Less Is More: A Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication

Language use can be viewed as a form of joint activity that requires the coordination of meaning between individuals. Because the linguistic signal is notoriously ambiguous, interlocutors need to draw upon additional sources of information to resolve ambiguity and achieve shared understanding. One way individuals can achieve coordination is by using inferences about the interlocutor's intentions and mental states to adapt their behavior. However, such an inferential process can be demanding in terms of both time and cognitive resources. Here, we suggest that interaction provides interlocutors with many cues that can support coordination of meaning, even when they are neither produced intentionally for that purpose nor interpreted as signaling speakers' intention. In many circumstances, interlocutors can take advantage of these cues to adapt their behavior in ways that promote coordination, bypassing the need to resort to deliberative inferential processes.

[1]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding , 2004 .

[2]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts , 1995, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[3]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article WHAT THE EYES SAY ABOUT SPEAKING , 2022 .

[4]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. , 1978 .

[5]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Models for recall and recognition , 2006 .

[6]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Audience Design in Meaning and Reference , 1982 .

[7]  G. Gergely,et al.  On pedagogy. , 2007, Developmental science.

[8]  Nancy Niedzielski,et al.  The Effect of Social Information on the Perception of Sociolinguistic Variables , 1999 .

[9]  M. Alibali,et al.  Effects of Visibility between Speaker and Listener on Gesture Production: Some Gestures Are Meant to Be Seen , 2001 .

[10]  Neal J Cohen,et al.  Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Why people gesture when they speak , 1998, Nature.

[12]  D. Barr,et al.  Anchoring Comprehension in Linguistic Precedents , 2002 .

[13]  S. Brennan,et al.  Speakers' eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation , 2007 .

[14]  S. Garrod,et al.  Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination , 1987, Cognition.

[15]  B. Keysar,et al.  The Effect of Culture on Perspective Taking , 2007, Psychological science.

[16]  M. Pickering,et al.  Towards a mechanistic theory of dialog , 2004 .

[17]  C Stamov Rossnagel Cognitive load and perspective-taking: applying the automatic-controlled distinction to verbal communication , 2000 .

[18]  B. Keysar,et al.  You said it before and you'll say it again: expectations of consistency in communication. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  D. Barr,et al.  Perspective taking and the coordination of meaning in language use , 2006 .

[20]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences , 2003 .

[21]  Boaz Keysar,et al.  Unconfounding common ground , 1997 .

[22]  S. Brennan,et al.  Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  William S Horton,et al.  The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming , 2007, Language and cognitive processes.

[24]  Susan M. Wagner,et al.  Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load , 2001, Psychological science.

[25]  D. McNeill Hand and Mind , 1995 .

[26]  H. Nusbaum,et al.  Analog acoustic expression in speech communication , 2006 .

[27]  N. Epley,et al.  Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  S. Brennan,et al.  When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions , 2003 .

[29]  Susan M. Wagner,et al.  How our hands help us learn , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  Roger M. Cooper,et al.  The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. , 1974 .

[31]  V. Bruce,et al.  Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Jennifer E. Arnold RUNNING HEAD : AVOIDING ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITIES Avoiding Attachment Ambiguities : the Role of Constituent Ordering , 2004 .

[33]  R. Gerrig,et al.  The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production , 2005, Cognition.

[34]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children's On-Line Reference Resolution , 2002, Psychological science.

[36]  H. H. Clark,et al.  References in Conversation Between Experts and Novices , 1987 .

[37]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation , 2003 .

[38]  D. Barr,et al.  Taking Perspective in Conversation: The Role of Mutual Knowledge in Comprehension , 2000, Psychological science.

[39]  Boaz Keysar,et al.  Keeping Track of Speaker's Perspective: The Role of Social Identity , 2009 .

[40]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Gesturing makes learning last , 2008, Cognition.

[41]  B. Keysar,et al.  When do speakers take into account common ground? , 1996, Cognition.

[42]  G. Csibra Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[43]  Yiya Chen,et al.  Let’s you do that: Sharing the cognitive burdens of dialogue , 2007 .

[44]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Coordination of knowledge in communication: effects of speakers' assumptions about what others know. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.