Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis

•We conducted a review and meta-analysis on referential precedents in conversation.•We found a consistent pattern of results across 10 published experiments.•We identified three different effects with different time courses and effect sizes.•Common ground accounts for a minor portion of the phenomen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of memory and language 2015-08, Vol.83, p.1-19
Hauptverfasser: Kronmüller, Edmundo, Barr, Dale J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 19
container_issue
container_start_page 1
container_title Journal of memory and language
container_volume 83
creator Kronmüller, Edmundo
Barr, Dale J.
description •We conducted a review and meta-analysis on referential precedents in conversation.•We found a consistent pattern of results across 10 published experiments.•We identified three different effects with different time courses and effect sizes.•Common ground accounts for a minor portion of the phenomena.•Results impose constraints on theorizing, methodology and data analysis. Listeners’ interpretations of referring expressions are influenced by referential precedents—temporary conventions established in a discourse that associate linguistic expressions with referents. A number of psycholinguistic studies have investigated how much precedent effects depend on beliefs about the speaker’s perspective versus more egocentric, domain-general processes. We review and provide a meta-analysis of visual-world eyetracking studies of precedent use, focusing on three principal effects: (1) a same speaker advantage for maintained precedents; (2) a different speaker advantage for broken precedents; and (3) an overall main effect of precedents. Despite inconsistent claims in the literature, our combined analysis reveals surprisingly consistent evidence supporting the existence of all three effects, but with different temporal profiles. These findings carry important implications for existing theoretical explanations of precedent use, and challenge explanations based solely on the use of information about speakers’ perspectives.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1681897596</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0749596X15000418</els_id><sourcerecordid>3689155991</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-bab9e0a9b47bc67532d2c63c5b42f6a88bb7a034b88d80b41e78b1f519d114413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHcB1625faSprobBFwiCD3AXkvR2TO2kNeko8-_NMK5dXS6cczjnI-QcWAoM-GWXdus-zRiUKctTxsQBmQGrecJEBodkxqqiTsqavx-TkxA6xgDKKpuRl2ds0aObrOrp6NFgE59AraNhHD7R0V651UatkJphHQUf6IId3BVdUI_fFn-ocg1d46QS5VS_DTackqNW9QHP_u6cvN3evC7vk8enu4fl4jExORdTopWukalaF5U2vCrzrMkMz02pi6zlSgitK8XyQgvRCKYLwEpoaEuoG4CigHxOLva5ox--Nhgm2Q0bH0sECVyAqKs4OKpgrzJ-CMFjK0dv18pvJTC5Yyc7GdnJHTvJchnZRc_13oOxfhzpZTAWXYRjI6JJNoP9x_0Lfe13ew</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1681897596</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Kronmüller, Edmundo ; Barr, Dale J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kronmüller, Edmundo ; Barr, Dale J.</creatorcontrib><description>•We conducted a review and meta-analysis on referential precedents in conversation.•We found a consistent pattern of results across 10 published experiments.•We identified three different effects with different time courses and effect sizes.•Common ground accounts for a minor portion of the phenomena.•Results impose constraints on theorizing, methodology and data analysis. Listeners’ interpretations of referring expressions are influenced by referential precedents—temporary conventions established in a discourse that associate linguistic expressions with referents. A number of psycholinguistic studies have investigated how much precedent effects depend on beliefs about the speaker’s perspective versus more egocentric, domain-general processes. We review and provide a meta-analysis of visual-world eyetracking studies of precedent use, focusing on three principal effects: (1) a same speaker advantage for maintained precedents; (2) a different speaker advantage for broken precedents; and (3) an overall main effect of precedents. Despite inconsistent claims in the literature, our combined analysis reveals surprisingly consistent evidence supporting the existence of all three effects, but with different temporal profiles. These findings carry important implications for existing theoretical explanations of precedent use, and challenge explanations based solely on the use of information about speakers’ perspectives.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0821</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Comprehension ; Conversation ; Data Analysis ; Effect Size ; Eye tracking ; Language ; Listening comprehension ; Meta Analysis ; Oral Language ; Perspective-taking ; Pragmatics ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Journal of memory and language, 2015-08, Vol.83, p.1-19</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-bab9e0a9b47bc67532d2c63c5b42f6a88bb7a034b88d80b41e78b1f519d114413</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-bab9e0a9b47bc67532d2c63c5b42f6a88bb7a034b88d80b41e78b1f519d114413</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kronmüller, Edmundo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barr, Dale J.</creatorcontrib><title>Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis</title><title>Journal of memory and language</title><description>•We conducted a review and meta-analysis on referential precedents in conversation.•We found a consistent pattern of results across 10 published experiments.•We identified three different effects with different time courses and effect sizes.•Common ground accounts for a minor portion of the phenomena.•Results impose constraints on theorizing, methodology and data analysis. Listeners’ interpretations of referring expressions are influenced by referential precedents—temporary conventions established in a discourse that associate linguistic expressions with referents. A number of psycholinguistic studies have investigated how much precedent effects depend on beliefs about the speaker’s perspective versus more egocentric, domain-general processes. We review and provide a meta-analysis of visual-world eyetracking studies of precedent use, focusing on three principal effects: (1) a same speaker advantage for maintained precedents; (2) a different speaker advantage for broken precedents; and (3) an overall main effect of precedents. Despite inconsistent claims in the literature, our combined analysis reveals surprisingly consistent evidence supporting the existence of all three effects, but with different temporal profiles. These findings carry important implications for existing theoretical explanations of precedent use, and challenge explanations based solely on the use of information about speakers’ perspectives.</description><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Conversation</subject><subject>Data Analysis</subject><subject>Effect Size</subject><subject>Eye tracking</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Listening comprehension</subject><subject>Meta Analysis</subject><subject>Oral Language</subject><subject>Perspective-taking</subject><subject>Pragmatics</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0749-596X</issn><issn>1096-0821</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHcB1625faSprobBFwiCD3AXkvR2TO2kNeko8-_NMK5dXS6cczjnI-QcWAoM-GWXdus-zRiUKctTxsQBmQGrecJEBodkxqqiTsqavx-TkxA6xgDKKpuRl2ds0aObrOrp6NFgE59AraNhHD7R0V651UatkJphHQUf6IId3BVdUI_fFn-ocg1d46QS5VS_DTackqNW9QHP_u6cvN3evC7vk8enu4fl4jExORdTopWukalaF5U2vCrzrMkMz02pi6zlSgitK8XyQgvRCKYLwEpoaEuoG4CigHxOLva5ox--Nhgm2Q0bH0sECVyAqKs4OKpgrzJ-CMFjK0dv18pvJTC5Yyc7GdnJHTvJchnZRc_13oOxfhzpZTAWXYRjI6JJNoP9x_0Lfe13ew</recordid><startdate>201508</startdate><enddate>201508</enddate><creator>Kronmüller, Edmundo</creator><creator>Barr, Dale J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201508</creationdate><title>Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis</title><author>Kronmüller, Edmundo ; Barr, Dale J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-bab9e0a9b47bc67532d2c63c5b42f6a88bb7a034b88d80b41e78b1f519d114413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Conversation</topic><topic>Data Analysis</topic><topic>Effect Size</topic><topic>Eye tracking</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Listening comprehension</topic><topic>Meta Analysis</topic><topic>Oral Language</topic><topic>Perspective-taking</topic><topic>Pragmatics</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kronmüller, Edmundo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barr, Dale J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kronmüller, Edmundo</au><au>Barr, Dale J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of memory and language</jtitle><date>2015-08</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>83</volume><spage>1</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>1-19</pages><issn>0749-596X</issn><eissn>1096-0821</eissn><abstract>•We conducted a review and meta-analysis on referential precedents in conversation.•We found a consistent pattern of results across 10 published experiments.•We identified three different effects with different time courses and effect sizes.•Common ground accounts for a minor portion of the phenomena.•Results impose constraints on theorizing, methodology and data analysis. Listeners’ interpretations of referring expressions are influenced by referential precedents—temporary conventions established in a discourse that associate linguistic expressions with referents. A number of psycholinguistic studies have investigated how much precedent effects depend on beliefs about the speaker’s perspective versus more egocentric, domain-general processes. We review and provide a meta-analysis of visual-world eyetracking studies of precedent use, focusing on three principal effects: (1) a same speaker advantage for maintained precedents; (2) a different speaker advantage for broken precedents; and (3) an overall main effect of precedents. Despite inconsistent claims in the literature, our combined analysis reveals surprisingly consistent evidence supporting the existence of all three effects, but with different temporal profiles. These findings carry important implications for existing theoretical explanations of precedent use, and challenge explanations based solely on the use of information about speakers’ perspectives.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-596X
ispartof Journal of memory and language, 2015-08, Vol.83, p.1-19
issn 0749-596X
1096-0821
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1681897596
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Comprehension
Conversation
Data Analysis
Effect Size
Eye tracking
Language
Listening comprehension
Meta Analysis
Oral Language
Perspective-taking
Pragmatics
Systematic review
title Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T07%3A46%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Referential%20precedents%20in%20spoken%20language%20comprehension:%20A%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20memory%20and%20language&rft.au=Kronm%C3%BCller,%20Edmundo&rft.date=2015-08&rft.volume=83&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=1-19&rft.issn=0749-596X&rft.eissn=1096-0821&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3689155991%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1681897596&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0749596X15000418&rfr_iscdi=true