Perspectives on Multi-party Dialogue

Branigan, Holly P.

doi:10.1007/s11168-006-9002-2

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Factors such as the background knowledge of the addressees (Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014, 2018 and the number of conversational partners and their roles in the conversation (Branigan, 2006;Fay, Garrod, & Carletta, 2000;Wilkes-Gibbs & Clark, 1992) shape utterance form in multiparty settings. Factors such as the background knowledge of the addressees (Yoon & Brown-Schmidt, 2014, 2018 and the number of conversational partners and their roles in the conversation (Branigan, 2006;Fay, Garrod, & Carletta, 2000;Wilkes-Gibbs & Clark, 1992) shape utterance form in multiparty settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Yoon

Brown‐Schmidt

2019

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communicating with multiple addressees poses a problem for speakers: Each addressee necessarily comes to the conversation with a different perspective-different knowledge, different beliefs, and a distinct physical context. Despite the ubiquity of multiparty conversation in everyday life, little is known about the processes by which speakers design language in multiparty conversation. While prior evidence demonstrates that speakers design utterances to accommodate addressee knowledge in multiparty conversation, it is unknown if and how speakers encode and combine different types of perspective information. Here we test whether speakers encode the perspective of multiple addressees, and then simultaneously consider their knowledge and physical context during referential design in a three-party conversation. Analyses of referential form-expression length, disfluency, and elaboration rate-in an interactive multiparty conversation demonstrate that speakers do take into consideration both addressee knowledge and physical context when designing utterances, consistent with a knowledge-scene integration view. These findings point to an audience design process that takes as input multiple types of representations about the perspectives of multiple addressees, and that bases the informational content of the to-be-designed utterance on a combination of the perspectives of the intended addressees. process involves considerations of the likely knowledge and beliefs of a single addressee -tailoring what is said to their perspective. When we consider the case of multiparty conversation, however, this process becomes decidedly more complex. Consider that each individual necessarily brings to the conversation different knowledge and beliefs (due to different life experiences), and a distinct physical context (as two people cannot occupy the same place at the same time). Thus, when simultaneously addressing two or more addressees, the speaker must design what they will say for a group of addressees who have different communicative needs due to their distinct perspectives. The current literature contains only a small number of studies examining audience design in multiparty conversation, and as a result, very little is known about if or how this process unfolds. In a new line of research, we have begun to ask basic mechanistic questions about how speakers design language for groups of addressees who differ in their background knowledge for the topic at hand. The present research builds on these findings to explore if and how speakers take into consideration two different types of perspective informationknowledge and physical context-in multiparty audience design.A classic paradigm for examining audience design is the referential communication task, in which pairs of participants work together to rearrange a set of abstract images multiple times (Krauss & Weinheimer, 1964, 1966. In this task, the conversational partners jointly create brief labels for these images across the course of the conversation

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design

Yoon

Brown‐Schmidt

2019

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The speaker and addressee are aware of the presence of unaddressed recipients, but un-addressed recipients are not recognised as part of the ongoing dialogue. Hence, in contrast to eavesdroppers, unaddressed recipients are involved in conversation, but they usually need to wait their turn until the speaker and addressee are satisfied with the current dialogue (Branigan, 2006). Thus, in multi-party situations, participants need to pay more attention to their current role in conversation, which typically shifts many times as the dialogue proceeds (Gibson, 2003).…”

Section: Supporting Conversationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Joining a conversation causes a situation where communicators are participating at different conversational backgrounds (i.e., newcomers are not aware of what has been said before), leading to a breakdown of common ground. Newcomers must then either explicitly initiate a repair (to help establish common ground) (Clark and Brennan, 1991), or wait until their understanding of the conversation develops to become active participants (Branigan, 2006).…”

Section: Supporting Conversationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmenting Multi-Party Face-to-Face Interactions Amongst Strangers with User Generated Content

Kytö

McGookin

2017

Comput Supported Coop Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present the results of an investigation into the role of curated representations of self, which we term Digital Selfs, in augmented multi-party face-to-face interactions. Advancements in wearable technologies (such as Head-Mounted Displays) have renewed interest in augmenting face-toface interaction with digital content. However, existing work focuses on algorithmic matching between users, based on data-mining shared interests from individuals' social media accounts, which can cause information that might be inappropriate or irrelevant to be disclosed to others. An alternative approach is to allow users to manually curate the digital augmentation they wish to present to others, allowing users to present those aspects of self that are most important to them and avoid undesired disclosure. Through interviews, video analysis, questionnaires and device logging, of 23 participants in 6 multi-party gatherings where individuals were allowed to freely mix, we identified how users created Digital Selfs from media largely outside existing social media accounts, and how Digital Selfs presented through HMDs were employed in multi-party interactions, playing key roles in facilitating strangers to interact with each other. We present guidance for the design of future multi-party digital augmentations in collaborative scenarios.

show abstract

“…We expect that dyadic conversations impacted the types of results we could detect due to the dynamics of two person conversation [5,19]. A two person conversation has only a speaker and a listener, there is no third or fourth person to share the speaking load in conversation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%