Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

Direct and indirect linguistic measures of common ground in dialogue studies involving a matching task

A systematic review

Dados Bibliográficos

ID21640468
AutoresVincent Bovet, Dominique Knutsen (0000-0002-1501-7708), Marion Fossard (0000-0002-4955-2354)
Ano2024
Volume31
Fascículo1
Páginas122-136
Data de publicação2024-02-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPsychonomic Bulletin & Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1069-9384 • E-ISSN: 1531-5320
EditoraSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3758/s13423-023-02359-2
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas63

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

  • Common ground improves learning with conversational agents

    Open Access•Anita Körner, Antonia Tolzin et al.•Behaviour and Information…•2026

  • Grounding the meaning – negotiation of semantic features in conversation

    Open Access•Anna Kutscher•Cahiers de praxématique•2025

  • Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines

    Timothy A Salthouse, Timothy Salthouse•Annual Review of Psychology•2012

  • Grounding in communication.

    Herbert H Clark, Susan E Brennan•Perspectives on socially shared…•1991

  • Understanding by addressees and overhearers

    Open Access•Michael F Schober, Herbert H Clark•Cognitive Psychology•1989

  • Taking Perspective in Conversation

    Open Access•Boaz Keysar, Dale J Barr et al.•Psychological Science•2000

  • References in conversation between experts and novices.

    Ellen A Isaacs, Herbert H Clark•Journal of Experimental…•1987

  • The PRISMA 2020 statement

    Open Access•Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie et al.•BMJ•2021

  • Lexical entrainment without conceptual pacts? Revisiting the matching task

    Open Access•Adrian Bangerter, Eric Mayor et al.•Journal of Memory and Language•2020

  • Conversational Grounding in Younger and Older Adults

    Katya Lysander, William S Horton•Discourse Processes•2012

  • Use and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in referring by native and non‐native speakers

    Heather Bortfeld, Susan E Brennan•Discourse Processes•1997

  • Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference

    Michael F Schober•Discourse Processes•1995

  • Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production

    William S Horton•Discourse Processes•2005

  • Audience Design in Collaborative Dialogue between Teachers and Students

    Christina Turner, Dominique Knutsen•Discourse Processes•2021

  • Aim Low

    Si On Yoon, Sarah Brown-Schmidt et al.•Discourse Processes•2018

  • Reflexively mindblind

    Open Access•Shuhong Lin, Boaz Keysar et al.•Journal of Experimental Social…•2010

  • The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension

    Open Access•Susan R Fussell, Robert M Krauss•Journal of Experimental Social…•1989

  • The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks

    Open Access•Akira Miyake, Naomi P Friedman et al.•Cognitive Psychology•2000

  • Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication

    Robert M Krau, Robert M Krauss et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1966

  • Contributing to Discourse

    Open Access•Herbert H Clark, Edward F Schaefer•Cognitive Science•1989

  • Conversational Memory

    Open Access•Laura Stafford, John A Daly•Human Communication Research•1984

Obras citantes distintas2
Citações por ano2
Intervalo de citações2025 - 2026 (2)
Velocidade de citaçãocurrent
Altamente citadoNão
Tipos de citaçãoNeutras: 2
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae