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.
Article PDF
References
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.
Barr, D. J. (2008). Pragmatic expectations at linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground. Cognition, 109, 18–40.
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.
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibi-tory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032–1053.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friedman, O., & Leslie, A. M. (2005). Processing demands in belief— desire reasoning: Inhibition or general difficulty? Developmental Science, 8, 218–225.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Group differences in suppression skill. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 4, 175–184.
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.
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.
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.
Heller, D., Grodner, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference. Cognition, 108, 831–836.
Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1–35.
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.
Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41.
Nadig, A. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13, 329–336.
Nilsen, E. S., & Graham, S. A. (2009). The relations between children’s communicative perspective-taking and executive functioning. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 220–249.
Ramscar, M., & Gitcho, N. (2007). Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 274–279.
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
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.
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72, 702–707.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown-Schmidt, S. The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 893–900 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.893
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.893