esture relationship claims that (a) when gesturing gets harder, speakers will rely relatively more on speech, and (b) when speaking gets harder, speakers will rely relatively more on gestures. We tested the second part of this hypothesis in an experimental collaborative referring paradigm where pairs of participants (directors and matchers) identified targets to each other from an array visible to both of them. We manipulated two factors known to affect the difficulty of speaking to assess their effects on the gesture rate per 100 words. The first factor, codability, is the ease with which targets can be described. The second factor, repetition, is whether the targets are old or new (having been already described once or twice). We also manipulated a third factor, mutual visibility, because it is known to affect the rate and type of gesture produced. None of the manipulations systematically affected the gesture rate. Our data are thus mostly inconsistent with the tradeoff hypothesis. However, the gesture rate was sensitive to concurrent features of referring expressions, suggesting that gesture parallels aspects of speech. We argue that the redundancy between speech and gesture is communicatively motivated.

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.

URL     PMID:16341214      [本文引用: 1]

This study investigated the ability of individuals with amnesia to acquire referential labels across a series of collaborative, dynamic interactions with a communication partner. Despite their inability to learn arbitrary relations in paired-associate learning, the amnesic patients showed remarkably robust collaborative learning across trials, at a rate equal to that of normal comparison subjects. The amnesic participants' learning resulted in their arriving at labels for a set of abstract shapes (tangrams), thus facilitating rapid and efficient communication. The labels generated and used by the amnesics during interactions with their partners became simpler across trials, with most labels stabilizing long before the end of training and then being used consistently throughout; moreover, they endured long after the task had ended. These findings have important implications for understanding the memory systems involved in semantic learning and in acquiring shared knowledge ('common ground') among communication partners, and the nature of hippocampal-dependent versus hippocampal-independent learning.

Edelman, S. (2017).

Language and other complex behaviors: Unifying characteristics, computational models, neural mechanisms

Language Sciences, 62, 91-123.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Similar to other complex behaviors, language is dynamic, social, multimodal, patterned, and purposive, its purpose being to promote desirable actions or thoughts in others and self (Edelman, 2017b). An analysis of the functional characteristics shared by complex sequential behaviors suggests that they all present a common overarching computational problem: dynamically controlled constrained navigation in concrete or abstract situation spaces. With this conceptual framework in mind, I compare and contrast computational models of language and evaluate their potential for explaining linguistic behavior and for elucidating the brain mechanisms that support it.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S . ( 2000).

Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production

Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.

URL     PMID:10888342      [本文引用: 1]

Speakers only sometimes include the that in sentence complement structures like The coach knew (that) you missed practice. Six experiments tested the predictions concerning optional word mention of two general approaches to language production. One approach claims that language production processes choose syntactic structures that ease the task of creating sentences, so that words are spoken opportunistically, as they are selected for production. The second approach claims that a syntactic structure is chosen that is easiest to comprehend, so that optional words like that are used to avoid temporarily ambiguous, difficult-to-comprehend sentences. In all experiments, speakers did not consistently include optional words to circumvent a temporary ambiguity, but they did omit optional words (the complementizer that ) when subsequent material was either repeated (within a sentence) or prompted with a recall cue. The results suggest that speakers choose syntactic structures to permit early mention of available material and not to circumvent disruptive temporary ambiguities.

Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N . ( 2013).

Collaborating in spatial tasks: How partners coordinate their spatial memories and descriptions

Cognitive Processing, 14( 2), 193-195.

URL     PMID:23413001      [本文引用: 1]

We summarize findings from a study examining whether the availability of the conversational partner’s spatial viewpoint influences the speaker’s spatial memories, description strategies, their joint efficiency and accuracy on the task, as well as the partner’s resulting spatial memories. In 18 pairs, Directors described to a misaligned Matcher arrays that they learned while either knowing their Matcher’s viewpoint or not. Memory tests preceding descriptions revealed that Directors represented their Matcher’s viewpoint when known in advance. Moreover, Directors adapted the perspective of their descriptions according to each other’s cognitive demands, given their misalignment. The number of conversational turns pairs took to coordinate suggested that pairs’ strategies were effective at minimizing their collective effort. Nonetheless, in terms of accuracy on the task, pairs reconstructed more distorted arrays the more partner-centered descriptions Directors used. The Directors’ descriptions also predicted Matchers’ facilitation for their own perspective in memory tests following the description. Together, these findings demonstrate that partners in collaborative spatial tasks adapt their respective memory representations and descriptions contingently with the aim of optimizing coordination.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Speakers tend to attenuate information that is predictable or repeated. To what extent is this done automatically and egocentrically, because it is easiest for speakers themselves, and to what extent is it driven by the informational needs of addressees? In 20 triads of naive subjects, speakers told the same Road Runner cartoon story twice to one addressee and once to another addressee, counterbalanced for order (Addressee1/Addressee1/Addressee2 or Addressee1/Addressee2/Addressee1). Stories retold to the same (old) addressees were attenuated compared to those retold to new addressees; this was true for events mentioned, number of words, and amount of detail. Moreover, lexically identical expressions by the same speaker were more intelligible to another group of listeners when the expressions had been addressed to new addressees than when they had been addressed to old addressees. We conclude that speakers’ attenuating of information in spontaneous discourse is driven at least in part by addressees. Such audience design is computationally feasible when it can be guided by a “one-bit” model ( my audience has heard this before , or not).

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.

URL    

We examined whether people spontaneously represent the partner’s viewpoint in spatial memory when it is available in advance and whether they adapt their spontaneous descriptions accordingly. In 18 pairs, Directors studied arrays of objects while: (1) not knowing about having to describe the array to a Matcher, (2) knowing about the subsequent description, and (3) knowing the Matcher’s subsequent viewpoint, which was offset by 90°, 135°, or 180°. In memory tests preceding descriptions, Directors represented the Matcher’s viewpoint when it was known during study, taking longer to imagine orienting to perspectives aligned with it and rotating their drawings of arrays toward it. Conversely, when Directors didn’t know their Matcher’s viewpoint, they encoded arrays egocentrically, being faster to imagine orienting to and to respond from perspectives aligned with their own. Directors adapted their descriptions flexibly, using partner-centered spatial expressions more frequently when misaligned by 90° and egocentric ones when misaligned by 135°. Knowing their misalignment in advance helped partners recognize when descriptions would be most difficult for Directors (at 135°) and to mutually agree on using their perspective. Thus, in collaborative tasks, people don’t rely exclusively on their spatial memory but also use other pertinent perceptual information (e.g., their misalignment from their partner) to assess the computational demands on each partner and select strategies that maximize the efficiency of communication.

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.

URL     PMID:23398907      [本文引用: 2]

Abstract In a conversation, adults expect speakers to be consistent in their use of a particular expression. We examine whether four-year-olds expect speakers to use consistent referential descriptions and whether these expectations are partner-specific. Using an eye-tracking paradigm, we presented four-year-olds with arrays of objects on a screen. During training, Experimenter 1 (E1) used a target expression to identify one object (i.e. "the spotted dog" to identify a dog that is both spotted and fluffy). Following training, either E1 or a new conversational partner (E2) presented children with test trials. Here, the target objects were referred to using either the original expression (e.g. "the spotted dog") or a new expression (e.g. "the fluffy dog"). Eye-movements indicated that preschoolers were quicker to identify the target referent when the original expression was used by the same speaker. This suggests that four-year-olds, like adults, expect communicative partners to adhere to referential pacts.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

It is often assumed that a main function of gestures is to compensate for expressive difficulties. This predicts that gestures should mainly occur with disfluent speech. However, surprisingly little is known about the relationship between gestures and fluent vs. disfluent speech. This study investigates the putative ompensatory role of gesture by examining competent speakers’ and language learners’ gestural production in fluent vs. non-fluent speech. Results show that both competent and less competent speakers predominantly produce gestures during fluent stretches of speech; ongoing gestures during disfluencies are suspended.In all groups, the few gestures that are completed during disfluencies are both referential and pragmatic. The findings strongly suggest that when speech stops, so do gestures, thus supporting the view of speech and gesture as an integrated system.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

This study expands on the ‘internet-attribute-perception’ model that explains how online attributes (i.e. reduced cues and controllability) and the disinhibition effect mediate the relationship between personal characteristics and online self-disclosure. The current study tested this model for two distinct modes of Facebook communication: private and public, focussing on the personal characteristic of social anxiety. Using path analysis on a sample of 306 participants (Mean age=20.52 years, SD=1.45, 65.69% female), the model was partially replicated showing support in private but not public modes of Facebook communication. Although there was a positive relationship between social anxiety and the perceived value of the online attributes in public Facebook communication, this did not lead to the disinhibition effect. The study discusses potential differences between these two ways of communication but highlights that more private ways of online communication may be vital for socially anxious individuals in terms of relational development.

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.

URL     PMID:25416042      [本文引用: 2]

The ability to communicate with others is one of the most important human social functions, yet communication is not always investigated from a social perspective. This research examined the role that shared social identity plays in communication effectiveness using a minimal group paradigm. In two experiments, participants constructed a model using instructions that were said to be created by an ingroup or an outgroup member. Participants made models of objectively better quality when working from communications ostensibly created by an ingroup member (Experiments 1 and 2). However, this effect was attenuated when participants were made aware of a shared superordinate identity that included both the ingroup and the outgroup (Experiment 2). These findings point to the importance of shared social identity for effective communication and provide novel insights into the social psychology of communication.

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.

[本文引用: 1]

Haywood S. L., Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . ( 2005).

Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?

Psychological Science, 16, 362-366.

URL     PMID:15869694      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract What affects speakers' production of ambiguous utterances in dialogue? They might consider ease of production for themselves, or ease of comprehension for their addressees. Previous research has demonstrated that ease of production plays a role in speakers' syntactic choices, but that ease of comprehension does not. However, such studies have not employed dialogues that involve role swapping on a turn-by-turn basis. In our experiment, participants alternated in giving and following instructions to move objects around on a grid. They tended to repeat the syntactic form just used by their interlocutor, reflecting sensitivity to ease of production. More interestingly, they were more likely to disambiguate their utterances when the visual context was potentially ambiguous than when it was not, reflecting sensitivity to ease of comprehension. We conclude that speakers pay attention to their beliefs about their addressees' ease of comprehension, in addition to considering ease of production for themselves.

Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016).

Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception

Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

Action-theoretic views of language posit that the recognition of others’ intentions is key to successful interpersonal communication. Yet, speakers do not always code their intentions literally, raising the question of which mechanisms enable interlocutors to exchange communicative intents. The present study investigated whether and how prosody—the vocal tone—contributes to the identification of “unspoken” intentions. Single (non-)words were spoken with six intonations representing different speech acts—as carriers of communicative intentions. This corpus was acoustically analyzed (Experiment 1), and behaviorally evaluated in two experiments (Experiments 2 and 3). The combined results show characteristic prosodic feature configurations for different intentions that were reliably recognized by listeners. Interestingly, identification of intentions was not contingent on context (single words), lexical information (non-words), and recognition of the speaker’s emotion (valence and arousal). Overall, the data demonstrate that speakers’ intentions are represented in the prosodic signal which can, thus, determine the success of interpersonal communication.

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.

URL     PMID:2440709      [本文引用: 1]

In typical interactions, speakers frequently produce utterances that appear to reflect beliefs about the common ground shared with particular addressees. Horton and Gerrig (2005a) proposed that one important basis for audience design is the manner in which conversational partners serve as cues for the automatic retrieval of associated information from memory. This paper reports the results of two experiments demonstrating the influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production. Following an initial task designed to establish associations between specific words (Experiment 1) or object categories (Experiment 2) and each of two partners, participants named a series of pictures in the context of the same two individuals. Naming latencies were shortest for responses associated with the current partner, and were not significantly correlated with explicit recall of partner-item associations. Such partner-driven memory retrieval may constrain the information accessible to speakers as they produce utterances for particular addressees.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

In this paper, we develop an account of the types of experiences through which speakers learn to design their utterances for particular addressees. We argue that there are two important aspects of conversational situations relevant to considerations of audience design. First, speakers must become aware that audience design is necessary in the current setting. Second, they must frequently overcome other tendencies toward consistency and brevity of expression. To assess the impact of both of these factors, we conducted a referential communication experiment in which Directors described arrays of picture cards for two independent Matchers. In the early rounds, both Matchers were present and each possessed a different subset of the Directors’ cards. In later rounds, only one of the two Matchers was present at a time and worked with the entire set of cards. We evaluated the degree to which Directors’ descriptions showed evidence of audience design by focusing on critical rounds when the Directors described cards that the current Matcher had not previously shared. Directors generally appeared sensitive to the distinction between shared and nonshared items. Additionally, there was more evidence of adjustment at the second partner change, suggesting that the Directors had learned something about the kinds of descriptions required in this situation. Our results suggest that it is important to consider the nature of speakers’ experiences of interacting in a particular situation when making claims about the presence or absence of audience design.

Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2005).

Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production

Discourse Processes, 40, 1-35.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Speakers in conversation routinely engage in audience design. That is, they construct their utterances to be understood by particular addressees. Standard accounts of audience design have frequently appealed to the notion of common ground. On this view, speakers produce well-designed utterances by expressly considering the knowledge they take as shared with addressees. This article suggests that conversational common ground, rather than being a category of specialized mental representations, is more usefully conceptualized as an emergent property of ordinary memory processes. This article examines 2 separate but equally important processes: commonality assessment and message formation. Commonality assessment involves the retrieval of memory traces concerning what information is shared with an addressee, whereas message formation involves deciding how to use that information in conversation. Evidence from the CallHome English corpus of telephone conversations shows how each of these processes is rooted in basic aspects of human memory. The overall goal of this article is to demonstrate the need for a more cognitive psychological account of conversational common ground.

Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996).

When do speakers take into account common ground?

Cognition, 59, 91-117.

URL     PMID:8857472      [本文引用: 1]

What role does common ground play in the production of utterances? We outline and test two models. One model assumes that common ground is involved in initial utterance planning, while the other model assumes that it only plays a role in monitoring. To compare these models, we focus on common ground as evidenced in physical co-presence. We had speakers describe objects for listeners in a modified version of the referential communication task. While descriptions under no time constraints appeared to incorporate common ground with the listener, common ground was not used when the speakers were under time pressure. These results suggest that speakers do not engage in audience design in the initial planning of utterances; instead, they monitor those plans for violations of common ground.

Jacquette, D. (2014).

Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36( 1), 143-159.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

The concept of a dialogue is considered in general terms from the standpoint of its referential presuppositions. The semantics of dialogue implies that dialogue participants must generally have a collective intentionality of agreed-upon references that is minimally sufficient for them to be able to disagree about other things, and ideally for outstanding disagreements to become clearer at successive stages of the dialogue. These points are detailed and illustrated in a fictional dialogue, in which precisely these kinds of referential confusions impede progress in shared understanding. It is only through a continuous exchange of question and answer in this dialogue case study that the meanings of key terms and anaphorical references are disambiguated, and a relevantly complete collective intentionality of shared meaning between dialogue participants is achieved. The importance of a minimally shared referential semantics for the terms entering into reasoning and argument in dialogue contexts broadly construed cannot be over-estimated. Where to draw the line between referential agreement and disagreement within any chosen dialogue, as participants work toward better mutual understanding in clearing up referential incongruities, is sometimes among the dialogue main points of dispute.

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.

URL     PMID:11228840      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract When people interpret language, they can reduce the ambiguity of linguistic expressions by using information about perspective: the speaker's, their own, or a shared perspective. In order to investigate the mental processes that underlie such perspective taking, we tracked people's eye movements while they were following instructions to manipulate objects. The eye fixation data in two experiments demonstrate that people do not restrict the search for referents to mutually known objects. Eye movements indicated that addressees considered objects as potential referents even when the speaker could not see those objects, requiring addressees to use mutual knowledge to correct their interpretation. Thus, people occasionally use an egocentric heuristic when they comprehend. We argue that this egocentric heuristic is successful in reducing ambiguity, though it could lead to a systematic error.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

When speakers refer to the same referent multiple times in a conversation, they tend to follow established patterns of usage, known as conversational precedents . Research has found that listeners expect speakers to follow precedents, and that this expectation guides their search for referents (Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language , 46 , 391-418). Recently, Metzing and Brennan (2003) (Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language , 49 , 201-213) reported a speaker-specific effect for broken precedents that suggests early use of speaker information when precedents are broken. Results from two eyetracking experiments show that this speaker effect results from the late use of speaker information to recover from an early, partner-independent preemption effect. When a new description is heard, existing precedents preempt the mapping of the new description to an old referent. Later, listeners use speaker-information to inhibit precedents that are not known to the current speaker. Time-course data, as well as the results of a cognitive load manipulation, suggest that the preemption and speaker effects are supported by distinct processing systems. Our findings indicate that certain pragmatic effects in language comprehension are based on general expectations about language use, rather than assumptions about the beliefs and goals of particular speakers.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

Listeners’ interpretations of referring expressions are influenced by referential precedents—temporary conventions established in a discourse that associate linguistic expressions with referents. A number of psycholinguistic studies have investigated how much precedent effects depend on beliefs about the speaker’s perspective versus more egocentric, domain-general processes. We review and provide a meta-analysis of visual-world eyetracking studies of precedent use, focusing on three principal effects: (1) a same speaker advantage for maintained precedents; (2) a different speaker advantage for broken precedents; and (3) an overall main effect of precedents. Despite inconsistent claims in the literature, our combined analysis reveals surprisingly consistent evidence supporting the existence of all three effects, but with different temporal profiles. These findings carry important implications for existing theoretical explanations of precedent use, and challenge explanations based solely on the use of information about speakers’ perspectives.

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.

URL     PMID:28386440      [本文引用: 1]

Interlocutors converge on names to refer to entities. For example, a speaker might refer to a novel looking object as the jellyfish and, once identified, the listener will too. The hypothesized mechanism behind such referential precedents is a subject of debate. The common ground view claims that listeners register the object as well as the identity of the speaker who coined the label. The linguistic view claims that, once established, precedents are treated by listeners like any other linguistic unit, i.e. without needing to keep track of the speaker. To test predictions from each account, we used visual-world eyetracking, which allows observations in real time, during a standard referential communication task. Participants had to select objects based on instructions from two speakers. In the critical condition, listeners sought an object with a negative reference such as not the jellyfish. We aimed to determine the extent to which listeners rely on the linguistic input, common ground or both. We found that initial interpretations were based on linguistic processing only and that common ground considerations do emerge but only after 1000-s. Our findings support the idea that-at least temporally-linguistic processing can be isolated from common ground.

Levinson, S. C . ( 2016).

Turn-taking in human communication-origins and implications for language processing

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20( 1), 6-14.

URL     PMID:26651245      [本文引用: 1]

Turn-taking or ‘duetting’ has been observed in many other species and is found across all the major clades of the primate order.

Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S . ( 1998).

Referential communication and category acquisition

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127( 4), 331-354.

URL     PMID:9857492      [本文引用: 1]

Explanations of category coherence include that categories reflect feature correlations in the world, that the human conceptual system is designed to create systematic categories, and that people have theories about the world that bind together seemingly unrelated features. The authors have suggested that the need to establish reference in communication also influences category coherence. This proposal was tested in 2 studies involving a referential communication task. In these studies, consistency was promoted between individuals by communication, which synchronized the category structures of different people. Further, people were focused on the commonalities of objects and on the differences related to the commonalities by communication--a pattern that is compatible with what has been observed in existing categories. These results suggest that categorization research must incorporate communication tasks into the canon of methodologies used to study category structure.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

61Two experiments found that mild negative mood improved communication and language understanding.61An analysis of reaction times and recall memory confirmed that negative mood produced more careful and attentive processing.61A mediational analysis found that it was more attentive processing that mediated mood effects on language understanding.61The findings confirm that negative affect has adaptive benefits and can improve cognitive and communicative performance.61The results highlight the important role of moods in fine-tuning communication and social behavior in everyday situations.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

When two people in conversation refer repeatedly to objects, they typically converge on the same (or similar) referring expressions. The repeated use of expressions by people in the same conversation has been called lexical entrainment. Lexical entrainment may emerge from the precedent of associating objects with expressions (and the perspectives they encode), or else from achieving conceptual pacts , or temporary, flexible agreements to view an object in a particular way (in which case the precedent is encoded as specific to a particular partner). We had people interact with a confederate speaker, entraining on shared perspectives (e.g., “the shiny cylinder”) during repeated references to objects. Then either the original speaker or a new speaker used either the original expression or a new one (“the silver pipe”) to refer to the previously discussed object. Upon hearing the original expressions, addressees looked at and then touched the target objects equally quickly regardless of speaker. However, with new expressions, there was partner-specific interference: addressees were slower to look at the object when the new expression was uttered by the original speaker than when the new expression was uttered by the new speaker. This suggests that the representations in memory from which entrainment emerges do encode a partner-specific cue, leading addressees to expect that a speaker should continue to use an entrained-upon expression unless a contrast in meaning is implicated. There appears to be no such interference when a new partner uses a new expression.

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.

URL     PMID:24534295      [本文引用: 2]

A series of experiments explore the effects of attention-directing cues on pronoun resolution, contrasting four specific hypotheses about the interpretation of ambiguous pronouns he and she : (1) it is driven by grammatical rules, (2) it is primarily a function of social processing of the speaker’s intention to communicate, (3) it is modulated by the listener’s own egocentric attention, and (4) it is primarily a function of learned probabilistic cues. Experiment 1 demonstrates that pronoun interpretation is guided by the well-known N1 (first-mention) bias, which is also modulated by both the speaker’s gaze and pointing gestures. Experiment 2 demonstrates that a low-level visual capture cue has no effect on pronoun interpretation, in contrast with the social cue of pointing. Experiment 3 uses a novel intentional cue: the same attention-capture flash as in Experiment 2, but with instructions that the cue is intentionally created by the speaker. This cue does modulate the N1 bias, demonstrating the importance of information about the speaker’s intentions to pronoun resolution. Taken in sum, these findings demonstrate that pronoun resolution is a process best categorized as driven by an appreciation of the speaker’s communicative intent, which may be subserved by a sensitivity to predictive cues in the environment.

Novak-Marcincin J., Nicolescu A., & Teodorescu M . ( 2015).

Neutrosophic circuits of communication: A review

International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 43, 174-186.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

- by Florentin Smarandache and Stefan Vladutescu was published by Education Publishing, Ohio, USA, on May 2014. Florentin Smarandache and Stefan Vladutescu are two remarcable professors, first at University of New Mexico/ USA, the second at University of Craiova/ Romania, with many researches in neutrosophical, communication, mathematic, literature, journalism, social sciencies. Neutrosophy had been in the emergence phase since 1995. With its certification by the scientific community, Neutrosophy has become a type of incident knowledge, i.e. applicable in different fields. Neutrosophy legitimating was achieved by developing some doctoral research, through learning theory as a way of description, explanation and forecast and implementation of neutrosophic congress and conferences. Neutrosophy handles all neutralities. In the neutrosophic taxonometry, a class of neutralities is represented by the neutralities that, without turning into contradiction, generate qualitative leaps. The emergence is the cognitive phenomenon in which, from two or more connected neutralities, without contradiction, a change of quality or a qualitative leap result. Thinking in Hegelian terms has an axiom the idea that the qualitative change, qualitative emergences may arise from related neutral items. Neutrosophy claims that qualitative emergences may arise from related neutral items

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.

URL     PMID:16393032      [本文引用: 2]

To give effective and efficient advice to laypersons, experts should adapt their explanations to the layperson's knowledge. However, experts often fail to consider the limited domain knowledge of laypersons. To support adaptation in asynchronous helpdesk communication, researchers provided computer experts with information about a layperson's knowledge. A dialogue experiment (N = 80 dyads of experts and laypersons) was conducted that varied the displayed information. Rather than sensitizing the experts to generally improve the intelligibility of their explanations, the individuating information about the layperson enabled them to make specific partner adjustments that increased the effectiveness and efficiency of the communication. The results are suggestive of ways in which the provision of instructional explanations could be enhanced in Internet-based communication.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In this study we test how introversion- xtroversion affects language and gesture use depending on whether the interlocutor is visible to the speaker. Adults described arrays of objects, half the time with a screen occluding their interlocutor and half the time with the interlocutor visible. When participants could not see their listener, they used more words, particularly concrete words and tended to gesture more . This difference was moderated by extroversion for gestures (i.e., extroverts gestured more when their interlocutor was occluded) but not for speech. We argue that visibility of a listener may influence how speakers use nonverbal feedback from their interlocutors differentially according to extroversion. In particular, visibility and personality may impact how speakers use gestures when they do not know whether their interlocutor has understood them.

Perniss P., Özyürek 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.

URL     PMID:25565249      [本文引用: 1]

Abstract For humans, the ability to communicate and use language is instantiated not only in the vocal modality but also in the visual modality. The main examples of this are sign languages and (co-speech) gestures. Sign languages, the natural languages of Deaf communities, use systematic and conventionalized movements of the hands, face, and body for linguistic expression. Co-speech gestures, though non-linguistic, are produced in tight semantic and temporal integration with speech and constitute an integral part of language together with speech. The articles in this issue explore and document how gestures and sign languages are similar or different and how communicative expression in the visual modality can change from being gestural to grammatical in nature through processes of conventionalization. As such, this issue contributes to our understanding of how the visual modality shapes language and the emergence of linguistic structure in newly developing systems. Studying the relationship between signs and gestures provides a new window onto the human ability to recruit multiple levels of representation (e.g., categorical, gradient, iconic, abstract) in the service of using or creating conventionalized communicative systems. Copyright 2015 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004).

Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190.

URL     PMID:15595235      [本文引用: 2]

Abstract Traditional mechanistic accounts of language processing derive almost entirely from the study of monologue. Yet, the most natural and basic form of language use is dialogue. As a result, these accounts may only offer limited theories of the mechanisms that underlie language processing in general. We propose a mechanistic account of dialogue, the interactive alignment account, and use it to derive a number of predictions about basic language processes. The account assumes that, in dialogue, the linguistic representations employed by the interlocutors become aligned at many levels, as a result of a largely automatic process. This process greatly simplifies production and comprehension in dialogue. After considering the evidence for the interactive alignment model, we concentrate on three aspects of processing that follow from it. It makes use of a simple interactive inference mechanism, enables the development of local dialogue routines that greatly simplify language processing, and explains the origins of self-monitoring in production. We consider the need for a grammatical framework that is designed to deal with language in dialogue rather than monologue, and discuss a range of implications of the account.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This chapter proposes that systems of semantic categories in the world's languages reflect the need for efficient communication, in that they near-optimally balance the competing principles of simplicity and informativeness. It first briefly reviews existing work that is relevant to the proposal. Next, it develops a general-purpose computational framework that instantiates the proposal, and applies it to three domains (a) color, (b) kinship, and (c) a domain in which objects are represented as binary feature vectors with qualitatively different structures. The analyses of color and kinship have shown that the framework accounts for cross-language data in both of these domains. The analysis of a domain defined in terms of binary feature vectors has provided further evidence for the generality of the framework. The chapter concludes from these three analyses that the tradeoff between simplicity and informativeness may provide a domain-general foundation for variation in category systems across languages.

Roberts G., Langstein B., & Galantucci B . ( 2016). (

In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication

Language & Communication, 47, 15-22.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Human sensitivity to conversational coherence is often taken as a given, but there is reason to suppose that tolerance of incoherence is greater than assumed. In Galantucci and Roberts's (2014) laboratory study, participants showed surprising insensitivity to incoherence introduced by randomly crossing their conversations. In that study, however, it was impossible to control the nature of the incoherence. Here, we present a study in which we replaced genuine messages with messages guaranteed not to fit well with the conversation. Inserted messages were incoherent either with respect to task-relevant information or with respect to a salient social category, the interlocutor's gender. More than a third of participants failed to notice the incoherence. This provides evidence that the transmission of information in linguistic interaction is, contrary to widespread assumptions, not subject to reliable monitoring or regulation.

Rogers S. L., Fay N., & Maybery M . ( 2013).

Audience design through social interaction during group discussion

PLoS One, 8( 2), e57211.

URL     PMID:3578794      [本文引用: 4]

This paper contrasts two accounts of audience design during multiparty communication: audience design as a strategic individual-level message adjustment or as a non-strategic interaction-level message adjustment. Using a non-interactive communication task, Experiment 1 showed that people distinguish between messages designed for oneself and messages designed for another person; consistent with strategic message design, messages designed for another person/s were longer (number of words) than those designed for oneself. However, audience size did not affect message length (messages designed for different sized audiences were similar in length). Using an interactive communication task Experiment 2 showed that as group size increased so too did communicative effort (number of words exchanged between interlocutors). Consistent with a non-strategic account, as group members were added more social interaction was necessary to coordinate the group's collective situation model. Experiment 3 validates and extends the production measures used in Experiment 1 and 2 using a comprehension task. Taken together, our results indicate that audience design arises as a non-strategic outcome of social interaction during group discussion.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

(2017). Overhearing Dialogues and Monologues: How Does Entrainment Lead to More Comprehensible Referring Expressions?. Discourse Processes. Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516

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).

URL     [本文引用: 4]

Not specified

Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G . ( 2010).

Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review

Language and Cognitive Processes, 25( 7-9), 905-945.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

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.

URL     PMID:22572985      [本文引用: 1]

We examined the extent to which speakers take into consideration the addressee’s perspective in language production. Previous research on this process had revealed clear deficits (Horton & Keysar, Cognition 59:91–117, 1996 ; Wardlow Lane & Ferreira, Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34:1466–1481, 2008 ). Here, we evaluated a new hypothesis—that the relevance of the addressee’s perspective depends on the speaker’s goals. In two experiments, Korean speakers described a target object in situations in which the perspective status of a competitor object (e.g., a large plate when describing a smaller plate) was manipulated. In Experiment 1 , we examined whether speakers would use scalar-modified expressions even when the competitor was hidden from the addressee. The results demonstrated that information from both the speaker’s and the addressee’s perspectives influenced production. In Experiment 2 , we examined whether utterance goals modulate this process. The results indicated that when a speaker makes a request, the addressee’s perspective has a stronger influence than it does when the speaker informs the addressee. These results suggest that privileged knowledge does shape language use, but crucially, that the degree to which the addressee’s perspective is considered is shaped by the relevance of the addressee’s perspective to the utterance goals.

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.

URL     [本文引用: 5]

Efficient collaborations between interacting agents, be they humans, virtual or embodied agents, require mutual recognition of the goal, appropriate sequencing and coordination of each agent's behavior with others, and making predictions from and about the likely behavior of others. Moment-by-moment eye gaze plays an important role in such interaction and collaboration. In light of this, we used a novel experimental paradigm to systematically investigate gaze patterns in both human-human and human-agent interactions. Participants in the study were asked to interact with either another human or an embodied agent in a joint attention task. Fine-grained multimodal behavioral data were recorded including eye movement data, speech, first-person view video, which were then analyzed to discover various behavioral patterns. Those patterns show that human participants are highly sensitive to momentary multimodal behaviors generated by the social partner (either another human or an artificial agent) and they rapidly adapt their gaze behaviors accordingly. Our results from this data-driven approach provide new findings for understanding micro-behaviors in human-human communication which will be critical for the design of artificial agents that can generate human-like gaze behaviors and engage in multimodal interactions with humans.

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

/