Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue

By Martin J. Pickering, Simon Garrod. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2004

2,614 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/402c7b1da9b27db172e64c6eb0c557cdd7bfdf62

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Socially-mediated syntactic alignment (2014, background): “At least prima facie, the claim for automaticity (cf. Pickering & Garrod, 2004:188) and, in particular, the perception-behavior link seems to predict that social perception should not affect the degree of alignment (see Krauss & Pardo, 2004, for further discussion).”
Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “We view the anticipation of turn-taking as one instance of the broader alignment that takes place between dialogue partners across all levels of linguistic representation (for a review, see Pickering & Garrod 2004).”
On Lying and Being Lied To: A Linguistic Analysis of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication (2007, background): “The possibility that liars may use collaborative or alignment processes that have been observed in non-deceptive language use (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Pickering & Garrod, 2004) as a resource for accomplishing deception is consistent with the assumption in IDT that deceivers engage in strategic…”
Converging toward a common speech code: imitative and perceptuo-motor recalibration processes in speech production (2013, neutral): “…effect as so-called alignment mechanisms, which are assumed to apply to linguistic representations at different levels between partners, in order for these partners to have a better joint understanding of what they are talking about (Garrod and Pickering, 2004; Pickering and Garrod, 2004, 2007).”
Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Text Generation (2010, background): “According to (Pickering and Garrod, 2004) we would expect signiﬁcant traces of lexical and syntactic self-alignment in texts.”
Social cognition in humans. (2007, neutral): “Processes for creating a shared world have been studied most extensively in the context of spoken dialogue (for example [ 54 ]).”
On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. (2006, methodology): “A recent paper by Pickering and Garrod 2004 likewise proposes an automatic priming account for lexical, syntactic, and schematic parity in language use.”
More than Words: The Influence of Affective Content and Linguistic Style Matches in Online Reviews on Conversion Rates (2013, background): “Yet Chen, Wu, and Jungsun (2004) find no significant impact of positive ratings on sales, and Berger, Sorensen, and Rasumussen (2010) suggest that even negative ratings increase sales for products with lower awareness.”
Controlling User Perceptions of Linguistic Style: Trainable Generation of Personality Traits (2011, methodology): “A cache model based on recently used linguistic forms can also be combined, in order to model recency effects and alignment (Pickering and Garrod 2004).”
The motor theory of speech perception reviewed (2006, background): “On the one hand, parity is intended by Liberman and colleagues as two abstract constraints on the speaker–listener linguistic interaction—that is, constraints arising from the meaningful ecological context within which spoken communicative acts are embedded (cf. Pickering & Garrod, 2004).”
Conversation and Coordinative Structures (2009, background): “One explanation for behavioral coordination in the context of conversation is that it exists to align cognitive representations (e.g., Garrod & Pickering, 2004; Pickering & Garrod, 2004; Sebanz et al., 2006).”
Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production (2005, background): “Instead, we argue that associations based on ordinary memory representations serve as input to message planning processes, obviating the need to postulate the existence of dedicated partner-specific discourse models (see also Pickering & Garrod, 2004).”