The interactive alignment model RUG交互式校准模型地毯.pptVIP

LOTwinterschool2005 The interactive alignment model Simon Garrod University of Glasgow Background “Language as action” vs “language as product” LA does not account for mechanisms of dialogue processing LP does not take into account the basic dialogue setting for language processing Overview Interactive Alignment model Evidence of automatic alignment processes In situation model and lexical choice In phonology and syntax Evidence for alignment at one level enhancing alignment at other levels Basis of interactive alignment Mechanistic theory of dialogue? Dialogue is basic Mechanistic theory should: Reflect different processing context of dialogue and monologue Explain why dialogue is so easy for humans and why monologue is so difficult Explain how different levels of representation are processed in a dialogue context Dialogue and alignment Investigating linguistic alignment Maze Game Example maze dialogue Examples of maze descriptions Description Schemes (1) Figural Concept: Figure Segmentation Terminology: “right-turn indicator” “L shape” Example: “See the middle right-turn indicator. I’m on the end of it ” Description schemes (2) Path Concept: Path Network Example: “bottom right, along two, up one” Description Schemes (3) Line Concepts: // Lines or Levels Terminology: “Row”, “Layer”, “Level” Example: “Third row two along” Description scheme (4) Matrix Concepts: Co-ordinate System Terminology: “A, 3”, “Row 2, Column 3” Example: “I’m third row, fourth column”. Original Findings Garrod Anderson (1987) Pairs of individuals align on unambiguous description schemes The schemes develop over a period of time to fit the pairs’ needs Alignment is not controlled by explicit negotiation but rather by output/input co-ordination + interactive repair Alignment on Schemes After playing 2 games 95% of interlocutors are using the same scheme as their partner Schemes change over time Move from figural/path to line/matrix (i.e., toward more abstract conceptual models)