Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seeing and Believing: Social Influences on Language Processing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Attention and Vision in Language Processing

Abstract

Real-time language processing is typically embedded in a complex social world. Any instance of language comprehension in such circumstances is imbued with many potential social cues that can influence the production and interpretation of language. We review the literature suggesting that social cues indeed influence language processes in various ways. These cues extend from low-level perceptual variables, such as the perception of another’s gaze, to higher-level cues, such as knowledge of another’s belief states or knowledge. We offer a selective review of both laboratory and ecological interaction research showing that our language processes are indeed impacted by subtle social cuing, if the conditions are right. We end by discussing some theoretical implications of these many influences on language processing, looking to a self-organisation account of how levels interact and shape natural language usage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A reviewer of this chapter suggested that we consider the possibility that vision presents some unique sources of information not present in other modalities. This would certainly be a controversial thesis, though there is inarguably a unique benefit to visual attention and gaze that other modalities may not have. For example, gaze may reveal the knowledge of a task partner that may only be made explicit or implicit through an overt linguistic act such as a reference (Yu et al. 2005). Gaze fixations to objects or their presence in a visual array serves as potentially “cheap but efficient” information about the task and a task partner’s knowledge (Bard 2007; Brown-Schmidt 2009b). These properties may indeed give vision some unique characteristics relative to other modalities—they may have lower thresholds to achieving the shared knowledge than (say) overt speech or gesture.

References

  • Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A., & Harnish, R. M. (1987). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcetis, E., & Dale, R. (2005). An exploration of social modulation of syntactic priming. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 184–189).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Chen, Y., Nicholson, H. B., Havard, C., & Dalzel-Job, S. (2007). Let’s you do that: Sharing the cognitive burdens of dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 616–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boltz, M. G., Dyer, R. L., & Miller, A. R. (2010). Jo are you lying to me? Temporal cues for deception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(4), 458–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H., & Pearson, J. (2006). Alignment in human-computer interaction. In K. Fischer (Eds.), How people talk to computers, robots, and other artificial communication partners, (pp. 140–156).

    Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & McLean, J. F. (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2355–2368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: coordinating speaking and understanding. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 301–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, Susan E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009a). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009b). The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 893–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Schmidt, S., & Hanna, J. E. (2011). Talking in another person’s shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing. Dialog and Discourse, 2, 11–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(1), 76–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., White, C. H., Afifi, W., & Buslig, A. L. (1999). The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, M. W. (2007). Task-based pedagogical activities as oral genres: A systemic functional linguistic analysis. ProQuest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., Kopp, S., Tepper, P., Ferriman, K., & Striegnitz, K. (2007). Trading spaces: How humans and humanoids use speech and gesture to give directions. In T. Nishida (Ed.), Conversational informatics (pp. 133–160). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (n.d.), & C. P. Marshall. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (2005). Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse studies, 7(4–5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N. D., & Richardson, D. C. (2013). The self-organization of human interaction. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 59, pp. 43–95). Elsevier Inc: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Paulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: Lies are told to those who care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(2), 105–125. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.3.2.105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, N. D. & Dale, R. (2012). Increased vigilance in monitoring others’ mental states during deception. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1518–1523). Austin: TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, N. D., & Dale, R., Kello, C., Street, C. N. H., & Richardson, D. C. (2013). Exploring the movement dynamics of deception. Frontiers in Cognitive Science. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121(1), 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 409–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. A., Anderson, S. E., Freeman, J. B., & Dale, R. (in press). Coordinating motor actions and language. In P. Pyykkonen & M. Crocker (Eds.), Visually situated language comprehension. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2012). Carving language for social interaction: A dynamic approach. Interaction studies, 13, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusaroli, R., Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2013). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galati, A., Michael, C., Mello, C., Greenauer, N. M., & Avraamides, M. N. (2012). The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X12001040.

  • Gallup, A. C., Hale, J. J., Sumpter, D. J., Garnier, S., Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J. R., & Couzin, I. D. (2012). Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7245–7250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(1), 8–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(4), 209–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K., Fink, B., & Renninger, L. (2002). Dynamic systems and inferential information processing in human communication. Neuro Endocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl 4), 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., & Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 3–29.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 105–115.

    Article  Google 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(1), 43–61. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00022-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition, 96(2), 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. S., & Slaten, D. G. (2012). Anticipating who will say what: The influence of speaker-specific memory associations on reference resolution. Memory & Cognition, 40(1), 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huettig, F., Mishra, R. K., & Olivers, C. N. (2012). Mechanisms and representations of language-mediated visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 394.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K., Strand, E. A., & D’Imperio, M. (1999). Auditory–visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics, 27(4), 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Horton, W. S. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 7, 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraljic, T., Brennan, S. E., & Samuel, A. G. (2008a). Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition, 107(1), 54–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraljic, T., Samuel, A. G., & Brennan, S. E. (2008b). First impressions and last resorts how listeners adjust to speaker variability. Psychological Science, 19(4), 332–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreysa, H., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Eye movements and dialogue. Retrieved from http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/2028210.

  • Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 436–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Look away! Eyes and arrows engage oculomotor responses automatically. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 71, 314–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laidlaw, K. E. W., Foulsham, T., Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2011). Potential social interactions are important to social attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(14), 5548–5553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v264/n5588/abs/264746a0.html.

  • Nadig, A. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13(4), 329–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman-Norlund, S. E., Noordzij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Volman, I. A., de Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111(1), 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pak, J., & Zhou, L. (2013). Eye gazing behaviors in online deception. AMCIS 2013 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2013/ISSecurity/RoundTablePresentations/3.

  • Paxton, A., & Dale, R. (2013). Argument disrupts interpersonal synchrony. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66 (11), 2092–2102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). Forward models and their implications for production, comprehension, and dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 78, 49–64.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2009). Conversation, gaze coordination, and beliefs about visual context. Cognitive Science, 33(8), 1468–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitsky, K., Keysar, B., Epley, N., Carter, T., & Swanson, A. (2011). The closeness- communication bias: Increased egocentrism among friends versus strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senay, I., & Keysar, B. (2009). Keeping track of speaker’s perspective: The role of social identity. Discourse Processes, 46(5), 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, S. V. (2010). Following gaze: Gaze-following behavior as a window into social cognition. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 4. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2859805/.

  • Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 35(2), 281–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, K., Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2009). Conversation and coordinative structures. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 305–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, Kevin, Santana, M.-V., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2008). Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, C., & Burgoon, J. (2006). Adaptation and communicative design. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 9–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, C., Ballard, D. H., & Aslin, R. N. (2005). The role of embodied intention in early lexical acquisition. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 961–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Embodied attention and word learning by toddlers. Cognition, 125(2), 244–262. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, 5200 N. Lake Rd, Merced, CA, 95343, USA

    David W. Vinson, Rick Dale & Maryam Tabatabaeian

  2. Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Nicholas D. Duran

Authors
  1. David W. Vinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rick Dale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maryam Tabatabaeian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicholas D. Duran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rick Dale .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Neural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

    Ramesh Kumar Mishra

  2. Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Narayanan Srinivasan

  3. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Falk Huettig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer India

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vinson, D.W., Dale, R., Tabatabaeian, M., Duran, N.D. (2015). Seeing and Believing: Social Influences on Language Processing. In: Mishra, R., Srinivasan, N., Huettig, F. (eds) Attention and Vision in Language Processing. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2443-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation