• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

共同学习,共同成长:说话者选择指称语反映了共同的经历。

What's learned together stays together: speakers' choice of referring expression reflects shared experience.

机构信息

Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 May;39(3):843-53. doi: 10.1037/a0029467. Epub 2012 Jul 30.

DOI:10.1037/a0029467
PMID:22845064
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3811074/
Abstract

When referring to named objects, speakers can choose either a name (mbira) or a description (that gourd-like instrument with metal strips); whether the name provides useful information depends on whether the speaker's knowledge of the name is shared with the addressee. But, how do speakers determine what is shared? In 2 experiments a naïve participant (director) learned names for novel objects, then instructed another participant (matcher), who viewed 3 objects, to click on the target object. Directors learned novel names in 2 phases. First, the director and the matcher learned (shared) names either together or alone; second, the director learned (privileged) names alone. Directors typically used a name for items with shared names and a description for items with privileged names. When the director and matcher learned the names individually but with knowledge of what the other learned, directors were much more likely to use privileged names than when director and matcher learned shared names together. Experiment 1b separated effects of collaborative learning from partner-specific effects, showing collaborative learning experience with 1 person helps a speaker distinguish shared and privileged information with a new partner who has the same knowledge. Experiment 2 showed that partner-specific effects persisted even when semantic category was a reliable cue to which names were privileged. The results are interpreted as evidence that ordinary memory processes provide access to shared knowledge in real-time production of referring expressions and that shared experience when learning shared names provides a strong memory cue to the ground status of names. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

当提到命名对象时,说话者可以选择名称(mbira)或描述(那个类似葫芦的带有金属条的乐器);名称是否提供有用的信息取决于说话者对名称的了解是否与受话者共享。但是,说话者如何确定什么是共享的呢?在 2 项实验中,一个天真的参与者(导演)学习了新物体的名称,然后指导另一个参与者(匹配者)观看 3 个物体,点击目标物体。导演在两个阶段学习新名称。首先,导演和匹配者一起或单独学习(共享)名称;其次,导演单独学习(特权)名称。导演通常使用共享名称的物品名称和特权名称的物品描述。当导演和匹配者单独学习名称,但知道对方学习的内容时,导演更有可能使用特权名称,而不是当导演和匹配者一起学习共享名称时。实验 1b 将协作学习的效果与特定于伙伴的效果分开,表明与 1 个人的协作学习经验有助于说话者与具有相同知识的新伙伴区分共享和特权信息。实验 2 表明,即使语义类别是特权名称的可靠线索,特定于伙伴的效果仍然存在。结果被解释为证据,即普通记忆过程可以实时访问共享知识,并在学习共享名称时的共享经验为名称的基础状态提供了强有力的记忆线索。(PsycINFO 数据库记录(c)2013 APA,保留所有权利)。

相似文献

1
What's learned together stays together: speakers' choice of referring expression reflects shared experience.共同学习,共同成长:说话者选择指称语反映了共同的经历。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 May;39(3):843-53. doi: 10.1037/a0029467. Epub 2012 Jul 30.
2
What's in a Name? Interlocutors Dynamically Update Expectations about Shared Names.名字里有什么?对话者会动态更新对共用名字的期望。
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 26;7:212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00212. eCollection 2016.
3
To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form.命名还是描述:共享知识影响指称形式。
Top Cogn Sci. 2012 Apr;4(2):290-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01182.x. Epub 2012 Mar 2.
4
Conversation and convention: enduring influences on name choice for common objects.对话与惯例:对常见物体命名选择的持久影响
Mem Cognit. 2004 Dec;32(8):1346-54. doi: 10.3758/bf03206325.
5
Planning and coordination of utterances in a joint naming task.联合命名任务中话语的规划与协调。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019 Apr;45(4):732-752. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000603. Epub 2018 Jul 12.
6
Compensating for an Inattentive Audience.应对注意力不集中的听众。
Cogn Sci. 2018 May 20. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12614.
7
Collaboration under uncertainty in unscripted conversations: The role of hedges.无脚本对话中不确定性下的协作:模糊限制语的作用。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2023 Feb;49(2):320-334. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001210. Epub 2023 Feb 9.
8
What is retained about common ground? Distinct effects of linguistic and visual co-presence.共同基础保留了什么?语言和视觉共存的独特影响。
Cognition. 2021 Oct;215:104809. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104809. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
9
Don't talk about pink elephants! Speaker's control over leaking private information during language production.别谈论粉色大象!说话者在语言生成过程中对泄露私人信息的控制。
Psychol Sci. 2006 Apr;17(4):273-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01697.x.
10
Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: do cognitive demands override threats to referential success?话语形式上的说话者外部与说话者内部力量:认知需求是否会凌驾于对指称成功的威胁之上?
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov;34(6):1466-81. doi: 10.1037/a0013353.

引用本文的文献

1
The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue.概念(匹配)失谐对对话中协作指称的影响。
Psychol Res. 2020 Mar;84(2):514-527. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1060-1. Epub 2018 Jul 25.
2
Memory for conversation and the development of common ground.对话记忆与共同基础的发展。
Mem Cognit. 2017 Nov;45(8):1281-1294. doi: 10.3758/s13421-017-0730-3.
3
Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language Use.语言使用中的记忆与共同基础过程

本文引用的文献

1
Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.对话中的特定伙伴适应性。
Top Cogn Sci. 2009 Apr;1(2):274-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x.
2
To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form.命名还是描述:共享知识影响指称形式。
Top Cogn Sci. 2012 Apr;4(2):290-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01182.x. Epub 2012 Mar 2.
3
The effect of information overlap on communication effectiveness.信息重叠对沟通效果的影响。
Top Cogn Sci. 2016 Oct;8(4):722-736. doi: 10.1111/tops.12224. Epub 2016 Oct 31.
4
The Role of Metarepresentation in the Production and Resolution of Referring Expressions.元表征在指称语的产生与消解中的作用。
Front Psychol. 2016 Jul 27;7:1111. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01111. eCollection 2016.
5
What's in a Name? Interlocutors Dynamically Update Expectations about Shared Names.名字里有什么?对话者会动态更新对共用名字的期望。
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 26;7:212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00212. eCollection 2016.
6
Talker-specificity and adaptation in quantifier interpretation.量词解释中的说话者特异性与适应性。
J Mem Lang. 2016 Apr 1;87:128-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.08.003.
7
Talker-Specific Generalization of Pragmatic Inferences based on Under- and Over-Informative Prenominal Adjective Use.基于前置形容词信息不足和信息过多使用的语用推理的说话者特定泛化
Front Psychol. 2016 Jan 20;6:2035. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02035. eCollection 2015.
8
Adjustment of speaker's referential expressions to an addressee's likely knowledge and link with theory of mind abilities.将说话者的指称表达调整为与听话者可能具备的知识相匹配,并与心理理论能力建立联系。
Front Psychol. 2015 Jun 17;6:823. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00823. eCollection 2015.
9
The influence of partner-specific memory associations on picture naming: a failure to replicate Horton (2007).特定伴侣记忆关联对图片命名的影响:未能重复霍顿(2007年)的研究结果
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 3;9(10):e109035. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109035. eCollection 2014.
10
Capturing egocentric biases in reference reuse during collaborative dialogue.在协作对话中捕捉参考重用中的自我中心偏差。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Dec;21(6):1590-9. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0620-7.
Cogn Sci. 2007 Feb;31(1):169-81. doi: 10.1080/03640210709336989.
4
Conversation, gaze coordination, and beliefs about visual context.对话、目光协调与对视觉背景的信念。
Cogn Sci. 2009 Nov;33(8):1468-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01057.x. Epub 2009 Jul 28.
5
Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog.在交互式对话中对维持的参考先例进行特定于伙伴的解释。
J Mem Lang. 2009 Aug 1;61(2):171-190. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.003.
6
Real-time investigation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: a targeted language game approach.无脚本对话中参照域的实时研究:一种目标语言游戏方法。
Cogn Sci. 2008 Jun 1;32(4):643-684. doi: 10.1080/03640210802066816.
7
The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension.执行功能在在线语言理解中观点采择的作用。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Oct;16(5):893-900. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.893.
8
Pragmatic expectations and linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground.实用期望与语言证据:听众会预期但不会整合共同背景。
Cognition. 2008 Oct;109(1):18-40. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.005. Epub 2008 Aug 28.
9
The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference.视角在确定参照领域中的作用。
Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):831-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.008. Epub 2008 Jun 30.
10
The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming.特定伴侣记忆关联对语言产出的影响:来自图片命名的证据。
Lang Cogn Process. 2007;22(7):1114-1139. doi: 10.1080/01690960701402933.