Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 893–900 | Cite as

The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension

  • Sarah Brown-SchmidtEmail author
Brief Reports

Abstract

During conversation, interlocutors build on the set of shared beliefs known as common ground. Although there is general agreement that interlocutors maintain representations of common ground, there is no consensus regarding whether common-ground representations constrain initial language interpretation processes. Here, I propose that executive functioning—specifically, failures in inhibition control—can account for some occasional insensitivities to common-ground information. The present article presents the results of an experiment that demonstrates that individual differences in inhibition control determine the degree to which addressees successfully inhibit perspective-inappropriate interpretations of temporary referential ambiguities in their partner’s speech. Whether mentioned information was grounded or not also played a role, suggesting that addressees may show sensitivity to common ground only when it is established collaboratively. The results suggest that, in conversation, perspective information routinely guides online language processing and that occasional insensitivities to perspective can be attributed partly to difficulties in inhibiting perspective-inappropriate interpretations.

Keywords

Common Ground Inhibition Control Stroop Task Color Word Perspective Taking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The immediate use of gender information: Eyetracking evidence of the time-course of pronoun resolution. Cognition, 76, B13-B26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, D. J. (2008). Pragmatic expectations at linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground. Cognition, 109, 18–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown-Schmidt, S., Gunlogson, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation. Cognition, 107, 1122–1134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibi-tory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032–1053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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, 409–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eigsti, I.-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., et al. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 478–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman, O., & Leslie, A. M. (2005). Processing demands in belief— desire reasoning: Inhibition or general difficulty? Developmental Science, 8, 218–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Group differences in suppression skill. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 4, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallett, P. E. (1986). Eye movements. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 10.1–10.112). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Hanna, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Science, 28, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 & Language, 49, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heller, D., Grodner, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference. Cognition, 108, 831–836.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nadig, A. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13, 329–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nilsen, E. S., & Graham, S. A. (2009). The relations between children’s communicative perspective-taking and executive functioning. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 220–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramscar, M., & Gitcho, N. (2007). Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 274–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tanenhaus, M. K., Frank, A. F., Jaeger, T. F., Salverda, A. P., & Masharov, M. (2008, March). The art of the state: Mixed effects regression modeling in the visual world. Paper presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  24. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 702–707.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beckman InstituteUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana

Personalised recommendations