Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding

By Herbert H. Clark, Meredyth A. Krych. 2004

706 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Cognitive Science & Psychology

How researchers see this paper

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

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs (2022, background): “language was understood (Clark and Krych, 2004) or should be adjusted (Krauss and Weinheimer, 1966), and observe the perlocutionary effects that their language has on their partners (Austin, 1975).”
'It's just like you talk to a friend' relational agents for older adults (2005, background): “Face-to-face dialog also has well-established repair mechanisms that enable listeners to request repetition or clarification by a speaker (e.g., communicated by the absence of grounding behavior such as a headnod (Clark & Krych, 2004)).”
Addressee backchannels steer narrative development (2014, background): “A speaker’s role involves not only talking, but actively monitoring addressee’s backchannel communications as a means for altering his or her own talk in a precisely timed manner (Clark and Krych, 2004).”
COGNITIVE MODELS OF WRITING: WRITING PROFICIENCY AS A COMPLEX INTEGRATED SKILL (2008, background): “There is a well-known set of experiments involving people giving directions about how to manipulate an object to third parties whom they cannot see but 56 57 with whom they can converse (H. H. Clark & Krych, 2004).”
Speakers' eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation (2007, background): “Brennan, 1990, 2005; Clark & Krych, 2004 ) have a profound effect on how they coordinate reference resolution and collaborative activity.”
Changing Ideas about Reference (2004, methodology): “In one documented example 7 Later studies (e.g., Bavelas, Coates and Johnson, 2000, 2002; Clark and Krych, 2004; Fox Tree 1999) showed that references designed without feedback are also inferior in quality; some are even impossible to grasp.”
Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings (2009, background): “Many studies, in particular in the fields of anthropology and cognitive linguistics, have underlined the importance of social use in language (e.g., Tomasello, 2005; Moll & Tomasello, 2007; Clark & Krych, 2004 ; Clark & Brennan, 1991; Pickering & Garrod, 2004).”
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].”
Looking To Understand: The Coupling Between Speakers' and Listeners' Eye Movements and Its Relationship to Discourse Comprehension (2005, background): “Because the success of a linguistic interaction is often dependent on a successful coordination of attention ( Clark & Krych, 2004 ), our second prediction is that the degree of the eye-movement coupling will reflect the degree to which the listener understood the speaker.”
Audiovisual prosody and feeling of knowing (2005, background): “…to gestures (e.g., Kendon, 1994; Krauss, Chen, & Chawla, 1996; McNeill, 1992) and facial expressions such as nodding, smiling, and gazing (e.g., Clark & Krych, 2004): such visual cues help to structure the interaction, for instance, by facilitating turn taking, or they support/supplement the…”
Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, methodology): “While global assumptions can and do change as a result of interaction with one’s conversational partner (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Clark & Krych, 2004), they do not require constant updating.”
Mechanisms of linguistic bias: How words reflect and maintain stereotypic expectancies (2014, background): “Senders may want to achieve something in a recipient (e.g., persuade, derogate, ingratiate), and they need to take into account the recipient’s level of understanding and acceptance (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Clark & Krych, 2004; Krauss & Fussell, 1991).”
Coordinating with each other in a material world (2005, methodology): “In the study of Lego models, the participants built the models under one of two conditions (see Clark and Krych, 2004).”
Gesturing on the telephone: Independent effects of dialogue and visibility. (2008, background): “The results for these variables, summarized below, were consistent with Kendon’s (1987) theory that transmission conditions will affect gestural as well as verbal formulations and also with other similar positions (e.g., Bangerter, 2004; Bavelas & Chovil, 2000, 2006; Bavelas et al., 2002; Clark & K”
Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production (2005, methodology): “The process of constructing utterances for particular addressees has been called audience design (Clark & Carlson, 1982; Clark & Murphy, 1982) or recipient design (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), and, in general, the phenomenon of audience design is well documented.”