Abstract

Dialog partners coordinate with each other to reach a common goal. The analogy with other joint activities has sparked interesting observations (e.g., about the norms governing turn-taking) and has informed studies of linguistic alignment in dialog. However, the parallels between language and action have not been fully explored, especially with regard to the mechanisms that support moment-by-moment coordination during language use in conversation. We review the literature on joint actions to show (i) what sorts of mechanisms allow coordination and (ii) which types of experimental paradigms can be informative of the nature of such mechanisms. Regarding (i), there is converging evidence that the actions of others can be represented in the same format as one’s own actions. Furthermore, the predicted actions of others are taken into account in the planning of one’s own actions. Similarly, we propose that interlocutors are able to coordinate their acts of production because they can represent their partner’s utterances. They can then use these representations to build predictions, which they take into account when planning self-generated utterances. Regarding (ii), we propose a new methodology to study interactive language. Psycholinguistic tasks that have traditionally been used to study individual language production are distributed across two participants, who either produce two utterances simultaneously or complete each other’s utterances.

Highlights

  • The interactive use of language in conversation is a form of joint activity, in which individuals act together to achieve the common goal of communicative success. Clark (1996, 2002) proposed that conversation shares fundamental features with other joint activities, for example waltzing, playing a duet, or shaking hands

  • We review the literature on joint actions to show (i) what sorts of mechanisms allow coordination and (ii) which types of experimental paradigms can be informative of the nature of such mechanisms

  • To distinguish these predictions that relate to content from predictions that relate to timing, we label them p, p, p, and p

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The interactive use of language in conversation is a form of joint activity, in which individuals act together to achieve the common goal of communicative success. Clark (1996, 2002) proposed that conversation shares fundamental features with other joint activities, for example waltzing, playing a duet, or shaking hands. Clark (1996, 2002) argued that speaker and listener synchronize their acts of production and comprehension by striving to comply with principles such as the continuity principle, which states that constituents should be produced fluently whenever possible (Clark and Wasow, 1998) When they have to deviate from these principles, they follow conventional strategies to help their listeners by signaling that one of the principles is being violated. Clark (2002) assumes that speakers produce certain types of disfluencies to inform listeners that they are violating the continuity principle He is silent on the mechanisms that normally allow synchronization, merely pointing out that the listener needs to attend to a speaker’s productions.

Gambi and Pickering
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call