Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T11:35:21.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Language as a Social Tool

from Part I - Language and Its Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2023

Anna M. Borghi
Anna M. Borghi
Affiliation:
University of Rome
Get access

Summary

Chapter 3 shows how we can intend language as a social tool. The first part focuses on language and interaction; the second part on how we outsource our knowledge benefiting from others’ knowledge. First, I show that the traditional separations between phonetics, phonology, syntax, and semantics and between production and comprehension do not hold. Rather, language is profoundly interactive. Then I overview innovative approaches that investigate real-time linguistic interactions, illustrating new methods, such as hyperscanning. In the second part , I contend that language is also a social tool because it allows us to strengthen our knowledge by relying on others. I introduce the notion of "community of knowledge," show that we outsource part of our knowledge, and illustrate how children develop the ability to defer toward experts in acquiring and mastering linguistic meaning. Finally, I discuss the possible theoretical consequences of outsourcing knowledge.

Keywords

language and interactionhyperscanningcommunity of knowledgeoutsourcing knowledgedeferencetestimonysocial cognitionsocial interaction
Type
Chapter
Information
The Freedom of Words
Abstractness and the Power of Language
 , pp. 86 - 124
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adank, P., Hagoort, P., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Imitation improves language comprehension. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1903–1909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610389192Google Scholar
Adank, P., Stewart, A. J., Connell, L., & Wood, J. (2013). Accent imitation positively affects language attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00280CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C. (2010). Missing the trees for the forest: A construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 436.Google Scholar
Andrade-Lotero, E. J., Ortiz-Duque, J. M., Velasco-García, J. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2023). The division of linguistic labour for offloading conceptual understanding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 378(1870), 20210360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balconi, M., & Fronda, G. (2020). The dialogue between two or more brains: The “hyperscanning” for organization. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–5.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M. (2020). A future of words: Language and the challenge of abstract concepts. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Scorolli, C., Caligiore, D., Baldassarre, G., & Tummolini, L. (2013). The embodied mind extended: Using words as social tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00214Google Scholar
Brand, R. J., & Shallcross, W. L. (2008). Infants prefer motionese to adult-directed action. Developmental Science, 11(6), 853–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccino, G., Lui, F., Canessa, N., Patteri, I., Lagravinese, G., Benuzzi, F., … Rizzolatti, G. (2004). Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by nonconspecifics: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(1), 114–126.Google Scholar
Calvert, G. A., Campbell, R., & Brammer, M. J. (2000). Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex. Current Biology, 10(11), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960–9822(00)00513-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castellucci, G. A., Kovach, C. K., Howard, M. A., Greenlee, J. D., & Long, M. A. (2022). A speech planning network for interactive language use. Nature, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
Clark, A., & Toribio, J. (2012). Magic words: How language augments human computation. In Language and Meaning in Cognitive Science. Routledge, 33–51.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90008-6Google Scholar
Corriveau, K. H., Chen, E. E., & Harris, P. L. (2015). Judgments about fact and fiction by children from religious and nonreligious backgrounds. Cognitive Science, 39(2), 353–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, C., Bergmann, C., Fowler, E., Keren-Portnoy, T., Roepstorff, A., Bryant, G., & Fusaroli, R. (2022). A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of the acoustic features of infant-directed speech. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 114–133.Google Scholar
Cui, Y. K., Clegg, J. M., Yan, E. F., Davoodi, T., Harris, P. L., & Corriveau, K. H. (2020). Religious testimony in a secular society: Belief in unobservable entities among Chinese parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 56(1), 117.Google Scholar
D’Ausilio, A., Bartoli, E., Maffongelli, L., Berry, J. J., & Fadiga, L. (2014). Vision of tongue movements bias auditory speech perception. Neuropsychologia, 63, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.018Google Scholar
D’Ausilio, A., Pulvermüller, F., Salmas, P., Bufalari, I., Begliomini, C., & Fadiga, L. (2009). The motor somatotopy of speech perception. Current Biology, 19(5), 381–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.01.017Google Scholar
Davoodi, T., Jamshidi-Sianaki, M., Abedi, F., Payir, A., Cui, Y. K., Harris, P. L., & Corriveau, K. H. (2019). Beliefs about religious and scientific entities among parents and children in Iran. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(7), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618806057Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., Cuffari, E. C., & De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J., … Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002Google Scholar
DiYanni, C. J., Corriveau, K. H., Kurkul, K., Nasrini, J., & Nini, D. (2015). The role of consensus and culture in children’s imitation of inefficient actions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(2), 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., & Shockley, K. D. (2008). Language use, coordination, and the emergence of cooperative action. In Fuchs, A. & Jirsa, V. K., eds., Coordination: Neural, Behavioral and Social Dynamics. Springer, 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74479-5_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., Frith, C., & Tylén, K. (2012). Coming to terms: Quantifying the benefits of linguistic coordination. Psychological Science, 23(8), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612436816Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2014). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.005Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12251Google Scholar
Galantucci, B., & Sebanz, N. (2009). Joint action: Current perspectives. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 255–259.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2), 593–609.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.xGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2015). The use of content and timing to predict turn transitions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 751.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. William Morrow.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. Jr., & Olson, B. B. (2016). Sentential influences on acoustic-phonetic processing: A Granger causality analysis of multimodal imaging data. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(7), 841–855.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. Brill, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Hadley, L. V., Naylor, G., & Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2022). A review of theories and methods in the science of face-to-face social interaction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159–021-00008-wGoogle Scholar
Hale, J., Ward, J. A., Buccheri, F., Oliver, D., & Hamilton, A. F. de C. (2020). are you on my wavelength? Interpersonal coordination in dyadic conversations. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 44(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919–019-00320-3Google Scholar
Harris, P. L., & Koenig, M. A. (2006). Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development, 77(3), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00886.xGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710Google Scholar
Hasson, U., & Frith, C. D. (2016). Mirroring and beyond: Coupled dynamics as a generalized framework for modelling social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1693), 20150366. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0366Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2011). Automatic imitation. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 463.Google Scholar
Hilton, C. B., & Goldwater, M. B. (2021). Linguistic syncopation: Meter-syntax alignment affects sentence comprehension and sensorimotor synchronization. Cognition, 217, 104880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104880Google Scholar
Himberg, T., Hirvenkari, L., Mandel, A., & Hari, R. (2015). Word-by-word entrainment of speech rhythm during joint story building. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 797.Google Scholar
Holler, J., & Kendrick, K. H. (2015). Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(98), 1–14.Google Scholar
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C., eds. (2016). Turn-taking in human communicative interaction. Frontiers Media SA.Google Scholar
Honey, C. J., Thompson, C. R., Lerner, Y., & Hasson, U. (2012). Not lost in translation: Neural responses shared across languages. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(44), 15277–15283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. (2004). The online processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eye-tracking. the on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond, 187–207.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96(1), B23–B32.Google Scholar
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286(5449), 2526–2528.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, I. P., Sams, M., Glerean, E., & Ahveninen, J. (2021). Movies and narratives as naturalistic stimuli in neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 224, 117445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117445Google Scholar
Keitel, A., Prinz, W., Friederici, A. D., Von Hofsten, C., & Daum, M. M. (2013). Perception of conversations: The importance of semantics and intonation in children’s development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 264–277.Google Scholar
Kelsen, B. A., Sumich, A., Kasabov, N., Liang, S. H. Y., & Wang, G. Y. (2020). What has social neuroscience learned from hyperscanning studies of spoken communication? A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.008Google Scholar
Kinreich, S., Djalovski, A., Kraus, L., Louzoun, Y., & Feldman, R. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony during naturalistic social interactions. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17060. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598–017-17339-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kita, S., & Ide, S. (2007). Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversation: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(7), 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.009Google Scholar
Kominsky, J. F., & Keil, F. C. (2014). Overestimation of knowledge about word meanings: The “misplaced meaning” effect. Cognitive Science, 38(8), 1604–1633.Google Scholar
Kominsky, J. F., Langthorne, P., & Keil, F. C. (2016). The better part of not knowing: Virtuous ignorance. Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 31.Google Scholar
Kominsky, J. F., Zamm, A. P., & Keil, F. C. (2018). Knowing when help is needed: A developing sense of causal complexity. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 491–523.Google Scholar
Konvalinka, I., & Roepstorff, A. (2012). The two-brain approach: How can mutually interacting brains teach us something about social interaction? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00215Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., … Lacerda, F. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277(5326), 684–686.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Dean, David Jr.. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Zhang, R., Geng, B., Zhang, T., Yuan, D., Otani, S., & Li, X. (2019). Interplay between prior knowledge and communication mode on teaching effectiveness: Interpersonal neural synchronization as a neural marker. NeuroImage, 193, 93–102.Google Scholar
Lugli, L., Obertis, A. C., & Borghi, A. M. (2017). Hitting is male, giving is female: Automatic imitation and complementarity during action observation. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426–016-0808-8Google Scholar
Manzoni, A. (2010). I promessi sposi , vol. 29. Newton Compton Editori.Google Scholar
Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 320–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01022.xGoogle Scholar
Mayo, O., & Gordon, I. (2020). In and out of synchrony – Behavioral and physiological dynamics of dyadic interpersonal coordination. Psychophysiology, 57(6), e13574. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13574Google Scholar
Mazzuca, C., Falcinelli, I., Michalland, A.-H., Tummolini, L., & Borghi, A. M. (2021). Bodily, emotional, and public sphere at the time of COVID-19. An investigation on concrete and abstract concepts, Psychological Research, 86, 2266–2277.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D., & Holt, L. L. (2006). Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8), 363–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264(5588), 746–748.Google Scholar
McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Probabilistic constraint satisfaction at the lexical/phonetic interface: Evidence for gradient effects of within-category VOT on lexical access. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnar-Szakacs, I., Wu, A. D., Robles, F. J., & Iacoboni, M. (2007). Do you see what I mean? Corticospinal excitability during observation of culture-specific gestures. PLoS ONE, 2(7), e626.Google Scholar
Montague, P. R., Berns, G. S., Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., Pagnoni, G., Dhamala, M., … Apple, N. (2002). Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. Neuroimage, 16(4), 1159–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M., & Bekkering, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nature Neuroscience, 10(7), 817–818.Google Scholar
Olsen, K., & Tylén, K., (2023). On the social nature of abstraction: Cognitive implications of interaction and diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1870), 20210361.Google Scholar
Patel, R., & Schell, K. W. (2008). The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(1), 209–220.Google Scholar
Paxton, A., & Dale, R. (2013). Argument disrupts interpersonal synchrony. Sage.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1974). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez, A., Carreiras, M., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2017). Brain-to-brain entrainment: EEG interbrain synchronization while speaking and listening. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Pérez, A., Dumas, G., Karadag, M., & Duñabeitia, J. A. (2019). Differential brain-to-brain entrainment while speaking and listening in native and foreign languages. Cortex, 111, 303–315.Google Scholar
Pezzulo, G., Donnarumma, F., Dindo, H., D’Ausilio, A., Konvalinka, I., & Castelfranchi, C. (2019). The body talks: Sensorimotor communication and its brain and kinematic signatures. Physics of Life Reviews, 28, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.06.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2021). Understanding dialogue: Language use and social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piotrowski, J. T., Litman, J. A., & Valkenburg, P. (2014). measuring epistemic curiosity in young children. Infant and Child Development, 23(5), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1847Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Huss, M., Kherif, F., del Prado Martin, F. M., Hauk, O., & Shtyrov, Y. (2006). Motor cortex maps articulatory features of speech sounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(20), 7865–7870.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning.” Philosophical Papers, 2.Google Scholar
Raafat, R. M., Chater, N., & Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.002Google Scholar
Rabb, N., Fernbach, P. M., & Sloman, S. A. (2019). Individual representation in a community of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 891–902.Google Scholar
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Kelso, J. S. (2008). Reconciling symbolic and dynamic aspects of language: Toward a dynamic psycholinguistics. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 193–207.Google Scholar
Redcay, E., & Schilbach, L. (2019). Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(8), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583–019-0179-4Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413.Google Scholar
Riest, C., Jorschick, A. B., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2015). Anticipation in turn-taking: Mechanisms and information sources. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 89.Google Scholar
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience., 27, 169–192.Google Scholar
Robinson, E. J., Einav, S., & Fox, A. (2013). Reading to learn: Prereaders’ and early readers’ trust in text as a source of knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 505.Google Scholar
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521–562.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A., & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers’ theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development, 72(4), 1054–1070.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (2004). An initial characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in conversation. Pragmatics and beyond New Series, 125, 35–42.Google Scholar
Sartori, L., Bucchioni, G., & Castiello, U. (2013). When emulation becomes reciprocity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss044Google Scholar
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
Scorolli, C., Miatton, M., Wheaton, L. A., & Borghi, A. M. (2014). I give you a cup, I get a cup: A kinematic study on social intention. Neuropsychologia, 57, 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.006Google Scholar
Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 260–273.Google Scholar
Shockley, K., Baker, A. A., Richardson, M. J., & Fowler, C. A. (2007). Articulatory constraints on interpersonal postural coordination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 201.Google Scholar
Shockley, K., Santana, M.-V., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 326.Google Scholar
Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), E4687–E4696.Google Scholar
Smirnov, D., Saarimäki, H., Glerean, E., Hari, R., Sams, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2019). Emotions amplify speaker–listener neural alignment. Human Brain Mapping, 40(16), 4777–4788. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24736Google Scholar
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45(4), 447–481.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Yoon, K.-E. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(3), 324–340.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.Google Scholar
Topolinski, S., Lindner, S., & Freudenberg, A. (2014). Popcorn in the cinema: Oral interference sabotages advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 169–176.Google Scholar
Topolinski, S., Maschmann, I. T., Pecher, D., & Winkielman, P. (2014). Oral approach-avoidance: Affective consequences of muscular articulation dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036477Google Scholar
Vitriol, J. A., & Marsh, J. K. (2018). The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 955–969.Google Scholar
von Zimmermann, J., & Richardson, D. C. (2016). Verbal synchrony and action dynamics in large groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02034Google Scholar
Wilson, S. M., Saygin, A. P., Sereno, M. I., & Iacoboni, M. (2004). Listening to speech activates motor areas involved in speech production. Nature Neuroscience, 7(7), 701–702.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2010). Philosophical investigations. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wohltjen, S., & Wheatley, T. (2021). Eye contact marks the rise and fall of shared attention in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(37). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106645118Google Scholar
Zollinger, S. A., & Brumm, H. (2011). The Lombard effect. Current Biology, 21(16), R614–R615.Google Scholar
Zubek, J., Denkiewicz, M., Dębska, A., Radkowska, A., Komorowska-Mach, J., Litwin, P., … Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2016). Performance of language-coordinated collective systems: A study of wine recognition and description. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01321Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×