Ibarra Alyssa, Tanenhaus Michael K
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of RochesterRochester, NY, USA; Department of Linguistics, School of Arts & Sciences, University of RochesterRochester, NY, USA.
Front Psychol. 2016 Apr 25;7:561. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00561. eCollection 2016.
In a classic paper, Brennan and Clark argued that when interlocutors agree on a name for an object, they are forming a temporary agreement on how to conceptualize that object; that is, they are forming a conceptual pact. The literature on conceptual pacts has largely focused on the costs and benefits of breaking and maintaining lexical precedents, and the degree to which they might be partner-specific. The research presented here focuses on a question about conceptual pacts that has been largely neglected in the literature: To what extent are conceptual pacts specific to the local context of the interaction? If conceptual pacts are indeed temporary, then when the local context changes in ways that are accessible to participants, we would expect participants to seamlessly shift to referential expressions that reflect novel conceptualizations. Two experiments examined how referential forms change across context in collaborative, task-oriented dialog between naïve participants. In Experiment 1, names for parts of an unknown object were established in an "item" identification stage (e.g., a shape that looked like a wrench was called "the wrench"). In a second "build" stage, that name was often supplanted by an object-oriented name, e.g., the "leg." These changes happened abruptly and without negotiation. In Experiment 2, interlocutors manipulated clip art and more abstract tangram pictures in a "slider" puzzle to arrange the objects into a target configuration. On some trials moving an object revealed a picture that could be construed as a contrast competitor, e.g., a clip art picture of a camel after "the camel" had been negotiated as a name for a tangram shape, or vice versa. As would be expected, modification rates increased when a potential contrast was revealed. More strikingly, the degree to which a name had been negotiated or the frequency with which it had been used did not affect the likelihood that the revealed shape would be considered as a potential contrast. We find little evidence that names that are introduced as part of a conceptual pact persist when either the task goals or informational needs change. Rather, conceptual pacts are fluid temporary agreements.
在一篇经典论文中,布伦南和克拉克认为,当对话者就某个物体的名称达成一致时,他们正在就如何将该物体概念化形成一个临时协议;也就是说,他们正在形成一个概念契约。关于概念契约的文献主要关注打破和维持词汇先例的成本和收益,以及它们可能因伙伴而异的程度。这里呈现的研究聚焦于文献中基本被忽视的一个关于概念契约的问题:概念契约在多大程度上特定于互动的本地语境?如果概念契约确实是临时的,那么当本地语境以参与者可及的方式发生变化时,我们会期望参与者无缝切换到反映新颖概念化的指称表达。两项实验考察了在新手参与者之间的协作性、任务导向对话中,指称形式如何随语境变化。在实验1中,在“物品”识别阶段确定了未知物体各部分的名称(例如,一个看起来像扳手的形状被称为“扳手”)。在第二个“构建”阶段,那个名称常常被一个面向物体的名称所取代,例如“腿”。这些变化突然发生且未经协商。在实验2中,对话者在一个“滑块”拼图中操作剪贴画和更抽象的七巧板图片,以将物体排列成目标构型。在一些试验中,移动一个物体揭示出一幅可被视为对比竞争者的图片,例如,在将“骆驼”作为七巧板形状的名称协商好之后,出现一幅骆驼的剪贴画图片,反之亦然。正如所预期的,当揭示出潜在对比时,修改率增加。更引人注目的是,一个名称被协商的程度或其被使用的频率并不影响所揭示形状被视为潜在对比的可能性。我们几乎没有发现证据表明,作为概念契约一部分引入的名称在任务目标或信息需求变化时会持续存在。相反,概念契约是灵活的临时协议。