Unconfounding common ground

I propose that research on the role of common ground in language use is often insensitive to considerations of parsimony. By ignoring parsimony, our experiments might fall short of addressing common ground and instead the resulting data support a simpler theory which is subsumed within the theory of common ground. In order to address this inherent conceptual confound, this paper proposes the subsuming theory criterion for experiments on common ground and mutual knowledge. In practical terms, to demonstrate an effect of common ground the design must keep common information constant and only vary whether or not it is common. The paper demonstrates how consistent use of this necessary criterion will allow us to make stronger claims about when common ground plays a role and when it does not To illustrate how experiments can be designed to satisfy the criterion, the paper evaluates some earlier studies which do and don't satisfy it In general, the study of language use could benefit from tightening the rules o...

[1]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension , 1987 .

[2]  N. Goodman Fact, Fiction, and Forecast , 1955 .

[3]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Common ground at the understanding of demonstrative reference , 1983 .

[4]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Unheralded Pronouns and Management by Common Ground , 1994 .

[5]  B. Ackerman,et al.  Children's Use of the Common Ground in Interpreting Ambiguous Referential Utterances. , 1990 .

[6]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Disambiguation by community membership , 1990, Memory & cognition.

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

[8]  G. Dell,et al.  Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  Alan M. Lesgold,et al.  Foregrounding effects in discourse comprehension , 1979 .

[10]  Denis Newman,et al.  The role of mutual knowledge in the development of perspective taking , 1986 .

[11]  H. H. Clark Arenas of language use , 1993 .

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

[13]  G. McKoon,et al.  Pronoun resolution without pronouns: some consequences of memory-based text processing. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension , 1998 .

[15]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[16]  Roger Lamb,et al.  Attribution in conversational context: Effect of mutual knowledge on explanation‐giving , 1993 .

[17]  Maya Hickmann,et al.  French children's ability to introduce referents in narratives as a function of mutual knowledge , 1992 .

[18]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework , 1989 .

[19]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  The Accessibility of Pronominal Antecedents as a Function of Episode Shifts in Narrative Text , 1983 .

[20]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others' Knowledge in Reference , 1991 .

[21]  Robert M. Krauss,et al.  The Role of the Listener: Addressee Influences on Message Formulation , 1987 .

[22]  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.

[23]  R. Gibbs Mutual knowledge and the psychology of conversational inference , 1987 .

[24]  Gilbert Harman,et al.  Linguistic behaviour (review) , 2015 .