Influence of the Historical Discourse Record on Language Processing in Dialogue

Speakers typically design definite referring expressions to uniquely identify the intended referent with respect to the alternatives in the referential context, and addressees interpret these expressions with respect to the contextual alternatives. Although it is clear that the relevant context includes entities in the immediate context, less clear is how the historical discourse context affects language interpretation in the moment. This article presents the results of two experiments that examine interpretation of definite referring expressions in cases where the local context has recently changed. In Experiment 1 eye-tracked participants followed an experimenter's instructions to click on objects multiple times each. When expressions were over-modified for the immediate context (e.g., the striped shirt, when the shirt would suffice), referential interpretation was significantly facilitated when that expression had been previously used in a supporting context. By contrast, interpretation of nonmodified expressions that were appropriate for the local context (e.g., the shirt) was somewhat impaired when a modified term had been used previously. Experiment 2 replicated these findings with a more sensitive, cohort-competitor design. These findings demonstrate that both the local and the historical context influence the online interpretation of referring expressions.

[1]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Beyond common and privileged: Gradient representations of common ground in real-time language use , 2012 .

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

[3]  Rachel Ryskin,et al.  People as contexts in conversation , 2015 .

[4]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[5]  D. Barr Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression , 2008 .

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

[7]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

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

[9]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996 .

[10]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Real-Time Investigation of Referential Domains in Unscripted Conversation: A Targeted Language Game Approach , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Timothy M. Gann,et al.  Speaking from experience: audience design as expert performance , 2014 .

[12]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  The Art of Conversation Is Coordination , 2007, Psychological science.

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

[14]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[15]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation , 2008, Cognition.

[16]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Lexical differentiation in language production and comprehension , 2013 .

[17]  Steven M. Smith Remembering In and Out of Context , 1979 .

[18]  Mija M. Van Der Wege Lexical Entrainment and Lexical Differentiation in Reference Phrase Choice. , 2009 .

[19]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[20]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  D R Olson,et al.  Language and thought: aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. , 1970, Psychological review.

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

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

[24]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[25]  S. Brennan,et al.  Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Paul D. Allopenna,et al.  Tracking the Time Course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models , 1998 .

[27]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

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

[29]  F. Ferreira,et al.  Over-specified referring expressions impair comprehension: An ERP study , 2011, Brain and Cognition.

[30]  Don L. Scarborough,et al.  Frequency and Repetition Effects in Lexical Memory. , 1977 .

[31]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity , 2006 .

[32]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[33]  R. Krauss,et al.  Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning , 2006 .

[35]  O. Mimura [Eye movements]. , 1992, Nippon Ganka Gakkai zasshi.

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

[37]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[38]  C. Osgood Where do sentences come from , 1971 .