Conceptual Effects of Audience Design in Human–Computer and Human–Human Dialogue

References

• Amalberti, R., Carbonell, N., & Falzon, P. (1993). User representations of computer systems in human-computer speech interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 547–566. doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1026
   Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., & Kronmüller, E. (2006). Conversation as a site of category learning and category use. In A. B. Markman & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Categories in use (Vol. 47, pp. 181–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, L. (2003). Linguistic adaptations in spoken human-computer dialogues: Empirical studies of user behavior (PhD thesis). KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 41–57. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E. (1991). Conversation with and through computers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 1, 67–86. doi:10.1007/BF00158952
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E. (1996). Lexical entrainment in spontaneous dialog. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spoken Dialogue, ISSD-96 (pp. 41–44). Tokyo: Acoustical Society of Japan.
   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, 1482–1493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmichael, L., Hogan, H. P., & Walter, A. A. (1932). An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of a visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 73–86. doi:10.1037/h0072671
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, C., Krauss, R. M., & Y-M, L. I. (1998). Some cognitive consequences of communication. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 259–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 62–81. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., & Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–258. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90189-5
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993). Wizard of Oz studies—Why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems, 6, 258–266. doi:10.1016/0950-7051(93)90017-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2006). What computer talk is and isn’t: Human-computer conversation as intercultural communication. Saarbrücken: AQ-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2016). Designing speech for a recipient: The roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called ‘simplified registers.’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. M., & Gilbert, N. (1991). Simulating speech systems. Computer Speech & Language, 5, 81–99. doi:10.1016/0885-2308(91)90019-M
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guindon, R. (1991). Users request help from advisory systems with simple and restricted language: Effects of real-time constraints and limited shared context. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 47–75. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0601_2
   Google Scholar
• Gustafson, J., Larsson, A., Carlson, R., & Hellman, K. (1997). How do system questions influence lexical choices in user answers? In G. Kokkinakis, N. Fakotakis, & E. Dermatas (Eds.), Proceedings of EUROSPEECH-1997 (pp. 2275–2278). Rhodes: International Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 589–606. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26–37. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jucks, R., Becker, B.-M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Lexical entrainment in written discourse: Is experts’ word use adapted to the addressee? Discourse Processes, 45, 497–518. doi:10.1080/01638530802356547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler, A. (2000). Cognitive status and form of reference in multimodal human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-00 (pp. 685–689). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, A., Wilkes, A., Elder, L., & Murray, W. S. (1988). Dialogue with machines. Cognition, 30, 37–72. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90003-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2016). Do (and say) as I say: Linguistic adaptation in human-computer dialogs. Human-Computer Interaction, 31, 59–95. doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.934180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupyan, G. (2008). From chair to ‘chair’: A representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. Cognition, 108, 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes, A., Marcelis, P., & Verheyen, P. (2007). Referential collaboration with computers: Do we treat computer addressees like humans? In M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten, & M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Conversation and convention: Enduring influences of name choice for common objects. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1346–1354. doi:10.3758/BF03206325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S. (1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 331–354. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McTear, M. F. (2004). Spoken dialogue technology: Toward the conversational user interface. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, J., Hu, J., Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Nass, C. (2006). Adaptive language behavior in HCI: How expectations and beliefs about a system affect users’ word choice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1177–1180). New York, NY: Association for Computational Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rand, W. M. (1971). Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66, 846–850. doi:10.1080/01621459.1971.10482356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Shechtman, N., & Horowitz, L. M. (2003). Media inequality in conversation: How people behave differently when interacting with computers and people. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 281–288). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Silvey, C., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2013). Communication leads to the emergence of sub-optimal category structures. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1312–1317). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 17–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stoyanchev, S., & Stent, A. (2009). Concept form adaptation in human-computer dialog. In P. Healey, R. Pieraccini, D. Byron, S. Young, & M. Purver (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2009 Conference (pp. 144–147). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Voiklis, J., & Corter, J. E. (2012). Conventional wisdom: Negotiating conventions of reference enhances category learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 607–634. doi:10.1111/cogs.2012.36.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkes-Gibbs, D., & Kim, P. H. (1991). Discourse effects on memory for visual forms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 507.
   Google Scholar
• Zoltan-Ford, E. (1991). How to get people to say and type what computers can understand. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 527–547. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90034-5
   Google Scholar