Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:42:20.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation of the determinants of dialogue navigation in joint activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

DOMINIQUE KNUTSEN Open the ORCID record for DOMINIQUE KNUTSEN [Opens in a new window] ,
GILLES COL  and
LUDOVIC LE BIGOT
DOMINIQUE KNUTSEN*
Affiliation:
University of Essexefere
GILLES COL
Affiliation:
Université de Poitiers
LUDOVIC LE BIGOT
Affiliation:
Université de Poitiers
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Dominique Knutsen, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When people engage in joint activities together, they use dialogue, and more specifically project markers such as yeah, okay, or uh-huh, to coordinate entrances and exits of projects and subprojects. The purpose of the current study was to examine how two features of the dialogue situation, namely, mental load and face visibility, affect project marker production. Pairs of participants performed a collaborative puzzle game together. Mental load was manipulated through time pressure; visibility was manipulated by allowing the participants to see each other’s face during the task, or not. Dialogues were transcribed and coded for project marker production. Project marker production was found to increase under mental load; this also depended on the role of the speaker in the dyad (Director or Matcher) and on face visibility. This sheds light on the idea that dialogue partners may behave more collaboratively when experiencing high levels of mental load, contributing to a better understanding of mental resource allocation in dialogue-based joint activities.

Keywords

collaborationdialoguejoint activitiesmental loadproject markers
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 39 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 1345 - 1371
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Achim, A. M., Achim, A., & Fossard, M. (2017). Knowledge likely held by others affects speakers’ choices of referential expressions at different stages of discourse. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 21–36. doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1234059 Google Scholar
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., GarrodS., … S., …, Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351–366.Google Scholar
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27, 195–225. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3 Google Scholar
Bangerter, A., Clark, H. H., & Katz, A. R. (2004). Navigating joint projects in telephone conversations. Discourse Processes, 37, 1–23. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3701_1 Google Scholar
Bangerter, A., & Smolenski, C. (2000). Die Wiederverwendung konzeptueller Pakte bei der Bezugnahme auf neue Informationen [Reusing conceptual pacts in referring to new information] (No. 72). Psychological Institute, University of Basel.Google Scholar
Barnard, P. J. (1974). A corpus of 757 directory enquiry conversations. Cambridge, MA: MRC Applied Psychology Unit.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 Google Scholar
Belke, E. (2008). Effects of working memory load on lexical-semantic encoding in language production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 357–363. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.2.357 Google Scholar
Berthold, A., & Jameson, A. (1999). Interpreting symptoms of cognitive load in speech input. In J. Kay (Ed.), User modeling: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, UM99. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Boiteau, T. W., Malone, P. S., Peters, S. A., & Almor, A. (2014). Interference between conversation and a concurrent visuomotor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 295–311. doi:10.1037/a0031858 Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Catchpole, C. M., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). What makes dialogues easy to understand? Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1667–1686. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.524765 Google Scholar
Cane, E. C., Ferguson, H. J., & Apperly, I. A. (in press). Using perspective to resolve reference: The impact of cognitive load and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2005). Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse Studies, 7, 507–525. doi:10.1177/1461445605054404 Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 62–81. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004 Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7 Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles (Vol. 1). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2010). Discourse markers across speakers and settings. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818×.2010.00195.x Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 292–304. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x Google Scholar
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38, 33–41. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_5 Google Scholar
Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. G., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. San Francisco, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
Gorman, K. S., Gegg-Harrison, W., Marsh, C. R., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). What’s learned together stays together: Speakers’ choice of referring expression reflects shared experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 843–853. doi:10.1037/a0029467 Google Scholar
Gross, D., Allen, J. F., & Traum, D. R. (1993). The Trains 91 dialogues (Trains Technical Note No. 92–1). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. A., & Caird, J. K. (1993). Experimental evaluation of a model of mental workload. Human Factors, 35, 413–429.Google Scholar
Hart, S. G. (2006). Nasa-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50, 904–908. doi:10.1177/154193120605000909 Google Scholar
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2007). Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181–204. doi:10.1080/01690960400002117 Google Scholar
Heiden, S. (2010). The TXM platform: Building open-source textual analysis software compatible with the TEI encoding scheme. In R. Otoguro, K. Ishikawa, H. Umemoto, K. Yoshimoto, & Y. Harada (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 389–398). Sendai, Japan: Institute for Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Development.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 Google Scholar
Howarth, B., & Anderson, A. H. (2007). Introducing objects in spoken dialogue: The influence of conversational setting and cognitive load on the articulation and use of referring expressions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 272–296. doi:10.1080/01690960600632796 Google Scholar
Hupet, M., Seron, X., & Chantraine, Y. (1991). The effects of the codability and discriminability of the referents on the collaborative referring procedure. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 449–462. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1991.tb02412.x Google Scholar
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). Reference in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26–37. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.26 Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgment tokens “yeah” and “mm hm.” Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197–216.Google Scholar
Keselman, H. J., Algina, J., Kowalchuk, R. K., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1999). The analysis of repeated measurements: A comparison of mixed-model satterthwaite F tests and a nonpooled adjusted degrees of freedom multivariate test. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 28, 2967–2999. doi:10.1080/03610929908832460 Google Scholar
Kiernan, K., Tao, J., & Gibbs, P. (2012). Tips and strategies for mixed modelling with SAS/STAT procedures. Paper presented at the 2012 SAS Global Forum, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 343–346. doi:10.1037/h0023705 Google Scholar
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., & Siegel, J. (2003). Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 13–49. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_2 Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. W., & Mitchell, H. H. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of a set of discourse markers in dialog: A theoretical and computational linguistic account. Discourse Processes, 35, 199–239. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3503_1 Google Scholar
Lysander, K., & Horton, W. S. (2012). Conversational grounding in younger and older adults: The effect of partner visibility and referent abstractness in task-oriented dialogue. Discourse Processes, 49, 29–60. doi:10.1080/0163853×.2011.625547 Google Scholar
Mills, G. J. (2014). Dialogue in joint activity: Complementarity, convergence and conventionalization. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 158–173. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.006 Google Scholar
Ordonez, L., & Benson, L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 121–140.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G. W. C., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8 Google Scholar
Rossnagel, C. (2000). Cognitive load and perspective-taking: Applying the automatic-controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 429–445. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200005/06)30:3<429::AID-EJSP3>3.0.CO;2-V 3.0.CO;2-V>Google Scholar
Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and Workload Profile Methods. Applied Psychology, 53, 61–86. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x Google Scholar
Sato, N., Kamada, T., Miyake, S., Akatsu, J., Kumashiro, M., & Yume, K. (1999). Subjective mental workload in Type A women. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 331–336. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00060-2 Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics, 2, 110–114. doi:10.2307/3002019 Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations? Discourse Processes, 20, 219–247. doi:10.1080/01638539509544939 Google Scholar
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009 Google Scholar
Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R. (1980). A corpus of English conversation (Vol. 56). Lund: Liber Gleerups.Google Scholar
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 152–164. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.006 Google Scholar
Tylén, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind and Language, 25, 3–29. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01379.x Google Scholar
Vanlangendonck, F., Willems, R. M., Menenti, L., & Hagoort, P. (2016). An early influence of common ground during speech planning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 741–750. doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1148747 Google Scholar
Villing, J. (2009). Dialogue behaviour under high cognitive load. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2009 Conference: The 10th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 322–325). London: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Schriefers, H., & Friederici, A. D. (2010). Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 65–103. doi:10.1080/01690960042000085 Google Scholar
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schreifers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 423–440. doi:10.1037/a0018619 Google Scholar
Whittaker, S. J. (2003). Theories and methods in mediated communication. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 243–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449–455. doi:10.1518/001872008×288394 Google Scholar
Yoon, S. O., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2014). Adjusting conceptual pacts in three-party conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 919–937. doi:10.1037/a0036161 Google Scholar