1988
DOI: 10.1016/0271-5309(88)90019-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lexical diversity and magnitude of convergent versus divergent style shifting-: Perceptual and evaluative consequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
27
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…According to CAT, people adjust their communication as a means to manage both understanding and social distance (Dragojevic et al, ; Street & Giles, ). These adjustments can be studied in terms of either objective communication behavior (e.g., measurable changes in volume, pitch, speech rate; e.g., Bradac, Mulac, & House, ; Riordan, Markman, & Stewart, ) or subjective perceptions and evaluations of communication behavior (as e.g., positive/negative, appropriate/inappropriate; Ross & Shortreed, ; Platt & Weber, ). Early CAT work tended to focus on observable speech variables, and accordingly conceptualized accommodation in terms of measurable changes in these dimensions of speech behavior (i.e., convergence and divergence between interlocutors; Giles, ; Street, Brady, & Putnam, ).…”
Section: Communication Accommodation and Nonaccommodationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to CAT, people adjust their communication as a means to manage both understanding and social distance (Dragojevic et al, ; Street & Giles, ). These adjustments can be studied in terms of either objective communication behavior (e.g., measurable changes in volume, pitch, speech rate; e.g., Bradac, Mulac, & House, ; Riordan, Markman, & Stewart, ) or subjective perceptions and evaluations of communication behavior (as e.g., positive/negative, appropriate/inappropriate; Ross & Shortreed, ; Platt & Weber, ). Early CAT work tended to focus on observable speech variables, and accordingly conceptualized accommodation in terms of measurable changes in these dimensions of speech behavior (i.e., convergence and divergence between interlocutors; Giles, ; Street, Brady, & Putnam, ).…”
Section: Communication Accommodation and Nonaccommodationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, this assumption also underlies the prevailing research underpinning multimedia learning. We know, for instance, how humans process and retain information (Gross, 1994), how human retention varies with the number of sources from which the information originates (Hapeshi and Jones, 1992;Lewalter, 2003), the individual contribution of media effects to learning (De Westelinck et al, forthcoming; Lowe, 2003;Mayer, 2003), the perceptual impact of lexical constructs (Bradac et al, 1988), as well as how to induce humans to think in a certain way (Cialdini, 2000;Xia and Lee, 2000). However, as any user who has viewed multimedia content over the Web will testify, such transmissions are rarely free from quality issues -media losses, errors and degradations are all factors which impact upon the user multimedia experience and which must be explored if human factors are to be truly integrated in distributed multimedia learning systems.…”
Section: Perceptual Multimedia Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evidence for this comes from the study of alignment, a phenomenon whereby people tend to repeat the same linguistic features as a previous speaker has used. Alignment appears to be a highly pervasive phenomenon in dialogue: speakers have been found to converge at many linguistic levels, including those as diverse as rhetorical structure, speech rate, pronunciation, word choice and syntactic structure (Giles and Powesland, 1975;Giles and Smith, 1979;Schenkein, 1980;Levelt and Kelter, 1982;Bradac et al, 1988;Giles et al, 1991;Branigan et al, 2000), as well as at entirely non-linguistic levels, such as bodily movements, where it has been termed the "chameleon effect" (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999). In our example, Anne and Barbara converge on the use of the term work rather than the approximately synonymous job; in this case, their choice of terminology seems unlikely to reflect a particular conceptualisation, but rather a purely linguistic choice.…”
Section: Empirical Studies Of Two-party Dialoguesmentioning
confidence: 98%