Understanding by addressees and overhearers

Schober, Michael F.; Clark, Herbert H.

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-x

Cited by 518 publications

(433 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

401

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the meaning of what is being communicated depends on the interlocutors' agreement or consensus rather than on dictionary meanings [24] and is subject to negotiation [25]. This explains why overhearers not directly engaged in the dialogue have trouble understanding what is being said [26]. The coupling of production and comprehension processes in dialogue may go some way towards overcoming problems of opportunistic planning.…”

Section: Box 1 Conversation As a Joint Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is conversation so easy?

Garrod

Pickering

2004

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

525

345

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Box 1 Conversation As a Joint Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is conversation so easy?

Garrod

Pickering

2004

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

525

345

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To bridge these differences, conversants must tailor their speech to the listeners and common background knowledge must be created. This process is termed grounding (Schober & Clark, 1989). However, theorists differ on many aspects.…”

Section: Theories Of Communication and A Preview Of The Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent findings seem to suggest that to create a message it is not necessary to rely on a model of the listener's knowledge constructed from prior assumption, and that momentarily feedback might be sufficient as it enables immediate correction of misunderstandings. This issue is addressed in research using the so-called referential paradigm, in which one person describes one item in an array in such a way that the other person can identify it (e.g., Kingsbury, 1968;Krauss & Weinheimer, 1964, 1966Schober & Clark, 1989;Steels, 1999;Wilkes-Gibbs & Clark, 1992 According to the final, dialogic perspective, a communication exchange is more than the combined output of two autonomous agents, but rather a joint accomplishment that is socially situated so that the meaning of the message can be understood only in a particular context. For instance, in the referential paradigm, it has been found that only participants of the conversation profit from the common ground created by them, that overhearers who enter in the middle of a conversation (but heard the whole conversation) lack the shared knowledge in that they did not cocreate a common background and thus takes much less advantage from it (e.g., they might have misunderstood some point in the conversation but could not give feedback to correct).…”

Section: Theories Of Communication and A Preview Of The Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of such paradigm is referencing, or the use of language to describe and identify some state of the external environment such as concrete of abstract objects, or even feelings and appreciations. This gives an opportunity to study the process by which people coordinate and establish a joint perspective during the conversation (Schober & Clark, 1989). Another paradigm takes its inspiration from rumors, and how they are sequentially spread in a community (Lyons & Kashima, 2003), while still another paradigm explores free discussions and how information that is unique to some members is shared TRUST Connectionist Model of Communication 24 in the whole group (Tasser, 1999).…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Often the referring expression that the conversants settle on is not one that by itself would evoke the picture. This is taken as evidence that people not simple decode and encode messages, but that they collaborate with each other moment by moment to try to ensure that what is said is also understood (Schober & Clark, 1989). Schober and Clark (1989) conducted an interesting experiment because they recorded not only the verbal descriptions of the director, but also the reactions of the matcher (Experiment 1).…”

Section: Simulation 3: Referencingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals.

Overwalle

Heylighen

2006

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How is information transmitted in a group? A multi-agent connectionist model is proposed that combines features of standard recurrent models to simulate the process of information uptake, integration and memorization within individual agents, with novel aspects that simulate the communication of beliefs and opinions between agents. A crucial aspect in belief updating based on information from other agents is the trust in the information provided, implemented as the consistency with the receiving agents' existing beliefs. Trust leads to a selective propagation and thus filtering out of less reliable information, and implements Grice's (1975) maxims of quality and quantity in communication. By studying these communicative aspects within the framework of standard models of information processing, the unique contribution of communicative mechanisms beyond intra-personal factors was explored in simulations of key phenomena involving persuasive communication and polarization, lexical acquisition, spreading of stereotypes and rumors, and a lack of sharing unique information in group decisions. TRUST Connectionist Model of Communication 3Cognition is not limited to the mind of an individual agent, but involves interactions with other minds. A full understanding of human thinking thus requires a deeper insight of its social origin. Sociologists and developmental psychologists have long noted that most of our knowledge of reality is the result of a social construction and communication rather than of individual observation. Economists emphasize that effective knowledge management and learning is an organizational phenomenon that determines enterprise's success or failure (Senge, 1990).Collective behaviors have a long evolutionary past, as biologists and computer scientists have built models that demonstrate how collectives of simple agents, such as ant colonies, bee hives, or flocks of birds, can process complex information more effectively than single agents facing the same tasks (Bonabeau et al., 1999).Social psychologists too have studied cognition at the group level, using laboratory experiments to document various biases and shortcomings of collective intelligence. Research has revealed that we often fall prey to biases and simplistic stereotypes about other groups, and that many of these distorted representations are emergent properties of the cognitive dynamics in single or multiple minds. Some of these biased processes are illusory correlation or the creation of an unwarranted association between a group and undesirable characteristics, accentuation of differences between groups, subtyping of deviant members (for a review see Van Rooy, Van Overwalle, Vanhoomissen, Labiouse & French, 2004) and the communication of stereotypes (e.g., Lyons & Kashima, 1993). With respect to processes within a group, different types of social dynamics lead to a less than optimal performance. These include conformity and polarization which move a group as a whole towards more extreme opinions (Ebbesen & Bowers, 1974;Mackie & ...

show abstract

Psycholinguistics

Clark

Wege

2002

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psycholinguistics in the study of how people process language. People use spoken language to coordinate such joint activities as business transactions, story telling, and planning. In doing so, they work turn by turn, relying on adjacency pairs, such as question plus answer, or assertion plus acknowledgment, and they ground what is said as they proceed. Speaking itself is a process with overlapping stages. For each utterance, speakers decide on a message, select the concepts and syntactic frame required for that message, assemble these in an appropriate order, formulate a phonological code, and then articulate the right sounds. Listeners, for their part, take in these sounds segment by segment. They narrow down on words and phrases instantly as these become specified uniquely in the context. Listeners rely on pragmatic information not only in this process, but also in filling conceptual gaps in their understanding with bridging and elaborative inferences. The words people use are stored in a mental lexicon as entries with conventional meanings. But in talking face‐to‐face, people also use gestures—such as emblems, iconic gestures, and pointing—which they coordinate with their words. People also create broader models of the situations being spoken about. These models represent such things as visual and spatial features of the situations, cultural schemas, and mental simulations of imagined scenes and events.

show abstract

Understanding by addressees and overhearers

Cited by 518 publications

References 17 publications

Why is conversation so easy?

Why is conversation so easy?

Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to communication and trust between individuals.

Psycholinguistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About