Abstract

One of the most important social cognitive skills in humans is the ability to “put oneself in someone else’s shoes,” that is, to take another person’s perspective. In socially situated communication, perspective taking enables the listener to arrive at a meaningful interpretation of what is said (sentence meaning) and what is meant (speaker’s meaning) by the speaker. To successfully decode the speaker’s meaning, the listener has to take into account which information he/she and the speaker share in their common ground (CG). We here further investigated competing accounts about when and how CG information affects language comprehension by means of reaction time (RT) measures, accuracy data, event-related potentials (ERPs), and eye-tracking. Early integration accounts would predict that CG information is considered immediately and would hence not expect to find costs of CG integration. Late integration accounts would predict a rather late and effortful integration of CG information during the parsing process that might be reflected in integration or updating costs. Other accounts predict the simultaneous integration of privileged ground (PG) and CG perspectives. We used a computerized version of the referential communication game with object triplets of different sizes presented visually in CG or PG. In critical trials (i.e., conflict trials), CG information had to be integrated while privileged information had to be suppressed. Listeners mastered the integration of CG (response accuracy 99.8%). Yet, slower RTs, and enhanced late positivities in the ERPs showed that CG integration had its costs. Moreover, eye-tracking data indicated an early anticipation of referents in CG but an inability to suppress looks to the privileged competitor, resulting in later and longer looks to targets in those trials, in which CG information had to be considered. Our data therefore support accounts that foresee an early anticipation of referents to be in CG but a rather late and effortful integration if conflicting information has to be processed. We show that both perspectives, PG and CG, contribute to socially situated language processing and discuss the data with reference to theoretical accounts and recent findings on the use of CG information for reference resolution.

Highlights

  • One of the most important social cognitive skills in humans is the ability to “put oneself in someone else’s shoes,” that is, to take another person’s perspective

  • Eye-Tracking Results As neither the reaction time (RT), nor the accuracy, nor the event-related potentials (ERPs) data show a difference between the conditions no-conflict and no-hidden, we restricted the analysis of the eye-tracking data to the comparison of the conflict vs. no-conflict condition

  • Our study aimed to verify different, partly conflicting accounts about when common ground (CG) information is integrated during reference processing

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important social cognitive skills in humans is the ability to “put oneself in someone else’s shoes,” that is, to take another person’s perspective. They fail to fully integrate CG information, because the lexical information given by the speaker autonomously activates the information in PG (i.e., the competitor) In contrast to these two accounts, that considered CG integration as a rather late and effortful process in which egocentric errors may occur (Keysar et al, 2000; Barr, 2008; Wang et al, 2019), earlier and cognitively less demanding effects of perspective taking on reference resolution had been found. If the clear instruction, the integrated practice phase, and the high repetition rate in our experimental design promotes the CG perspective taking behavior, CG information would be considered immediately In this case we would not expect discourse updating and no late positivity in the ERPs. Rather, we would expect no effects in ERP signatures as a result of CG integration

MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
ETHICS STATEMENT
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