涉空对话中表征对齐的产生机制

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

余萌, 李晶(

)

南京师范大学心理学院, 南京 210097

收稿日期:2020-05-26出版日期:2021-03-15发布日期:2021-01-26
通讯作者:李晶E-mail:lij@njnu.edu.cn

基金资助:国家自然科学基金(31200776);国家自然科学基金(41871371);江苏省高校自然科学基金(17KJ190002);江苏省高校优秀中青年教师和校长境外研修计划;南京师范大学引进人才启动经费资助

The mechanism of representational alignment in spatial dialogue

YU Meng, LI Jing(

)

School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China

Received:2020-05-26Online:2021-03-15Published:2021-01-26
Contact:LI Jing E-mail:lij@njnu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 人类如何处理并交换空间信息是现有空间认知领域的热点问题, 这一过程主要是通过涉空对话实现的。在涉空对话中存在着表征对齐现象, 互动双方在对话中会实现空间术语、空间参照系及空间视角等表征的对齐。空间场景物理特征和人与人的协作都会影响表征对齐的程度, 而实现表征对齐的生理基础是对话双方神经活动的一致性。未来可继续探究表征对齐的作用机制, 如与个体空间偏好的关系, 以及合作伙伴特征如何影响表征对齐的程度等。

图/表 1

图1交互对齐模型(译自Pickering & Garrod, 2004)

参考文献 57

[1]	窦文菲, 胡清芬. (2018). 语言线索对空间关系表征的影响及其机制. 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 633-640.
[2]	张克定(著), 王寅(主编).(2016). 空间关系构式的认知研究. 北京: 高等教育出版社.
[3]	Andonova, E.(2010). Aligning Spatial Perspective in Route Descriptions. In: C. H?lscher, T. F. Shipley, B. M. Olivetti, J. A. Bateman, & N. S. Newcombe (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 6222:Spatial Cognition VII: International Conference on Spatial Cognition(pp. 125-138). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[4]	Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A.(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), 13-25.
[5]	Burigo, M., & Schultheis, H. (2018). The effects of direction and orientation of located objects on spatial language comprehension. Language and Cognition, 10(2), 298-328.
[6]	Christensen, P., Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: Structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization. Cognition, 146, 67-80. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.004 URLpmid: 26402649
[7]	Clark, H. H.(1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[8]	Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.
[9]	Coventry, K. R., Andonova, E., Tenbrink, T., Gudde, H. B., & Engelhardt, P. E.(2018). Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01287 URLpmid: 30150947
[10]	Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: Describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology, 69, 46-70.
[11]	Coventry, K. R., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (Eds.).(2009) Spatial language and dialogue (Vol. 3). OUP Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[12]	Dobnik, S. (2012). Coordinating spatial perspective in discourse. In Proceedings of the 4th Swedish Language Technology Conference (SLTC 2012)(pp. 21-22).
[13]	Dobnik, S., Kelleher, J. D., & Koniaris, C. (2014). Priming and alignment of frame of reference in situated conversation. Proceedings of Dial-Watt-Semdial, 9, 43-52.
[14]	Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Investigating Conversational Dynamics: Interactive Alignment, Interpersonal Synergy, and Collective Task Performance. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 145-171. URLpmid: 25988263
[15]	Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N.(2013). Flexible spatial perspective-taking: Conversational partners weigh multiple cues in collaborative tasks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00618 URLpmid: 24133432
[16]	Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2015). Social and representational cues jointly influence spatial perspective-taking. Cognitive Science, 39(4), 739-765. URLpmid: 25243841
[17]	Galati, A., Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2019). Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking. Journal of Memory and Language, 104, 1-24.
[18]	Galati, A., Diavastou, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2018). Signatures of cognitive difficulty in perspective-taking: is the egocentric perspective always the easiest to adopt? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 467-493.
[19]	Galati, A., Panagiotou, E., Tenbrink, T., & Avraamides, M. N. (2017). Dynamic strategy selection in collaborative spatial tasks. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 1-23.
[20]	Galati, A., Symeonidou, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2020). Do aligned bodies align minds? The partners’ body alignment as a constraint on spatial perspective use. Discourse Processes, 57(2), 99-121.
[21]	Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181-218. URLpmid: 3691025
[22]	Gramann, K. (2013). Embodiment of spatial reference frames and individual differences in reference frame proclivity. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 13(1), 1-25.
[23]	Jiang, J., Dai, B., Peng, D. L., Zhu, C. Z., & Lu, C. (2012). Neural synchronization during face-to-face communication. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(45), 16064-16069.
[24]	Johannsen, K., de Ruiter, J. P.(2013). Reference frame selection in dialog: Priming or preference. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00667 URLpmid: 24137122
[25]	Kuhlen, A. K., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Anticipating distracted addressees: How speakers’ expectations and addressees’ feedback influence storytelling. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 567-587.
[26]	Levinson, S. C.(2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[27]	Liang, H. N., Lu, F. Y., Shi, Y. W., Nanjappan, V., & Papangelis, K. (2019). Evaluating the effects of collaboration and competition in navigation tasks and spatial knowledge acquisition within virtual reality environments. Future Generation Computer Systems, 95, 855-866.
[28]	Liu, W., Branigan, H. P., Zheng, L. F., Long, Y. H., Bai, X. L., Li, K. Y., … Lu, C. M. (2019). Shared neural representations of syntax during online dyadic communication. NeuroImage, 198, 63-72.
[29]	Liu, Y. C., Piazza, E. A., Simony, E., Shewokis, P. A., Onaral, B., Hasson, U., & Ayaz, H. (2017). Measuring speaker- listener neural coupling with functional near infrared spectroscopy. Scientific Reports, 7, 43293. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43293 URLpmid: 28240295
[30]	Menenti, L., Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. C.(2012). Toward a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 185. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00185 URLpmid: 22754517
[31]	Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 201-213.
[32]	Milleville-Pennel, I., Mars, F., & Pouliquen-Lardy, L. (2020). Sharing spatial information in a virtual environment: How do visual cues and configuration influence spatial coding and mental workload? Virtual Reality, 24, 695-712.
[33]	Müller, J., R?dle, R., & Reiterer, H. (2017, May). Remote collaboration with mixed reality displays: How shared virtual landmarks facilitate spatial referencing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 6481-6486). New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
[34]	N?lle, J., Fusaroli, R., Mills, G. J., & Tylén, K. (2020). Language as shaped by the environment: linguistic construal in a collaborative spatial task. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-10.
[35]	?zyürek, A. (2002). Do speakers design their cospeech gestures for their addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational gestures. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 688-704.
[36]	Pardo, J. S., Gibbons, R., Suppes, A., & Krauss, R. M. (2012). Phonetic convergence in college roommates. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 190-197.
[37]	Peacock, C. E., & Ekstrom, A. D. (2018). Verbal cues flexibly transform spatial representations in human memory. Memory, 27(4), 465-479.
[38]	Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-226.
[39]	Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2-3), 203-228.
[40]	Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329-347.
[41]	Pouliquen-Lardy, L., Mars, F., Guillaume, F., & Milleville- Pennel, I. (2015). Virtual collaboration: Effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production. Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 337-342.
[42]	Pouliquen-Lardy, L., Milleville-Pennel, I., Guillaume, F., & Mars, F. (2016). Remote collaboration in virtual reality: Asymmetrical effects of task distribution on spatial processing and mental workload. Virtual Reality, 20(4), 213-220.
[43]	Rocca, R., Wallentin, M., Vesper, C., & Tylén, K. (2018, July). This and that back in context: Grounding demonstrative reference in manual and social affordances. Paper presented at the meeting of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 960-965), Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
[44]	Scalise, R., Li, S., Admoni, H., Rosenthal, S., & Srinivasa, S. S. (2018). Natural language instructions for human-robot collaborative manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 37(6), 558-565.
[45]	Schafer, W. A., & Bowman, D. A. (2004). Evaluating the effects of frame of reference on spatial collaboration using desktop collaborative virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 7(3-4), 164-174.
[46]	Schober, M. (2009). Spatial dialogue between partners with mismatched abilities. In, K. Coventry, T. A. Tenbrink & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial Language and Dialogue (Vol 3, pp.23-39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[47]	Schole, G., Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., & Coventry, K. R. (2018, July). Object Orientation in Dialogue: A Case Study of Spatial Inference Processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the 11th International Conference, Spatial Cognition 2018, Tübingen, Germany.
[48]	Schoot, L., Hagoort, P., & Segaert, K.(2019). Stronger syntactic alignment in the presence of an interlocutor. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 685. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2019.00685 URLpmid: 30971995
[49]	Schoot, L., Heyselaar, E., Hagoort, P., & Segaert, K. (2016b). Does syntactic alignment effectively influence how speakers are perceived by their conversation partner? PLOS One, 11(4), e0153521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153521 URLpmid: 27128682
[50]	Schoot, L., Stolk, A., Hagoort, P., Garrod, S., Segaert, K., & Menenti, L. (2016a). Finding your way in the zoo: How situation model alignment affects interpersonal neural coupling. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL 2016), London, UK.
[51]	Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), E4687-E4696.
[52]	Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker- listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(32), 14425-14430.
[53]	Stolk, A., Verhagen, L., & Toni, I. (2016). Conceptual alignment: How brains achieve mutual understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(3), 180-191.
[54]	Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., Schole, G., & Coventry, K. R. (2016). Communicative success in spatial dialogue: The impact of functional features and dialogue strategies. Language and Speech, 60(2), 318-329.
[55]	Vorwerg, C. (2009). Consistency in successive spatial utterance. In, K. Coventry, T. A. Tenbrink & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (Vol.4, pp.40-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[56]	Watson, M. E., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2004). Alignment of reference frames in dialogue. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 26. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9t95b48d
[57]	Watson, M. E., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P.(2009). Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In K. Coventry, T. A. Tenbrink & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (Vol.2, pp.8-22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.