Abstract
In this chapter we report on an investigation into the principles underlying the choice of a particular referential expression to refer to an object located in a domain to which both participants in the dialogue have multimodal access. Our approach is based on the assumption that participants try to use as little effort as possible when referring to objects. This assumption is operationalized in two factors, namely the focus of attention and a particular choice of features to be included in a referential expression. We claim that both factors help in reducing effort needed to, on the one hand, refer to an object and, on the other hand, to identify it. As a result of the focus of attention the number of potential target objects (i.e., the object the speaker intends to refer to) is reduced. The choice of a specific type of feature determines the number of objects that have to be identified in order to be able to understand the referential expression. An empirical study was conducted in which pairs of participants cooperatively carried out a simple block-building task, and the results provided empirical evidence that supported the aforementioned claims. Especially the focus of attention turned out to play an important role in reducing the total effort.
This chapter is a slightly adapted version of: Beun, R.J. and Cremers, A.H.M. (1998) Object Reference in a Shared Domain of Conversation. Pragmatics and Cognition 6(1/2), 121–152.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ariel, M. (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Bennis, H. and Hoekstra, T. (1983) De syntaxis van het Nederlands: een inleiding in de regeer-en bindtheorie. Dordrecht: Foris.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H.H., Schreuder, R., and Buttrick, S. (1983) Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22:245–258.
Clark, H.H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22:1–39.
Cremers, A.H.M. (1993) Transcripties dialogen blokken-experiment (Transcriptions dialogues blocks-experiment). IPO Report no. 889. Eindhoven: Institute for Perception Research.
Cremers, A.H.M. (1994) Referring in a shared workspace. In M.D. Brouwer-Janse and T.L. Harrington (eds), Human-machine communication for educational systems design (NATO ASI Series, Subseries F, Computer and Systems Design 129). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 71–78.
Glass, A.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1986) Cognition. New York: Random House.
Goodman, B.A. (1986) Reference identification and reference identification failures. Computational Linguistics 12(4):273–305.
Grosz, B.J. (1977) The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding. Technical Note 151. Menlo Park: SRI International.
Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1986) Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3):175–204.
Herrmann, Th. (1983) Speech and situation: a psychological conception of situated speaking. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Knapp, M.L. and Hall, J.A. (1992) Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publ.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1982) Linearization in describing spatial networks. In S. Peters and E. Saarinen (eds) Processes, beliefs, and questions. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989) Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
Lewis, D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. In Bäuerle et al. (eds) Semantics from different points of view. Berlin: Springer.
Loftus, G.R. and Mackworth, N.H. (1978) Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 4:565–572.
Mackworth, N.H. and Morandi, A.J. (1967) The gaze selects informative details within pictures. Perception and psychophysics 2:547–552.
Olson, D.R. (1970) Language and thought: aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review 77:257–273.
Pechmann, Th. (1984) Überspezifizierung und Betonung in referentieller Kommunikation. (Dissertation). Mannheim.
Piwek, P.L.A., Beun, R.-J., and Cremers, A.H.M. (1995) Deictic use of Dutch demonstratives. IPO Annual Progress Report, 30. Eindhoven: Institute for Perception Research.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1972) A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thomas, J.C. (1974) An analysis of behavior in the hobbits-orcs problem. Cognitive Psychology 6:257–269.
Treisman, A.M. and Gelade, G. (1980) A feature-integration theory of perception. Cognitive Psychology 12:97–136.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Beun, RJ., Cremers, A. (2001). Multimodal Reference to Objects: An Empirical Approach. In: Bunt, H., Beun, R.J. (eds) Cooperative Multimodal Communication. CMC 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2155. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45520-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45520-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42806-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45520-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive