10.5061/DRYAD.CT810
Kronmüller, Edmundo
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
Noveck, Ira
Laboratory for Language, Brain and Cognition
Rivera, Natalia
University of Amsterdam
Jaume-Guazzini, Francisco
Universidad Mayor
Barr, Dale
University of Glasgow
Data from: The positive side of a negative reference: the delay between
linguistic processing and common ground
Dryad
dataset
2017
Dialogue
Common Ground
Language
Negation
Reference
2017-01-05T16:28:50Z
2017-01-05T16:28:50Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160827
24493094 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Interlocutors converge on names to refer to entities. For example, a
speaker might refer to a novel looking object as the jellyfish and, once
identified, the listener will too. The hypothesized mechanism behind such
referential precedents is a subject of debate. The common ground view
claims that listeners register the object as well as the identity of the
speaker who coined the label. The linguistic view claims that, once
established, precedents are treated by listeners like any other linguistic
unit, i.e. without needing to keep track of the speaker. To test
predictions from each account, we used visual-world eyetracking, which
allows observations in real time, during a standard referential
communication task. Participants had to select objects based on
instructions from two speakers. In the critical condition, listeners
sought an object with a negative reference such as not the jellyfish. We
aimed to determine the extent to which listeners rely on the linguistic
input, common ground or both. We found that initial interpretations were
based on linguistic processing only and that common ground considerations
do emerge but only after 1000 ms. Our findings support the idea that—at
least temporally—linguistic processing can be isolated from common ground.
DataScriptsCompressed folder with subfolders with raw data, R scripts and
results from cluster randomization analysis. Also a README.pdf file.