Suppr超能文献

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
Mem Cognit. 2004 Dec;32(8):1346-54. doi: 10.3758/bf03206325.
5
Planning and coordination of utterances in a joint naming task.
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.
Cogn Sci. 2018 May 20. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12614.
7
Collaboration under uncertainty in unscripted conversations: The role of hedges.
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.
Cognition. 2021 Oct;215:104809. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104809. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
9

引用本文的文献

1
The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue.
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.
Mem Cognit. 2017 Nov;45(8):1281-1294. doi: 10.3758/s13421-017-0730-3.
3
Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language Use.
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.
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.
Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 26;7:212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00212. eCollection 2016.
6
Talker-specificity and adaptation in quantifier interpretation.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Dec;21(6):1590-9. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0620-7.

本文引用的文献

1
Partner-specific adaptation in dialog.
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.
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.
Cogn Sci. 2007 Feb;31(1):169-81. doi: 10.1080/03640210709336989.
4
Conversation, gaze coordination, and beliefs about visual context.
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.
J Mem Lang. 2009 Aug 1;61(2):171-190. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.003.
7
The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension.
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.
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.
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.
Lang Cogn Process. 2007;22(7):1114-1139. doi: 10.1080/01690960701402933.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验