交流语言认知理论 *

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019

摘要/Abstract

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..

Key words: communication, language, cognition

中图分类号:

B842

张恒超. (2018). 交流语言认知理论 ^*. 心理科学进展 , 26(6), 1019-1019.

ZHANG Hengchao. (2018). Communicative language cognition theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 1019-1019.

参考文献 67

[1]	张恒超 . ( 2013). 参照性交流中的“听者设计”. 心理发展与教育, 29( 5), 552-560.
[2]	张恒超 . ( 2017 a). 共享因素对参照性交流双方学习的影响. 心理学报, 49( 2), 197-205. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00197 URL
[3]	张恒超 . ( 2017 b). 参照性交流双方学习和语言注意特征的比较. 心理研究, 10( 1), 24-30.
[4]	张恒超 . ( 2017 c). 共享方式对参照性交流学习过程和选择性注意的影响. 心理学探新, 37( 4), 307-312.
[5]	张恒超 . ( 2017 d). 参照性交流学习中语言内容和选择性注意的变化特点. 心理技术与应用, 5( 7), 385-393. doi: 10.16842/j.cnki.issn2095-5588.2017.07.001 URL
[6]	张恒超 . ( 2018). 交流语言认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26( 2), 270-282.
[7]	Arnold J. E., Kahn J. M., & Pancani G. C . ( 2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19( 3), 505-512. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y URL pmid: 22419403
[8]	Arnold J. E., Tanenhaus M. K., Altmann R. J., & Fagnano M . ( 2004). The old and thee, uh, new. Psychological Science, 15, 578-582. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.x URL
[9]	Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46( 2), 391-418. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2815 URL
[10]	Bell A., Brenier J. M., Gregory M., Girand C., & Jurafsky D . ( 2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60( 1), 92-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 URL
[11]	Beyer, H., & Liebe, U. (2015). Three experimental approaches to measure the social context dependence of prejudice communication and discriminatory behavior. Social Science Research, 49, 343-355. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.08.017 URL pmid: 25432623
[12]	Branigan H. P., Pickering M. J., Pearson J., McLean J. F., & Brown A . ( 2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition, 121, 41-57. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011 URL pmid: 21723549
[13]	Brennan S. E., Chen X., Dickinson C. A., Neider M. B., & Zelinsky G. J . ( 2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106( 3), 1465-1477. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012 URL pmid: 17617394
[14]	Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H . ( 1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22( 6), 1482-1493. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482 URL
[15]	Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E . ( 2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274-291. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x URL pmid: 25164933
[16]	Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Language Emergence. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3( 1), 363-388. doi: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040743 URL
[17]	Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61( 2), 171-190. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.003 URL pmid: 20161117
[18]	Buz E., Tanenhaus M. K., & Jaeger T. F . ( 2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009 URL pmid: 4927008
[19]	Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B . ( 1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58( 2), 332-373. doi: 10.2307/414102 URL
[20]	Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A . ( 2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50( 1), 62-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004 URL
[21]	Clark H. H. , & Marshall, C. R.( 1981) . Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, I. A. Sag, & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (10- 63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22]	Davies, C. N . ( 2011). Over-informativeness in referential communication (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Cambridge.
[23]	De Marco D., De Stefani E., & Gentilucci M . ( 2015). Gesture and word analysis: the same or different processes?. NeuroImage, 117, 375-385. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.080 URL pmid: 26044859
[24]	De Ruiter J. P., Bangerter A., & Dings P . ( 2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4( 2), 232-248. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01183.x URL pmid: 22389109
[25]	Duff M. C., Hengst J., Tranel D., & Cohen N. J . ( 2006). Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia. Nature Neuroscience, 9( 1), 140-146. doi: 10.1038/nn1601 URL pmid: 16341214
[26]	Edelman, S. (2017). Language and other complex behaviors: Unifying characteristics, computational models, neural mechanisms. Language Sciences, 62, 91-123. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.04.003 URL
[27]	Epley N., Keysar B., van Boven L., & Gilovich T . ( 2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327 URL
[28]	Fay N., Garrod S., & Carletta J . ( 2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11, 481-486. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00292 URL
[29]	Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S . ( 2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0730 URL pmid: 10888342
[30]	Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N . ( 2013). Collaborating in spatial tasks: How partners coordinate their spatial memories and descriptions. Cognitive Processing, 14( 2), 193-195. doi: 10.1007/s10339-013-0541-9 URL pmid: 23413001
[31]	Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E . ( 2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002 URL
[32]	Galati A., Michael C., Mello C., Greenauer N. M., & Avraamides M. N . ( 2013). The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 140-159. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.001 URL
[33]	Graham S. A., Sedivy J., & Khu M . ( 2014). That’s not what you said earlier: Preschoolers expect partners to be referentially consistent. Journal of Child Language, 41, 34-50. doi: 10.1017/S0305000912000530 URL pmid: 23398907
[34]	Graziano, M., & Gullberg, M. (2013). Gesture production and speech fluency in competent speakers and language learners. In Tilburg Gesture Research Meeting (TiGeR) 2013. Tilburg University.
[35]	Green T., Wilhelmsen T., Wilmots E., Dodd B., & Quinn S . ( 2016). Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 206-213. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.066 URL
[36]	Greenaway K. H., Wright R. G., Willingham J., Reynolds K. J., & Haslam S. A . ( 2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41( 2), 171-182. doi: 10.1177/0146167214559709 URL pmid: 25416042
[37]	Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
[38]	Haywood S. L., Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . ( 2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science, 16, 362-366. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01541.x URL pmid: 15869694
[39]	Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001 URL
[40]	Horton, W. S . ( 2007). The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22( 7), 1114-1139. doi: 10.1080/01690960701402933 URL pmid: 2440709
[41]	Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2002). Speaker’s experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589-606. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0 URL
[42]	Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J . ( 2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1-35. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1 URL
[43]	Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 URL pmid: 8857472
[44]	Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36( 1), 143-159. doi: 10.2478/slgr-2014-0007 URL
[45]	Keysar B., Barr D. J., Balin J. A., & Brauner J. S . ( 2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11( 1), 32-38. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00211 URL pmid: 11228840
[46]	Keysar B., Barr D. J., & Horton W. S . ( 1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7( 2), 46-49. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613 URL
[47]	Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J . ( 2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from- preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 436-455. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.05.002 URL
[48]	Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J . ( 2015) Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta- analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008 URL
[49]	Kronmüller E., Noveck I., Rivera N., Jaume-Guazzini F., & Barr D . ( 2017). The positive side of a negative reference: The delay between linguistic processing and common ground. Royal Society Open Science, 4( 2), 160827. doi: 10.1098/rsos.160827 URL pmid: 28386440
[50]	Levinson, S. C . ( 2016). Turn-taking in human communication-origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20( 1), 6-14. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010 URL pmid: 26651245
[51]	Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S . ( 1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127( 4), 331-354. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.331 URL pmid: 9857492
[52]	Matovic D., Koch A. S., & Forgas J. P . ( 2014). Can negative mood improve language understanding? Affective influences on the ability to detect ambiguous communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 44-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.12.003 URL
[53]	Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E . ( 2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 201-213. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7 URL
[54]	Nappa, R., & Arnold, J. E . ( 2014). The road to understanding is paved with the speaker’s intentions: Cues to the speaker’s attention and intentions affect pronoun comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 58-81. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.003 URL pmid: 24534295
[55]	Novak-Marcincin J., Nicolescu A., & Teodorescu M . ( 2015). Neutrosophic circuits of communication: A review. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 43, 174-186. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.23060 URL
[56]	Nückles M., Wittwer J., & Renkl A . ( 2005). Information about a layperson’s knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 219-236. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.219 URL pmid: 16393032
[57]	O’Carroll S., Nicoladis E., & Smithson L . ( 2015). The effect of extroversion on communication: Evidence from an interlocutor visibility manipulation. Speech Communication, 69, 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2015.01.005 URL
[58]	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. doi: 10.1111/tops.12127 URL pmid: 25565249
[59]	Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-190. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056 URL pmid: 15595235
[60]	Regier T., Kemp C., & Kay P . ( 2015). Word meanings across languages support efficient communication. In The handbook of language emergence( pp. 237-263). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781118346136.ch11 URL
[61]	Roberts G., Langstein B., & Galantucci B . ( 2016). ( In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication. Language & Communication, 47, 15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.11.001 URL
[62]	Rogers S. L., Fay N., & Maybery M . ( 2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PLoS One, 8( 2), e57211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057211 URL pmid: 3578794
[63]	Tolins J., Zeamer C., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2017). Overhearing dialogues and monologues: How does entrainment lead to more comprehensible referring expressions?. Discourse Processes, 1-21, doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1279516 URL
[64]	Vanlangendonck F., Willems R., Menenti L., & Hagoort P . ( 2013). The role of common ground in audience design: Beyond an all or nothing story. In The workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference the (PRE-CogSci 2013).
[65]	Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G . ( 2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25( 7-9), 905-945. doi: 10.1080/01690961003589492 URL
[66]	Yoon S. O., Koh S., & Brown-Schmidt S . ( 2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 699-707. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0262-6 URL pmid: 22572985
[67]	Yu C., Schermerhorn P., & Scheutz M . ( 2012). Adaptive eye gaze patterns in interactions with human and artificial agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 1(2), Article No.13. doi: 10.1145/2070719.2070726 URL

交流语言认知理论 ^*

Communicative language cognition theory

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献 67

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	成美霞, 匡子翌, 冷晓雪, 张洋, 王福兴. 以教促学：学习者自我生成教学对学习的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(5): 769-782.
[2]	张莹, 张剑, 张静雅, 巩振兴. 职业冲击的新分类及不同理论视角下的影响效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(5): 854-865.
[3]	崔楠, 王久菊, 赵婧. 注意缺陷多动障碍-发展性阅读障碍共患儿童的干预效果及其内在机理[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 622-630.
[4]	孔祥祯, 张凤翔, 蒲艺. 空间导航的脑网络基础和调控机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 330-337.
[5]	杨庆, 李亚琴. 不确定是坏的么?不确定状态中的错误加工特点及其解释机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 338-349.
[6]	冯廷勇, 张碧滢. 拖延行为的认知神经模型及干预[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 350-360.
[7]	程婕婷, 史梦薇. “凭感觉”的热情与能力：社会认知内容的生理线索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 443-454.
[8]	张浩, 张雨, 赵爽, 孙新波. 用户换位型思维的形成及对机会信念绩效的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(1): 45-59.
[9]	寇东晓, 王晓玉. 权力对人际敏感性的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(1): 108-115.
[10]	苗浩飞, 迟立忠. 动作视频游戏专业玩家的认知神经特征[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(1): 127-144.
[11]	邹迪, 李红, 王福顺. 唤醒定义探析及其认知神经生理基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(9): 2020-2033.
[12]	张思源, 李雪冰. 不同频率经颅交流电刺激在精神疾病中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(9): 2053-2066.
[13]	蒋涵. 注意缺陷多动障碍儿童教育康复线上模式的构建[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(8): 1747-1758.
[14]	杨倩. 负性情绪在冲突适应中的作用机制：分离与整合视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(8): 1844-1855.
[15]	周国梅, 郑若颖, 林佳, 刘心阁. 面孔吸引力的整体表征及其动态性增强[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(7): 1429-1438.