2014
DOI: 10.1037/a0036161
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adjusting conceptual pacts in three-party conversation.

Abstract: During conversation, partners develop representations of jointly known information--the common ground--and use this knowledge to guide subsequent linguistic exchanges. Extensive research on 2-party conversation has offered key insights into this process, in particular, its partner-specificity: Common ground that is shared with 1 partner is not always assumed to be shared with other partners. Conversation often involves multiple pairs of individuals who differ in common ground. Yet, little is known about common… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

10
83
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(135 reference statements)
10
83
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result goes well beyond prior work which had demonstrated success in taking knowledge differences into account in multiparty conversation (Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014, 2018. When the physical context made the task difficult for the na€ ıve Matcher, Directors produced long expressions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This result goes well beyond prior work which had demonstrated success in taking knowledge differences into account in multiparty conversation (Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014, 2018. When the physical context made the task difficult for the na€ ıve Matcher, Directors produced long expressions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 61%
“…In prior work, we established that when simultaneously addressing multiple addressees who differ in their knowledge of the topic at hand, speakers design utterances that balance the communicative needs of na€ ıve and knowledgeable addressees (Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014, 2018. In prior work, we established that when simultaneously addressing multiple addressees who differ in their knowledge of the topic at hand, speakers design utterances that balance the communicative needs of na€ ıve and knowledgeable addressees (Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014, 2018.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Over-informative adjectives may not impair on-line language processing (Arts, Maes, Noordman, & Jansen, 2011;Davies & Katsos, 2013;Levelt, 1989;Rubio-Fernández, P., 2016;cf., Engelhardt, Demiral, & Ferreira, 2011), and may reflect natural properties of utterance formulation (Belke, 2006;Pechmann, 1989). Furthermore, because the three shapes (circles, square, triangle) were repeated across training trials, the use of scalars that were over-informative for a given visual display may have been attributed to a tendency to lexically differentiate the currently observed shapes from those seen on previous trials (Van der Wege, 2009;Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014) or to a looser definition of the comparison class-for example, the comparison class for a triangle may be other shapes in general (e.g., "small square" to contrast with a larger circle). Thus, due to speakers' tendency to over-use adjectives in general, and the potential attribution of over-modification to other communicative goals, participants may not have perceived our over-modified instructions as truly infelicitous (Engelhardt et al, 2006;Pogue et al 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%