New challenges in psycholinguistics: Interactivity and alignment in interpersonal communication

• Autorzy: Maciej Karpiński
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the present text, some recent changes in the perspective taken by psycholinguists in the study of language and communication are discussed. T heir interests seem to gradually shift from the study of language processing as an isolated and independent phenomenon towards inclusion of more interactional factors being indispensable components of interpersonal communication and involved in the process of communicative alignment. Alignment is here understood as a complex phenomenon that goes beyond increasing similarity of mental representations and related communicative behaviour. It simultaneously occurs on many levels and in various modalities, including those traditionally excluded from language study. A s a consequence, it implies not only more flexibility in the study of interpersonal communication but it also means a shift in the psycholinguistic methodology and probably also in the widely accepted picture of language and its limits.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

interactivity; alignment; entrainment; dialogue

• Wydawca: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk
• Czasopismo: Lingua Posnaniensis
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 56
• Numer: 1
• Strony: 97-106

Daty

online

2015-07-24

Twórcy

autor

Maciej Karpiński

• Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań,

Bibliografia

• Bard, E llen G . & A nderson, A nne H . & Sotillo, Catherine & A ylett, Mathew & Doherty-Sneddon, G wyneth & N ewlands, A llison. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 1-22.
• Bergmann, K irsten & K opp, Stefan. 2012. G estural alignment in natural dialogue. In Cooper, R.P. & P eebles, D. & Miyake, N . (eds.) Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012), 1326-1331. A ustin, T X: Cognitive Science Society.
• Bernieri, Frank J . & Rosenthal, Robert. 1991. Interpersonal coordination: Behaviour matching and interactional synchrony. In Feldman, Robert & Rimé, Bertrand (eds.), Fundamentals of non-verbal behaviour, 401-432. New York: Cambridge U niversity P ress.
• Boker, Steven M. & Xu, Minquan & Rotondo, J ennifer L . & K ing, K adija 2002. W indowed cross-correlation and peak picking for the analysis of variability in the association between behavioural time series, Psychological Methods 7. 338-355.
• Branigan, H olly P . & P ickering, Martin P . & Cleland, A lexandra A . 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75. 13-25.[Crossref]
• Brennan, Susan E . & Clark, H erbert H . 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22. 1482-1493.
• Buder, E ugene H . & E riksson, A nders. 1999. T ime-series analysis of conversational prosody for the identification of rhythmic units. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 1-7 A ugust 1999. 1071-1074.
• de Beaugrande, Robert & Dressler, W olfgang. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. L ondon: L ongman.
• Clark, H erbert H . 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity P ress. Edlund, J ens & H eldner, Martin & H irschberg, J ulia. 2009. P ause and gap length in face-to-face interaction, Proceedings of Interspeech 2009, Brno. 2779-2782.
• Garrod, Simon C. & A nderson, A nthony. 1987. Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition 27. 181-218.[Crossref]
• Garrod, Simon C. & Doherty, G wyneth. 1994. Conversation, co-ordination and convention: and empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition 53. 181-215.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Garrod, Simon C. & P ickering, Martin J . 2004. W hy is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 8-11.
• Giles, H oward & Smith, P hilip M. 1979. A ccommodation theory: O ptimal levels of convergence. In G iles, H oward & St. Clair, Robert N . (eds.), Language and social psychology, 45-65. Baltimore: U niversity P ark P ress.
• Giles, H oward & T aylor, Donald M. & Bourhis, Richard & Rosenthal, Dorrin. 2010. T owards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2. 177-192.
• Giles, H oward & T aylor, Donald M. & Bourhis, Richard Y. 1973. T owards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2. 177-192.
• Givón, T almy. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In G ernsbacher, Morton A nn & G ivón, T almy (eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text, 95-115. A msterdam: J ohn Benjamins P ublishing Company.
• Heldner, Martin & E dlund, J ens & H irschberg, J ulia. 2010. P itch similarity in the vicinity of backchannels, In Proceedings of Interspeech 2010, Makuhari 3054-3057.
• Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. P hiladelphia: U niversity of Pennsylvania.
• Karpiński, Maciej. 2009. From speech and gestures to dialogue acts. In E sposito, A nna & H ussain, A mir & Marinaro, Mario & Martone, Raffaele (eds.), Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues, 164-169. H eidelberg: Springer Verlag.
• Karpiński, Maciej & K lessa, K atarzyna & Czoska, A gnieszka. 2014. L ocal and global convergence in the temporal domain in P olish task-oriented dialogue. In Campbell, N . & G ibbon, Dafydd & H irst, Daniel (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 7 Conference. Dublin, 743-747.
• Kim, Midam & H orton, Sid & Bradlow, A nn R. 2011. P honetic convergence in spontaneous conversations as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology 2. 125-156.
• Kopp, Stefan & Bergmann, K irsten 2013. A utomatic and strategic alignment of co-verbal gestures in dialogue. In W achsmuth, Ipke & de Ruiter, J an & J aecks, P etra & K opp, Stefan (eds.) Alignment in Communication, 87-107. A msterdam: J ohn Benjamins P ublishing Company.
• Kousidis, Spyros. 2010. A study of accommodation of prosodic and temporal features in spoken dialogues in view of speech technology applications. Dublin: Dublin Institute of T echnology. [Doctoral dissertation.] Kousidis, Spyros & Dorran, David & W ang, Yi & Vaughan, Brian & Cullen, Charlie & Campbell, Dermont & McDonnell, Ciaran & Coyle, E ugene 2008. T owards measuring continuous acoustic feature convergence in unconstrained spoken dialogues. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2008, Brisbane, 1692-1695.
• Krauss, Robert M. & P ardo, J ennifer. S. 2004. Is alignment always the result of automatic priming? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(02). 203-204.
• Levitan, Rivka & H irschberg, J ulia. 2011. Measuring acoustic-prosodic entrainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions, Proceedings of Interspeech 2011, Florence, Italy, 3081-3084.
• Looze, de, Céline & Rauzy, Stephane. 2011. Measuring speakers’ similarity in speech by means of prosodic cues: methods and potential. Proceedings of Interspeech, Florence, Italy, 1393-1396.
• Markman, A rthur B. & Makin, Valerie S. 1998. Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology 127. 331-354.
• Mehler, A lexander & L ücking, A ndy & Menke, P eter. 2011. Modelling L exical A lignment in spontaneous Direction Dialogue Data by Means of a L exicon N etwork Model. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing), February 20-26, T okyo. Berlin: Springer.
• Mehler, A lexander & L ücking, A ndy & W eiß, P etra. 2010. A network model of interpersonal alignment in dialog. Entropy 12. 1440-1483.[Crossref][WoS]
• Menenti, L aura & P ickering, Martin J . & G arrod, Simon C. 2012. T owards a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, art. 185. 1-9. (10.3389/fnhum.2012.00185) Mills, G regory & G regoromichelaki, E leni. 2010. E stablishing coherence in dialogue: Sequentiality, intentions and negotiation. In Łupkowski, P aweł & P urver, Matthew (eds.), Proceedings of SemDial (PozDial), 14th Workshop on Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. P oznań: P olish Society for Cognitive Science. 17-24.
• Murray-Smith, Roderick & Ramsay, A ndrew & G arrod, Simon & J ackson, Melissa & Musizza, Bojan. 2007. G ait alignment in mobile phone conversations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conferences on Human- Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Singapore, September 09 - 12, 2007). MobileHCI ‘07, vol. 309. A CM, N ew York, N Y, 214-221.
• Pardo, Jennifer. 2006. O n phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119. 2382-2393.
• Pickering, Martin J . & G arrod, Simon C. 2004. T oward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27. 169-226.
• Pickering, Martin J . & G arrod, Simon C. 2006. A lignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation 4(2-3). 203-228.
• Pietsch, Christian & Buch, A rmin & K opp, Stefan & de Ruiter, J an. 2012. Measuring syntactic priming in dialogue Corpora. In Stolterfoht, Britta & Featherston, Sam (eds.), Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies of meaning and structure, 29-41. T he H ague: Mouton de G ruyter.
• Porzel, Robert & Scheffler, A nnika & Malaka, Rainer. 2006. H ow entrainment increases dialogical efficiency. In Proceedings of Workshop on Effective Multimodal Dialogue Interfaces, Sydney 2006.
• Purver, Matthew & K empson, Ruth. 2004. Incremental parsing, or incremental grammar? In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Incremental Parsing, Barcelona, J uly 2004, 74-81.
• Ramseyer, Fabian & T schacher, W olfgang. 2010. N onverbal synchrony or random coincidence? H ow to tell the difference. In E sposito, A nna & Campbell, N ick & Vogel, Carl & H ussain, A mir & N ijholt, A mir (eds.), Development of multimodal interfaces: Active listening and synchrony, 182-196. H eidelberg: Springer Verlag.
• Reitter, David & Moore, J ohanna D. 2007. P redicting success in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, P rague, 808-815.
• Sacks, H arvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. O xford: Blackwell.
• Schegloff, E mmanuel A . 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In T annen, Deborah (ed.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, 71-93. G eorgetown: G eorgetown U niversity P ress.
• Schober, Michael F. 1993. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition 47. 1-24.[PubMed][Crossref][WoS]
• Street, Richard L . 1984. Speech convergence and evaluation in fact-finding interviews. Human Communication Research 11(2). 139-169.
• Street, Richard L . & Brady, Robert M. & P utman, W illiam B. 1983. T he influence of speech rate stereotypes and rate similarity or listeners’ evaluations of speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2(1). 37-56.
• Truong, K hiet P . & H eylen, Dirk. 2012. Measuring prosodic alignment in cooperative task-based conversations. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2012, P ortland, O R, U SA, 1085-1088.
• Vaughan, Brian. 2011. P rosodic synchrony in co-operative task-based dialogues: A measure of agreement and disagreement. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2011, 1865-1867.
• Wagner, P etra & Malisz, Z ofia & Inden, Benjamin & W achsmuth, Ipke. 2013. Interaction phonology - a temporal co-ordination component enabling representational alignment within a model of communication. In W achsmuth, Ipke & de Ruiter, J an & J aecks, P etra & K opp, Stefan (eds.) Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication. Advances in interaction studies, 109-132. A msterdam: Benjamins.
• Watson, Mathew E . & P ickering, Martin J . & Branigan, H olly P . 2004. A lignment of reference frames in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2353-2358. Chicago: E rlbaum A ssociates.
• Weiß, P . & P ustylnikov, O lga & Mehler, A lexander & H ellmann, Sara. 2009. P atterns of alignment in dialogue: Conversational partners do not always stay aligned on common object names. In Conference on Embodied and Situated Language Processing (ESLP 2009). Rotterdam, 16.
• Włodarczak, Marcin & Šimko, J uraj & W agner, P etra. 2012. Syllable boundary effect: T emporal entrainment in overlapped speech. In Ma, Qiuwu & Ding, H ongwei & H irst, Daniel (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012, Shanghai, 611-614.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/linpo-2014-0006