Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:37:55.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2021

Martin J. Pickering  and
Simon Garrod
Martin J. Pickering
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Simon Garrod
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Dialogue
Language Use and Social Interaction
 , pp. 266 - 278
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aijmer, K. (2014). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264.Google Scholar
Altmann, G., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583–609.Google Scholar
Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1983). The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 35(3), 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnal, L. H., & Giraud, A. L. (2012). Cortical oscillations and sensory predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 390–398.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Assaneo, M. F., & Poeppel, D. (2018). The coupling between auditory and motor cortices is rate-restricted: Evidence for an intrinsic speech-motor rhythm. Science Advances, 4(2), eaao3842.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Holquist, M., Ed.; Emerson, C. & Holquist, M., Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C., & Altmann, G. T. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception & Psychophysics, 44(5), 395–408.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–52.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.Google Scholar
Blakemore, S.-J., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (1999). Spatio-temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 551–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). The brain behind the response: Insights into turn-taking in conversation from neuroimaging. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bögels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5, 12881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolt, N. K., & Loehr, J. D. (2017). The predictability of a partner’s actions modulates the sense of joint agency. Cognition, 161, 60–65.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13–B25.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., McLean, J. F., & Cleland, A. A. (2007). Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue. Cognition, 104(2), 163–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., McLean, J. F., & Brown, A. (2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition, 121(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (1992). Shared cooperative activity. Philosophical Review, 101(2), 327–341.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493.Google Scholar
Carbary, K., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2011) Conceptual pacts, syntactic priming, and referential form. In Proceedings of the CogSci Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap Between Computational, Empirical and Theoretical Approaches to Reference (PRE-CogSci 2011) (pp. 1–6). Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, C., Trubanova, A., Stillittano, S., Caplier, A., & Ghazanfar, A. A. (2009). The natural statistics of audiovisual speech. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(7), e1000436.Google Scholar
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999 ). The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 637–669.Google Scholar
Civil Aviation Authority (2015). CAP1421: CAA Annual Report & Accounts 2015/16.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e62.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2016). Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review, 123(3), 324–347.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite knowledge and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–294.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 214–230.Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, U., Edelist, L., & Gleason, E. (2017). Converging to the baseline: Corpus evidence for convergence in speech rate to interlocutor’s baseline. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(5), 2989–2996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. (1998). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, I. (1995). Blackboard systems. Ablex Publishing corporation, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
Craik, K. J. W. (1967). The nature of explanation (Vol. 445). Cambridge: CUP Archive. (Original work published 1943)Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, F. (2003). Practice and performance in speech produced synchronously. Journal of Phonetics, 31(2), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14, 445–564.Google Scholar
Davidson, P. R., & Wolpert, D. M. (2005). Widespread access to predictive models in motor system: A short review. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2, S313–S319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Chang, F. (2014). The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 369, 20120394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1–40). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101.Google Scholar
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fay, N., Ellison, T. M., Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Walker, B., & Garrod, S. (2018). Applying the cultural ratchet to a social artefact: The cumulative cultural evolution of a language game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(3), 300–309.Google Scholar
Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, R., & Ginzburg, J. (2002, August). Non-sentential utterances: Grammar and dialogue dynamics in corpus annotation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–7). Tiapei: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., Kleinman, D., Kraljic, T., & Siu, Y. (2012). Do priming effects in dialogue reflect partner-or task-based expectations? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 309–316.Google Scholar
Fischer, B., & Glanzer, M. (1986). Short-term storage and the processing of cohesion during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(3), 431–460.Google Scholar
Flinker, A., Korzeniewska, A., Shestyuk, A. Y., Franaszczuk, P. J., Dronkers, N. F., Knight, R. T., & Crone, N. E. (2015). Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2871–2875.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., Bever, A., & Garrett, T. G. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Forbus, K.D. (1983). Qualitative reasoning about space and motion. In Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). Mental models (pp. 53-74). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Forster, K. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Oxford: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. (1926). Modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.Google Scholar
Fujii, Y. (2012). Differences in situating Self in the place/ba of interaction between the Japanese and American English speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 636–662.Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., Frith, C., & Tylén, K. (2012). Coming to terms: Quantifying the benefits of linguistic coordination. Psychological Science, 23(8), 931–939.Google Scholar
Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 35–51.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501.Google Scholar
Gallotti, M., & Frith, C. D. (2013). Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 160–165.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi (The wisdom of crowds). Nature, 75, 450–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2016). Predicting and imagining language. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31(1), 60–72.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181–218.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Clark, A. (1993). The development of dialogue co-ordination skills in schoolchildren. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Doherty, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181–215.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 8–11.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2015). The use of content and timing to predict turn transitions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, S., Tosi, A., & Pickering, M. J. (2018). Alignment during interaction. In The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 1-23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1994). Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Giraud, A. L., Kleinschmidt, A., Poeppel, D., Lund, T. E., Frackowiak, R. S., & Laufs, H. (2007). Endogenous cortical rhythms determine cerebral specialization for speech perception and production. Neuron, 56, 1127–1134.Google Scholar
Glanzer, M., Dorfman, D., & Kaplan, B. (1981). Short-term storage in the processing of text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 656–670.Google Scholar
Glanzer, M., Fischer, B., & Dorfman, D. (1984). Short-term storage in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 467–486.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., & Holliman, E. (1993). Switchboard-1 (Release 2 LDC97S62) [DVD]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society, 5, 257–313.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A., & Wedderburn, A. A. I. (1960). Shorter articles and notes grouping strategies with simultaneous stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 180–184.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gross, J., Hoogenboom, N., Thut, G., Schyns, P., Panzeri, S., Belin, P., & Garrod, S. (2013). Speech rhythms and multiplexed oscillatory sensory coding in the human brain. PLoS Biology, 11(12), e1001752.Google Scholar
Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 377–435.Google Scholar
Haith, A. M., & Krakauer, J. W. (2013). Model-based and model-free mechanisms of human motor learning. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 782, 1–21.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Stevens, K. (1959). Analysis by synthesis. In Wathen-Dunn, W. & Woods, L. E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seminar on Speech Comprehension and Processing, USAF Camb.Res.Ctr.2: Paper D7.Google Scholar
Hanna, J. E., & Brennan, S. E. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 596–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 43–61.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484–500.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42(2), 113–157.Google Scholar
Haruno, M., Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (2001). MOSAIC model for sensorimotor learning and control. Neural Computation, 13, 2201–2220.Google Scholar
Haruno, M., Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (2003). Hierarchical MOSAIC for movement generation. International Congress Series, 1250, 575–590.Google Scholar
Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 512–521.Google Scholar
Heldner, M., & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 38(4), 555–568.Google Scholar
Henderson, J., & Ferreira, F. (2004). (Eds.) The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hesslow, G. (2002). Conscious thought as simulation of behaviour and perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 242–247.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. (2014). Towards an integrated psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, sensorimotor framework for speech production. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29, 52–59.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., Houde, J., & Rong, F. (2011). Sensorimotor integration in speech processing: Computational basis and neural organization. Neuron, 69, 407–422.Google Scholar
Himberg, T., Hirvenkari, L., Mandel, A., & Hari, R. (2015). Word-by-word entrainment of speech rhythm during joint story building. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1–35.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.Google Scholar
Hupet, M., & Chantraine, Y. (1992). Changes in repeated references: Collaboration or repetition effects? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 485–496.Google Scholar
Hurley, S. (2008). The shared circuits model (SCM): How control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation, deliberation, and mindreading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1983). Understanding Micronesian navigation. In Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 191–226). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P. (2011). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components: A critical update. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 255.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92, 101–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39–44.Google Scholar
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Ferreira, V. (2013). Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 359–360.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1982). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. Studium Linguisticum, 14, 58–68.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, M., & Rummelhart, D. E. (1992). Forward models: Supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science, 16, 307–354.Google Scholar
Kail, R. V., & Cavaunaugh, J. C. (2007). Human development: A life-span view (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Kawato, M., Furukawa, K., & Suzuki, R. (1987). A hierarchical neural-network model for control and learning of voluntary movement. Biological Cybernetics, 57(3), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32–38.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., & Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13, 207–212.Google Scholar
Klapp, S. T. (1979). Doing two things at once: The role of temporal compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 7, 375–381.Google Scholar
Knoblich, G., & Jordan, J. S. (2003). Action coordination in groups and individuals: Learning anticipatory control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1006–1016.Google Scholar
Konopka, A., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68–101.Google Scholar
Kowtko, J. C., Isard, S. D., & Doherty, G. M. (1993). Conversational games within dialogue. Human Communication Research Centre Technical Report 31. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Krauss, R. M., & Glucksberg, S. (1969). The development of communication: Competence as a function of age. Child Development, 40, 255–266.Google Scholar
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 343–346.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. (1996). Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163.Google Scholar
Lerner, Y., Honey, C. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2011). Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 2906–2915.Google Scholar
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334-339.Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In Gentner, D. A. L. & Stevens, (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–98). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 223–232.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, J. A., & Moore, J. A. (1977). Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1, 395–420.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Recursion in pragmatics. Language, 89, 149–162.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication – origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 6–14.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., & Whalen, D. H. (2000). On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 187–196.Google Scholar
Lind, A., Hall, L., Breidegard, B., Balkenius, C., & Johansson, P. (2014). Speakers’ acceptance of real-time speech exchange indicates that we use auditory feedback to specify the meaning of what we say. Psychological Science, 25, 1198–1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives (Vol. 3). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.Google Scholar
Mackay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory of language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F. (1998). The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 499–511.Google Scholar
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Mitterer, H., & Ernestus, M. (2008). The link between speech perception and production is phonological and abstract: Evidence from the shadowing task. Cognition, 109, 168–173.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1973). Sentence fragments and the notion “sentence.” In Kachru, B. B., Lees, R. B., Malkiel, Y., Pietrangeli, A., & Saporta, S. (Eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (pp. 719–751). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Brechet, Y., Vicsek, T., & Barabási, A. L. (2000). The sound of many hands clapping. Nature, 403(6772), 849–850.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1954). An experimental distinction between perceptual process and verbal response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 399–402.Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1962). Some problems of basic organization in problem-solving programs (Report No. RAND/RM-3283-PR). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things (Vol. 5). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and Exp. ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 1–33.Google Scholar
Onojima, T., Kitajo, K., & Mizuhara, H. (2017). Ongoing slow oscillatory phase modulates speech intelligibility in cooperation with motor cortical activity. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0183146.Google Scholar
Park, H., Ince, R. A., Schyns, P. G., Thut, G., & Gross, J. (2015). Frontal top-down signals increase coupling of auditory low-frequency oscillations to continuous speech in human listeners. Current Biology, 25, 1649–1653.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. (2005). Joint attention: Its nature, reflexivity, and relation to common knowledge. In Eilan, N., Hoerl, C., McCormack, T., & Roessler, J. (Eds.), Joint attention: Communication and other minds: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 298-331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (8 vols., Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., & Burks, A., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Clark, A. (2014). Getting ahead: Forward models and their place in cognitive architecture. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 451–456.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2005). Establishing and using routines during dialogue: Implications for psychology and linguistics. In Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 85–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–347.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2014). Self-, other-, and joint monitoring using forward models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 132.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2015). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D., & Monahan, P. J. (2011). Feedforward and feedback in speech perception: Revisiting analysis by synthesis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 935–951.Google Scholar
Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–132.Google Scholar
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Bsehavior, 22(3), 358–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitter, D., & Moore, J. D. (2014). Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 29–46.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 1045–1060.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R. W., Goodman, J. R., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007). Rocking together: Dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. Human Movement Science, 26(6), 867–891.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., III, & Abel, M. (2015). Collective memory: A new arena of cognitive study. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 359–361.Google Scholar
Rosenweig, M. R., & Postman, L. (1957). Intelligibility as a function of frequency of usage. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 412–421.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974 ). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sagi, E., & Diermeier, D. (2017). Language use and coalition formation in multiparty negotiations. Cognitive Science, 41, 259–271.Google Scholar
Sahin, N. T., Pinker, S., Cash, S. S., Schomer, D., & Halgren, E. (2009). Sequential processing of lexical, grammatical, and phonological information within Broca’s area. Science, 326, 445–449.Google Scholar
Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1255–1266.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 474–494.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations in comprehension beyond the sentence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, goals, plans, and understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000 ). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. R. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Goldman, S. R. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and over-hearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102.Google Scholar
Schultz, B. G., O’Brien, I., Phillips, N., McFarland, D. H., Titone, D., & Palmer, C. (2016). Speech rates converge in scripted turn-taking conversations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1201–1220.Google Scholar
Schweikard, D. P., & Schmid, H. B. (2013). Collective intentionality. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Intentionality and the use of language. In A. Margalit (Ed.),Meaning and use (pp. 181–197). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M.E. (Eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.Google Scholar
Seth, V. (1994). A suitable boy. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Shatz, M. (1978). Children’s comprehension of their mothers’ question-directives. Journal of Child Language, 5, 39–46.Google Scholar
Simmons, R., Smith, T., Bernardine Dias, M., Goldberg, D., Hershberger, D., Stentz, A., & Zlot, R. (2002). A layered architecture for coordination of mobile robots. In Multi-robot systems: From swarms to intelligent automata (pp. 103–112). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skewes, J. C., Skewes, L., Michael, J., & Konvalinka, I. (2015). Synchronised and complementary coordination mechanisms in an asymmetric joint aiming task. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 551–565.Google Scholar
Spreng, R. N., Madore, K. P., & Schacter, D. L. (2018). Better imagined: Neural correlates of the episodic simulation boost to prospective memory performance. Neuropsychologia, 113, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10587–10592.Google Scholar
Strijkers, K., & Costa, A. (2016). The cortical dynamics of speaking: Present shortcomings and future avenues. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31(4), 484–503.Google Scholar
Strogatz, S. (2002). Synch: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Swaab, R. I., Maddux, W. W., & Sinaceur, M. (2011). Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 616–621.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. E. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 632–634.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371–391.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tourville, J. A., & Guenther, F. H. (2011). The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 952–981.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2011). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R., & Miller, K. (1988). We-intentions. Philosophical Studies, 53, 367–389.Google Scholar
Turnbull, W. (2003). Language in action: Psychological models of conversation. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Wassenhove, V., Grant, K. W., & Poeppel, D. (2005). Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 1181–1186.Google Scholar
Von Helmholtz, H. (1962). Handbuch der physiologischen Optik (Vol. 1). In Southall, J. P. C. (Ed.), Helmoholtz’s treatise on physiological optics. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1867)Google Scholar
Ward, A., & Litman, D. (2007). Automatically measuring lexical and acoustic/prosodic convergence in tutorial dialog corpora. In Proceedings of the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education, 2007.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460–473.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. (1987). A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 3–30.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (Vol. 3). Irvine, CA: Macmillan. (Original work published 1953)Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209–216.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 358, 593–602.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J., & Flanagan, J. R. (2011). Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 739–751.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 567–578). Chicago, IL: Chicago.Google Scholar
Yuille, A., & Kersten, D. (2006). Vision as Bayesian inference: Analysis by synthesis? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 301–308.Google Scholar
Zion Golumbic, E., Ding, N., Bickel, S., Lakatos, P., Schevon, C.E., McKahn, G., Mehta, A., Poeppel, D. Schroeder, S. (2013). Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a cocktail party. Neuron, 77 (5), 980–91.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×