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

A systematic review

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21640468
AutoresVincent Bovet, Dominique Knutsen (0000-0002-1501-7708), Marion Fossard (0000-0002-4955-2354)
Año2024
Volumen31
Número1
Páginas122-136
Fecha de publicación2024-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPsychonomic Bulletin & Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1069-9384 • E-ISSN: 1531-5320
EditorialSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3758/s13423-023-02359-2
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias 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