» Articles » PMID: 22572985

Influence of Perspective and Goals on Reference Production in Conversation

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2012 May 11
PMID 22572985
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We examined the extent to which speakers take into consideration the addressee's perspective in language production. Previous research on this process had revealed clear deficits (Horton & Keysar, Cognition 59:91-117, 1996; Wardlow Lane & Ferreira, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34:1466-1481, 2008). Here, we evaluated a new hypothesis--that the relevance of the addressee's perspective depends on the speaker's goals. In two experiments, Korean speakers described a target object in situations in which the perspective status of a competitor object (e.g., a large plate when describing a smaller plate) was manipulated. In Experiment 1, we examined whether speakers would use scalar-modified expressions even when the competitor was hidden from the addressee. The results demonstrated that information from both the speaker's and the addressee's perspectives influenced production. In Experiment 2, we examined whether utterance goals modulate this process. The results indicated that when a speaker makes a request, the addressee's perspective has a stronger influence than it does when the speaker informs the addressee. These results suggest that privileged knowledge does shape language use, but crucially, that the degree to which the addressee's perspective is considered is shaped by the relevance of the addressee's perspective to the utterance goals.

Citing Articles

Grammatical Perspective-Taking in Comprehension and Production.

Anderson C, Dillon B Open Mind (Camb). 2023; 7:31-78.

PMID: 36891352 PMC: 9987349. DOI: 10.1162/opmi_a_00071.


What is Functional Communication? A Theoretical Framework for Real-World Communication Applied to Aphasia Rehabilitation.

Doedens W, Meteyard L Neuropsychol Rev. 2022; 32(4):937-973.

PMID: 35076868 PMC: 9630202. DOI: 10.1007/s11065-021-09531-2.


Limits to the Rational Production of Discourse Connectives.

Yung F, Jungbluth J, Demberg V Front Psychol. 2021; 12:660730.

PMID: 34122244 PMC: 8195249. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660730.


What's New to You? Preschoolers' Partner-Specific Online Processing of Disfluency.

Yoon S, Jin K, Brown-Schmidt S, Fisher C Front Psychol. 2021; 11:612601.

PMID: 33488480 PMC: 7820764. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612601.


Why are listeners sometimes (but not always) egocentric? Making inferences about using others' perspective in referential communication.

Wang J, Ciranova N, Woods B, Apperly I PLoS One. 2020; 15(10):e0240521.

PMID: 33104751 PMC: 7588066. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240521.


References
1.
Brown-Schmidt S, Gunlogson C, Tanenhaus M . Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation. Cognition. 2008; 107(3):1122-34. PMC: 2491908. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.005. View

2.
Keysar B, Lin S, Barr D . Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition. 2003; 89(1):25-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00064-7. View

3.
Heller D, Gorman K, Tanenhaus M . To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Top Cogn Sci. 2012; 4(2):290-305. PMC: 3811076. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01182.x. View

4.
Wu S, Keysar B . The effect of information overlap on communication effectiveness. Cogn Sci. 2011; 31(1):169-81. DOI: 10.1080/03640210709336989. View

5.
Lane L, Ferreira V . Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: do cognitive demands override threats to referential success?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008; 34(6):1466-81. PMC: 2654616. DOI: 10.1037/a0013353. View