Communicative language cognition theory

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01019

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

B842

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

References 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