Referring as a Collaborative Process

By Philip R. Cohen, J. Morgan, Martha E. Pollack. 2003

1,096 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ad7dd0aaa933ce0a22e788b40ea6fa9d6990650

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

Space, time, and the use of language : an investigation of relationships (2007, neutral): “These basic principles are closely related to earlier research findings in other scenarios and domains (e.g., Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs 1986 ).”
Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building (2020, positive): “When our knowledge of the world is confirmed in actual behavior, we hardly pay attention: these categories have become part of our taken-for-granted understanding of the world (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Colyvas & Powell, 2006; Vygotsky, 1987).”
Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, positive): “In Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs's ( 1986 ) classic tangram study, pairs of participants performed a referential communication task (see also Fussell & Kraus, 1989a ; Glucksberg, Krauss, & Weisberg, 1966 ), in which one participant described geometric shapes so their partner could put them in order.”
Handling Discourse: Gestures, Reference Tracking, and Communication Strategies in Early L2 (2006, neutral): “Studies showing (visibility) effects on the degree of explicitness in speech typically investigate spatial language or reference to complex entities (tangram pictures) rather than reference to person in narratives (e.g., Bard, et al., 2000; Clark & Haviland, 1977; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986).”
Design Considerations for Collaborative Visual Analytics (2007, neutral): “Placing behaviors involve moving an object to a region of space that has a shared, conventional meaning.”
No country for old members: user lifecycle and linguistic change in online communities (2013, background): “A number of early studies examined various ways in which norms arise in group interactions, including the important roles of primacy (the first variant of some norm tends to persist), social status (norms are often introduced by individuals with higher social capital) [13], minimization of joint eff”
Collaborative Language Grounding Toward Situated Human-Robot Dialogue (2017, background): “Collaborative Models for REG Previous work on the collaborative process for referential communication (Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1986) states that, to minimize collaborative effort, partners tend to go beyond issuing an elementary referring expression, but rather use other different types of…”
Gestures Over Video Streams to Support Remote Collaboration on Physical Tasks (2004, background): “The conversational grounding framework proposed by Clark and his colleagues (e.g., Clark & Marshall, 1981; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986 ) provides a useful theoretical foundation for understanding the relationships among verbal and nonverbal communication, actions, and environment in collaborative ph”
Attenuating Information in Spoken Communication: For the Speaker, or for the Addressee?. (2010, background): “…may introduce it with a lengthy and provisional description that becomes shorter later in the conversation, after it has been ratified or modified by the addressee during an interactive process of conversational grounding (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Clark & Schaefer, 1989; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986).”
Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity (2008, background): “…to use communication patterns such as “installments,” which enable the sender to break up a message and seek the recipient’s feedback after each installment is sent (Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1986), or offer trial references to test the recipient’s agreement and understanding (Clark and Brennan 1991).”
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 (2021, background): “Our human understanding of coherence derives from our ability to recognize interlocutors’ beliefs [30, 31] and intentions [23, 33] within context [32].”
The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation (2003, background): “One proposal, perhaps most notably made by Clark and his colleagues, is that a particular kind of context, the common ground or mutual knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions among conversational participants (see Clark, 1992 and Smith, 1982 for discussion about defining common ground), has a primary ro”