New challenges in psycholinguistics: Interactivity and alignment in interpersonal communication

Open access


In the present text, some recent changes in the perspective taken by psycholinguists in the study of language and communication are discussed. T heir interests seem to gradually shift from the study of language processing as an isolated and independent phenomenon towards inclusion of more interactional factors being indispensable components of interpersonal communication and involved in the process of communicative alignment. Alignment is here understood as a complex phenomenon that goes beyond increasing similarity of mental representations and related communicative behaviour. It simultaneously occurs on many levels and in various modalities, including those traditionally excluded from language study. A s a consequence, it implies not only more flexibility in the study of interpersonal communication but it also means a shift in the psycholinguistic methodology and probably also in the widely accepted picture of language and its limits.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bard E llen G . & A nderson A nne H . & Sotillo Catherine & A ylett Mathew & Doherty-Sneddon G wyneth & N ewlands A llison. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 1-22.

  • Bergmann K irsten & K opp Stefan. 2012. G estural alignment in natural dialogue. In Cooper R.P. & P eebles D. & Miyake N . (eds.) Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012) 1326-1331. A ustin T X: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Bernieri Frank J . & Rosenthal Robert. 1991. Interpersonal coordination: Behaviour matching and interactional synchrony. In Feldman Robert & Rimé Bertrand (eds.) Fundamentals of non-verbal behaviour 401-432. New York: Cambridge U niversity P ress.

  • Boker Steven M. & Xu Minquan & Rotondo J ennifer L . & K ing K adija 2002. W indowed cross-correlation and peak picking for the analysis of variability in the association between behavioural time series Psychological Methods 7. 338-355.

  • Branigan H olly P . & P ickering Martin P . & Cleland A lexandra A . 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75. 13-25.

  • Brennan Susan E . & Clark H erbert H . 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 22. 1482-1493.

  • Buder E ugene H . & E riksson A nders. 1999. T ime-series analysis of conversational prosody for the identification of rhythmic units. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences San Francisco 1-7 A ugust 1999. 1071-1074.

  • de Beaugrande Robert & Dressler W olfgang. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. L ondon: L ongman.

  • Clark H erbert H . 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity P ress. Edlund J ens & H eldner Martin & H irschberg J ulia. 2009. P ause and gap length in face-to-face interaction Proceedings of Interspeech 2009 Brno. 2779-2782.

  • Garrod Simon C. & A nderson A nthony. 1987. Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition 27. 181-218.

  • Garrod Simon C. & Doherty G wyneth. 1994. Conversation co-ordination and convention: and empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition 53. 181-215.

  • Garrod Simon C. & P ickering Martin J . 2004. W hy is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 8-11.

  • Giles H oward & Smith P hilip M. 1979. A ccommodation theory: O ptimal levels of convergence. In G iles H oward & St. Clair Robert N . (eds.) Language and social psychology 45-65. Baltimore: U niversity P ark P ress.

  • Giles H oward & T aylor Donald M. & Bourhis Richard & Rosenthal Dorrin. 2010. T owards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2. 177-192.

  • Giles H oward & T aylor Donald M. & Bourhis Richard Y. 1973. T owards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2. 177-192.

  • Givón T almy. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In G ernsbacher Morton A nn & G ivón T almy (eds.) Coherence in spontaneous text 95-115. A msterdam: J ohn Benjamins P ublishing Company.

  • Heldner Martin & E dlund J ens & H irschberg J ulia. 2010. P itch similarity in the vicinity of backchannels In Proceedings of Interspeech 2010 Makuhari 3054-3057.

  • Hymes Dell. 1974. Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. P hiladelphia: U niversity of Pennsylvania.

  • Karpiński Maciej. 2009. From speech and gestures to dialogue acts. In E sposito A nna & H ussain A mir & Marinaro Mario & Martone Raffaele (eds.) Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues 164-169. H eidelberg: Springer Verlag.

  • Karpiński Maciej & K lessa K atarzyna & Czoska A gnieszka. 2014. L ocal and global convergence in the temporal domain in P olish task-oriented dialogue. In Campbell N . & G ibbon Dafydd & H irst Daniel (eds.) Proceedings of Speech Prosody 7 Conference. Dublin 743-747.

  • Kim Midam & H orton Sid & Bradlow A nn R. 2011. P honetic convergence in spontaneous conversations as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology 2. 125-156.

  • Kopp Stefan & Bergmann K irsten 2013. A utomatic and strategic alignment of co-verbal gestures in dialogue. In W achsmuth Ipke & de Ruiter J an & J aecks P etra & K opp Stefan (eds.) Alignment in Communication 87-107. A msterdam: J ohn Benjamins P ublishing Company.

  • Kousidis Spyros. 2010. A study of accommodation of prosodic and temporal features in spoken dialogues in view of speech technology applications. Dublin: Dublin Institute of T echnology. [Doctoral dissertation.] Kousidis Spyros & Dorran David & W ang Yi & Vaughan Brian & Cullen Charlie & Campbell Dermont & McDonnell Ciaran & Coyle E ugene 2008. T owards measuring continuous acoustic feature convergence in unconstrained spoken dialogues. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2008 Brisbane 1692-1695.

  • Krauss Robert M. & P ardo J ennifer. S. 2004. Is alignment always the result of automatic priming? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(02). 203-204.

  • Levitan Rivka & H irschberg J ulia. 2011. Measuring acoustic-prosodic entrainment with respect to multiple levels and dimensions Proceedings of Interspeech 2011 Florence Italy 3081-3084.

  • Looze de Céline & Rauzy Stephane. 2011. Measuring speakers’ similarity in speech by means of prosodic cues: methods and potential. Proceedings of Interspeech Florence Italy 1393-1396.

  • Markman A rthur B. & Makin Valerie S. 1998. Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology 127. 331-354.

  • Mehler A lexander & L ücking A ndy & Menke P eter. 2011. Modelling L exical A lignment in spontaneous Direction Dialogue Data by Means of a L exicon N etwork Model. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing) February 20-26 T okyo. Berlin: Springer.

  • Mehler A lexander & L ücking A ndy & W eiß P etra. 2010. A network model of interpersonal alignment in dialog. Entropy 12. 1440-1483.

  • Menenti L aura & P ickering Martin J . & G arrod Simon C. 2012. T owards a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6 art. 185. 1-9. (10.3389/fnhum.2012.00185) Mills G regory & G regoromichelaki E leni. 2010. E stablishing coherence in dialogue: Sequentiality intentions and negotiation. In Łupkowski P aweł & P urver Matthew (eds.) Proceedings of SemDial (PozDial) 14th Workshop on Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. P oznań: P olish Society for Cognitive Science. 17-24.

  • Murray-Smith Roderick & Ramsay A ndrew & G arrod Simon & J ackson Melissa & Musizza Bojan. 2007. G ait alignment in mobile phone conversations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conferences on Human- Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Singapore September 09 - 12 2007). MobileHCI ‘07 vol. 309. A CM N ew York N Y 214-221.

  • Pardo Jennifer. 2006. O n phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119. 2382-2393.

  • Pickering Martin J . & G arrod Simon C. 2004. T oward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27. 169-226.

  • Pickering Martin J . & G arrod Simon C. 2006. A lignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation 4(2-3). 203-228.

  • Pietsch Christian & Buch A rmin & K opp Stefan & de Ruiter J an. 2012. Measuring syntactic priming in dialogue Corpora. In Stolterfoht Britta & Featherston Sam (eds.) Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies of meaning and structure 29-41. T he H ague: Mouton de G ruyter.

  • Porzel Robert & Scheffler A nnika & Malaka Rainer. 2006. H ow entrainment increases dialogical efficiency. In Proceedings of Workshop on Effective Multimodal Dialogue Interfaces Sydney 2006.

  • Purver Matthew & K empson Ruth. 2004. Incremental parsing or incremental grammar? In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Incremental Parsing Barcelona J uly 2004 74-81.

  • Ramseyer Fabian & T schacher W olfgang. 2010. N onverbal synchrony or random coincidence? H ow to tell the difference. In E sposito A nna & Campbell N ick & Vogel Carl & H ussain A mir & N ijholt A mir (eds.) Development of multimodal interfaces: Active listening and synchrony 182-196. H eidelberg: Springer Verlag.

  • Reitter David & Moore J ohanna D. 2007. P redicting success in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics P rague 808-815.

  • Sacks H arvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. O xford: Blackwell.

  • Schegloff E mmanuel A . 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In T annen Deborah (ed.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk 71-93. G eorgetown: G eorgetown U niversity P ress.

  • Schober Michael F. 1993. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition 47. 1-24.

  • Street Richard L . 1984. Speech convergence and evaluation in fact-finding interviews. Human Communication Research 11(2). 139-169.

  • Street Richard L . & Brady Robert M. & P utman W illiam B. 1983. T he influence of speech rate stereotypes and rate similarity or listeners’ evaluations of speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2(1). 37-56.

  • Truong K hiet P . & H eylen Dirk. 2012. Measuring prosodic alignment in cooperative task-based conversations. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2012 P ortland O R U SA 1085-1088.

  • Vaughan Brian. 2011. P rosodic synchrony in co-operative task-based dialogues: A measure of agreement and disagreement. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2011 1865-1867.

  • Wagner P etra & Malisz Z ofia & Inden Benjamin & W achsmuth Ipke. 2013. Interaction phonology - a temporal co-ordination component enabling representational alignment within a model of communication. In W achsmuth Ipke & de Ruiter J an & J aecks P etra & K opp Stefan (eds.) Alignment in communication: Towards a new theory of communication. Advances in interaction studies 109-132. A msterdam: Benjamins.

  • Watson Mathew E . & P ickering Martin J . & Branigan H olly P . 2004. A lignment of reference frames in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2353-2358. Chicago: E rlbaum A ssociates.

  • Weiß P . & P ustylnikov O lga & Mehler A lexander & H ellmann Sara. 2009. P atterns of alignment in dialogue: Conversational partners do not always stay aligned on common object names. In Conference on Embodied and Situated Language Processing (ESLP 2009). Rotterdam 16.

  • Włodarczak Marcin & Šimko J uraj & W agner P etra. 2012. Syllable boundary effect: T emporal entrainment in overlapped speech. In Ma Qiuwu & Ding H ongwei & H irst Daniel (eds.) Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012 Shanghai 611-614.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.22

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.124
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.828

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 421 206 8
PDF Downloads 247 120 4