Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge: Process Models of Common Ground in Comprehension

1998 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boaz Keysar ◽  
Dale J. Barr ◽  
Jennifer A. Balin ◽  
Timothy S. Paek
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Knowledge Process ◽  
Mutual Knowledge ◽  
Definite Reference

Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children's On-Line Reference Resolution

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aparna S. Nadig ◽  
Julie C. Sedivy
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Production Task ◽  
Reference Resolution ◽  
Mutual Knowledge ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
On Line ◽  
Early Effects

Young children's communication has often been characterized as egocentric. Some researchers claim that the processing of language involves an initial stage that relies on egocentric heuristics, even in adults. Such an account, combined with general developmental difficulties with late-stage processes, could provide an explanation for much of children's egocentric communication. However, the experimental data reported in this article do not support such an account: In an elicited-production task, 5- to 6-year-old children were found to be sensitive to their partner's perspective. Moreover, in an on-line comprehension task, they showed sensitivity to common-ground information from the initial stages of language processing. We propose that mutual knowledge is not distinct from other knowledge relevant for language processing, and exerts early effects on processing in proportion to its salience and reliability.

scholarly journals A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics of indefinite and definite reference in two-year-olds

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 773-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARGOT ISABELLA ROZENDAAL ◽  
ANNE EDITH BAKER
Keyword(s):  
Specific Reference ◽  
Language Differences ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Mutual Knowledge ◽  
Clear Association ◽  
And Function ◽  
Definite Reference

ABSTRACTThe acquisition of reference involves both morphosyntax and pragmatics. This study investigates whether Dutch, English and French two- to three-year-old children differentiate in their use of determiners between non-specific/specific reference, newness/givenness in discourse and mutual/no mutual knowledge between interlocutors. A brief analysis of the input shows a clear association between form and function, although there are some language differences in this respect. As soon as determiner use can be statistically analyzed, the children show a relatively adult-like pattern of association for the distinctions of non-specific/specific and newness/givenness. The distinction between mutual/no mutual knowledge appears later. Reference involving no mutual knowledge is scarcely evidenced in the input and barely used by the children at this age. The development of associations is clearly related to the rate of determiner development, the French being quickest, then the English, then the Dutch.

Contrasting attention to mutual knowledge in English and Mopan Mayan conversation: Schooling, orality, and cultural cosmology

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eve Danziger
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Belief Systems ◽  
Cultural Beliefs ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Cultural Attitudes ◽  
Transmission Of Knowledge ◽  
Mutual Knowledge

AbstractClassroom training for attention to utterance recipients’ likely states of knowledge is useful in order to compensate for the situations of reduced co-presence that characterize literate communication at a distance. But many aspects of the Mopan (Mayan) philosophy of language resonate instead with non-schooled practices of Mopan socialization that support oral and not literate transmission of knowledge. In Mopan, everyday speech and action are evaluated with reference to a more-than-human moral order in which what counts is fidelity to ancestral prescriptions rather than to one’s own or others’ momentary mental states. Such cultural differences in beliefs about the (non-)importance of mental states are known to enter into institutionalized moralities such as those governing legal decisions or religious obligations. At the same time, many unconscious and embodied aspects of meaning-making in interaction are clearly conducted without apparent input from differing cultural beliefs. The present study shows how cultural attitudes about meaning-making play out at a level intermediate between these two apparently contradictory extremes. Mopan farmers and US English university students engaged with an interactional matching task in which visual common ground is occluded and speakers must describe a photograph in such a way that the listener succeeds in picking out that very photograph from among a set of similar ones. Schooled US English participants rarely describe any attributes of the photos other than their minimum distinguishing features, and they almost always mention those features. In contrast, Mopan participants often construe the interactional task as one that requires accurate and complete description of single items one at a time, rather than requiring identification of key attributes that will uniquely identify the target referent in its current context to a particular listener. Significant differences in strategic approaches to real-time construction of conversational reference is thus shown to correspond to contrasting cultural belief systems about the making of meaning, themselves related to literate versus oral modes of knowledge transmission.

Navigating the mutual knowledge problem: a comparative case study of distributed work

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Koppman ◽  
Amar Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Organizational Context ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Distributed Teams ◽  
Distributed Work ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mutual Knowledge ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Knowledge Problem

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how workers successfully address constraints posed by distributed work – specifically, the lack of cognitive common ground or “mutual knowledge” – through emergent practices. Design/methodology/approach – The authors draw on archival and interview data collected over a ten-month period, from two matched product development teams, one working side-by-side in the USA and the other distributed between the USA and India. Findings – The paper illustrates how distributed team members compensate for the difficulties presented by the lack of mutual knowledge by modifying their use of knowledge management systems and communication technologies to coordinate work, and using temporal and task-based differences to facilitate problem solving. Research limitations/implications – This study answers calls to examine how distributed teams actually work. By emphasizing the creation of new practices over knowledge transfer and employees’ perspectives over managers, the paper adds to current understandings of how aspects of the mutual knowledge problem can be alleviated. Since emergent practices are not dependent on shared values or identities, they can coordinate action without compromising the distinct perspectives of workers or constraining the diversity that inspires innovation. In addition, the attention to problem solving in distributed teams – particularly tacit knowledge recombination – extends a literature primarily focussed on communication and coordination processes. Originality/value – In this paper, the authors shift the focus from managerial and organizational policies to the emergent practices of workers themselves, by showing how the authors successfully coordinate and innovate in a changing organizational context.

Identifying suboptimalities with factorial model comparison

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Ji Ma
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Model Comparison ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Multiple Forms ◽  
Factorial Experimental Design ◽  
Factorial Model ◽  
Multiple Components ◽  
The Many

AbstractGiven the many types of suboptimality in perception, I ask how one should test for multiple forms of suboptimality at the same time – or, more generally, how one should compare process models that can differ in any or all of the multiple components. In analogy to factorial experimental design, I advocate for factorial model comparison.

Talking Across Cultures in Early Intervention: Finding Common Ground to Meet Children's Communication Needs

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth D. Peña ◽  
Christine Fiestas
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Cultural Orientation ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
Caregiver Role

Abstract In this paper, we explore cultural values and expectations that might vary among different groups. Using the collectivist-individualist framework, we discuss differences in beliefs about the caregiver role in teaching and interacting with young children. Differences in these beliefs can lead to dissatisfaction with services on the part of caregivers and with frustration in service delivery on the part of service providers. We propose that variation in caregiver and service provider perspectives arise from cultural values, some of which are instilled through our own training as speech-language pathologists. Understanding where these differences in cultural orientation originate can help to bridge these differences. These can lead to positive adaptations in the ways that speech-language pathology services are provided within an early intervention setting that will contribute to effective intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document