Carving language for social coordination

Fusaroli, Riccardo; Tylén, Kristian

doi:10.1075/is.13.1.07fus

Cited by 72 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 81 publications

(109 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A dynamical approach to (aspects of) human interaction is not new per se. Similar approaches have been proposed and utilized, particularly in research on alignment and synchrony in interpersonal interaction and conversations (see e.g., Fusaroli and Tylén, 2012;Dale et al, 2013;Paxton & Dale, 2013;Fusaroli & Tylén, 2016). Such approaches have, however, not been commonly suggested or utilized in e.g., psychophysical research on the role of gaze to faces.…”

Section: A Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

How does gaze to faces support face-to-face interaction? A review and perspective

Hessels

2020

Psychon Bull Rev

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gaze—where one looks, how long, and when—plays an essential part in human social behavior. While many aspects of social gaze have been reviewed, there is no comprehensive review or theoretical framework that describes how gaze to faces supports face-to-face interaction. In this review, I address the following questions: (1) When does gaze need to be allocated to a particular region of a face in order to provide the relevant information for successful interaction; (2) How do humans look at other people, and faces in particular, regardless of whether gaze needs to be directed at a particular region to acquire the relevant visual information; (3) How does gaze support the regulation of interaction? The work reviewed spans psychophysical research, observational research, and eye-tracking research in both lab-based and interactive contexts. Based on the literature overview, I sketch a framework for future research based on dynamic systems theory. The framework holds that gaze should be investigated in relation to sub-states of the interaction, encompassing sub-states of the interactors, the content of the interaction as well as the interactive context. The relevant sub-states for understanding gaze in interaction vary over different timescales from microgenesis to ontogenesis and phylogenesis. The framework has important implications for vision science, psychopathology, developmental science, and social robotics.

show abstract

Section: A Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

How does gaze to faces support face-to-face interaction? A review and perspective

Hessels

2020

Psychon Bull Rev

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paxton and Dale (2013) found significantly less bodily synchrony within a dyad during argumentative than affiliative conversational settings. Fusaroli and Tylén (2012) found that when dyads were making joint decisions in a psychophysical task, the degree to which the participants matched each other's task-relevant expressions correlated positively with their task performance, whereas the indiscriminate matching of all expressions had the opposite effect on task performance. Hence, people seem to be sensitive to what to match and when.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Sequentiality, Mutual Visibility, and Behavioral Matching: Body Sway and Pitch Register During Joint Decision Making

Stevanovic

Himberg

Niinisalo

et al. 2017

Research on Language and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied behavioral matching during joint decision making. Drawing on motion-capture and voice data from 12 dyads, we analyzed bodysway and pitch-register matching during sequential transitions and continuations, with and without mutual visibility. Body sway was matched most strongly during sequential transitions in the conditions of mutual visibility. Pitch-register matching was higher during sequential transitions than continuations only when the participants could not see each other. These results suggest that both body sway and pitch register are used to manage sequential transitions, while mutual visibility influences the relative weights of these two resources. The conversational data are in Finnish with English translation.

show abstract

“…Recent developments in psycholinguistics of dialog, however, suggest that the bodily movements seen in conversation emerge from an interpersonal synergy ( Fowler et al, 2008 ; Fusaroli and Tylen, 2012 ; Dale et al, 2013 ; Fusaroli et al, 2013 ). Although this synergistic dialog work emphasizes linguistic coordination, the idea is that speakers in conversation synchronize non-linguistic actions such as prosody, manual gestures, eye gaze, posture, body movements, and deictic words in functional, dynamical, real-time sense.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bodily synchronization underlying joke telling

Schmidt

Nie

Franco

et al. 2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in video and time series analysis have greatly enhanced our ability to study the bodily synchronization that occurs in natural interactions. Past research has demonstrated that the behavioral synchronization involved in social interactions is similar to dynamical synchronization found generically in nature. The present study investigated how the bodily synchronization in a joke telling task is spread across different nested temporal scales. Pairs of participants enacted knock–knock jokes and times series of their bodily activity were recorded. Coherence and relative phase analyses were used to evaluate the synchronization of bodily rhythms for the whole trial as well as at the subsidiary time scales of the whole joke, the setup of the punch line, the two-person exchange and the utterance. The analyses revealed greater than chance entrainment of the joke teller’s and joke responder’s movements at all time scales and that the relative phasing of the teller’s movements led those of the responder at the longer time scales. Moreover, this entrainment was greater when visual information about the partner’s movements was present but was decreased particularly at the shorter time scales when explicit gesturing in telling the joke was performed. In short, the results demonstrate that a complex interpersonal bodily “dance” occurs during structured conversation interactions and that this “dance” is constructed from a set of rhythms associated with the nested behavioral structure of the interaction.

show abstract

Carving language for social coordination

Cited by 72 publications

References 81 publications

How does gaze to faces support face-to-face interaction? A review and perspective

How does gaze to faces support face-to-face interaction? A review and perspective

Sequentiality, Mutual Visibility, and Behavioral Matching: Body Sway and Pitch Register During Joint Decision Making

Bodily synchronization underlying joke telling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About