Direct and indirect linguistic measures of common ground in dialogue studies involving a matching task
A systematic review
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21640468 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vincent Bovet, Dominique Knutsen (0000-0002-1501-7708), Marion Fossard (0000-0002-4955-2354) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 122-136 |
| Publication date | 2024-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1069-9384 • E-ISSN: 1531-5320 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3758/s13423-023-02359-2 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 63 |
During dialogue, speakers attempt to adapt messages to their addressee appropriately by taking into consideration their common ground (i.e., all the information mutually known by the conversational partners) to ensure successful communication. Knowing and remembering what information is part of the common ground shared with a given partner and using it during dialogue are crucial skills for social interaction. It is therefore important to better understand how we can measure the use of common ground and to identify the potential associated psychological processes. In this context, a systematic review of the literature was performed to list the linguistic measures of common ground found in dialogue studies involving a matching task and to explore any evidence of cognitive and social mechanisms underlying common ground use in this specific experimental setting, particularly in normal aging and in neuropsychological studies. Out of the 23 articles included in this review, we found seven different linguistic measures of common ground that were classified as either a direct measure of common ground (i.e., measures directly performed on the referential content) or an indirect measure of common ground (i.e., measures assessing the general form of the discourse). This review supports the idea that both types of measures should systematically be used while assessing common ground because they may reflect different concepts underpinned by distinct psychological processes. Given the lack of evidence for the implication of other cognitive and social functions in common ground use in studies involving matching tasks, future research is warranted, particularly in the clinical field
Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines
Grounding in communication.
Understanding by addressees and overhearers
Taking Perspective in Conversation
References in conversation between experts and novices.
The PRISMA 2020 statement
Lexical entrainment without conceptual pacts? Revisiting the matching task
Conversational Grounding in Younger and Older Adults
Use and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in referring by native and non‐native speakers
Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference
Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production
Audience Design in Collaborative Dialogue between Teachers and Students
Aim Low
Reflexively mindblind
The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension
The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks
Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication
Contributing to Discourse
Conversational Memory
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |