On Using Language

By C. K. Grant. 1956

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Linguistics

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark (2021, background): “Furthermore, language understanding relies not only on linguistic competence but also world knowledge, commonsense reasoning, and the ability to model the interlocutor’s state of mind [Reddy, 1979, Clark, 1996], none of which can be thoroughly tested through text-only tasks, such as GLUE.”
Stereotyping Norwegian Salmon: An Inventory of Pitfalls in Fairness Benchmark Datasets (2021, background): “Auditing NLP systems for computational harms like the reproduction of stereotypes or hate speech remains a persistent challenge, due in no small part to the deeply contextual and open nature of language use and tasks (Austin, 1975; Clark, 1996; Howcroft et al., 2020; Abid et al., 2021; Olteanu et al”
Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs (2022, background): “, 2005) and used (Clark, 1996) in collaborative and interactive settings (Clark and Schaefer, 1989), which allow interlocutors to give immediate feedback to each other on whether their”
Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data (2020, background): “For example, to make sense of (8) and (9) (from Clark, 1996, p.144), the listener has to calculate that Napoleon refers to a speciﬁc pose (hand inside coat ﬂap) or that China trip refers to a person who has recently traveled to China.”
"Blissfully Happy" or "Ready toFight": Varying Interpretations of Emoji (2016, methodology): “We contextualize our analysis in Herbert Clark’s psycholinguistic theory of language use (Clark 1996).”
Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of (Natural) Language (2016, background): “However, they do not capture the functional aspects of communication, i.e., that humans use words to coordinate with others and make things happen (Austin, 1962; Clark, 1996; Wittgenstein, 1953).”
Chameleons in Imagined Conversations: A New Approach to Understanding Coordination of Linguistic Style in Dialogs (2011, background): “One line of thought is that convergence represents a social strategy3 whose aim is to gain the other’s social approval (Giles, 2008; Street and Giles, 1982) or enhance the other’s comprehension (Clark, 1996; Bortfeld and Brennan, 1997).”
Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation (2017, background): “…relevant to interactive systems, is adaptivity, that is, the way speakers (or systems) alter their lingiuistic choices as a result of their interlocutors’ utterances (Clark, 1996; Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002; Pickering & Garrod, 2004), a theme that has also begun to be explored in nlg”
Multi-agent Communication meets Natural Language: Synergies between Functional and Structural Language Learning (2020, background): “Since speaker and listener learn together, they co-adapt, forming conventions (or conceptual pacts (Brennan and Clark, 1996)) that differ from humans’, even in the presence of ﬂuent and grounded language.”
When conversation is better than computation. (2000, background): “The first is concerned with the specifics of the conversation, while the second is devoted to checking that messages have been understood, and may result in the sharing of common ground when it is clear that assumptions about shared knowledge do not hold.(25) Thus, building common ground requires mu”
Designing robots for long-term social interaction (2005, background): “Since people who know each other share a common set of beliefs about each other and about their conversation together, establishing this “common ground” is a key element of humanhuman interactions [15].”
A Look Is Worth a Thousand Words: Full Gaze Awareness in Video-Mediated Conversation (2002, methodology): “The aim of the experiment described here is in the spirit of Clark (1996) and others who see language as a collaborative activity (e.g., Grice, 1957; Schegloff, 1991).”
Learning from human tutoring (2001, background): “Although one could say that all dialogues are inherently joint acts (Clark, 1996), and therefore interactive, in the context of understanding learning, it may be important to differentiate between communicative acts that are " interactive " versus " non-interactive, " in terms of the content.”
A minimal architecture for joint action (2010, unknown): “Some researchers have emphasised the role of language (Clark, 1996), attributions of intention, belief and other propositional attitudes (Bratman, 1993, 1997, 2009; Tuomela, 2005), and commitments (Gilbert, 1992).”
Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition (2012, background): “Indeed, many thinkers have viewed speech as an action with communicative goals, such as informing a listener (Grice, 1975; Levinson, 2000; Clark, 1996).”
Seeing the Complexity of Standing to the Side: Instructional Dialogues (2005, background): “A second aspect of dialogue is the generally shared agreement to establish and maintain meaningful exchanges (Clark, 1996; Grice, 1998).”
Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives (2013, background): “Our pragmatic theory builds on accounts which emphasize the importance of coordination, in particular developments of Grice 1957, 1989 on game-theoretic principles (Lewis 1969; Clark 1996; Benz, Jäger & van Rooij 2005; Jäger 2007; Franke 2009).”
A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills (2015, background): “Interaction among problem solvers is a minimum requirement for successful coordination (Crowston et al. 2006 ) and it is achieved through verbal and nonverbal means (Clark 1996 ).”