The Alignment Perspective

The Alignment Perspective

Part XIV:

Approaches to dialogue

Peter Kühnlein/Jens Stegmann


Pickering, M. & Garrod, S. (2003): Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue, submitted to BBS, http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Garrod/Referees/


Core Intuitions


Core Intuitions • Aims



Dialogue is the most basic and natural form of language use




People who can produce monologue usually can also produce dialogue but not vice versa




People who can produce monologue usually can also produce dialogue but not vice versaChildren learn how to speak in dialogic situations




Hence, psycholinguistics should provide an account of the basic languageprocessing mechanisms in dialogue


Core Intuitions • Aims & State-of-the-Art



Existing mechanistic accounts rely almost entirely on monologue, a derivativeform of language use / processingThey are therefore limited / inadequate accounts w.r.t. dialogue






Purported reasons for neglecting dialogue






Purported reasons for neglecting dialogue• Practical reasons: it is assumed to be too hard (or even impossible) to study, given the degree of experimental control necessary






Purported reasons for neglecting dialogue• Practical reasons: it is assumed to be too hard (or even impossible) to study, given the degree of experimental control necessary But cf. the studies by Garrod et al






Purported reasons for neglecting dialogue• Practical reasons: it is assumed to be too hard (or even impossible) to study, given the degree of experimental control necessary• Theoretical reasons: psycholinguists tend to develop processing theories that draw upon classical, Chomsky-style generative linguistics (and dialogue is ignored there)






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action tradition






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-product:• integration of ideas from information-processing psychology and generative grammar






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-product:• integration of ideas from information-processing psychology and generative grammar• mechanistic accounts of how people compute different levels of representation






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-product:• integration of ideas from information-processing psychology and generative grammar• mechanistic accounts of how people compute different levels of representation• experimental paradigms: de-contextualized language






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-action:






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-action:• ideas from ordinary language philosophy and sociology






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-action:• ideas from ordinary language philosophy and sociology• mentalistic explanations (intentions, beliefs, desires, ...)






H. Clark draws a distinction between the language-as-product vs. language-as-action traditionLanguage-as-action:• ideas from ordinary language philosophy and sociology• mentalistic explanations (intentions, beliefs, desires, ...)• gaining ecological validity: natural tasks, language in context






H. Clark is positioned on the language-as-action side






H. Clark is positioned on the language-as-action side:• He counts as the (main) advocate of the experimental study of dialogue






H. Clark is positioned on the language-as-action side:• He counts as the (main) advocate of the experimental study of dialogue• His focus is on strategies employed by interlocutors (rather than on underlying processing mechanisms)






H. Clark is positioned on the language-as-action side:• He counts as the (main) advocate of the experimental study of dialogue• His focus is on strategies employed by interlocutors (rather than on underlying processing mechanisms)• The main explanatory notion he employs is that of coordination of agents






H. Clark is positioned on the language-as-action side:• He counts as the (main) advocate of the experimental study of dialogue• His focus is on strategies employed by interlocutors (rather than on underlying processing mechanisms)• The main explanatory notion he employs is that of coordination of agents (something Carl doesn‘t believe in)





Thesis: Dialogue is coordinated behaviour in that the representations thatunderly discourse become aligned.





Thesis: Dialogue is coordinated behaviour in that the representations thatunderly discourse become aligned

Alignment differs from the classical (Lewis, Clark) kind of coordination inthat it is a psychological mechanism, not a strategy in behaviour






The linguistic representations employed by the interlocutors become aligned at many levels of representation







Alignment• is the result of a largely automatic process







Alignment• is the result of a largely automatic process• greatly simplifies production and comprehension






Aspects of processing following from IAM• simple interactive inference mechanism






Aspects of processing following from IAM• simple interactive inference mechanism• development of local dialogue routines






Aspects of processing following from IAM• simple interactive inference mechanism• development of local dialogue routines• explanation for self-monitoring in production






Also addressed:• (evidence for the IAM)• implications of the IAM


Dialogue and Alignment


Dialogue and Alignment • The maze game

cooperative gametwo subjects: A and B, are located in different rooms



cooperative gametwo subjects: A and B, are located in different roomsthey can communicate via audio link



cooperative gametwo subjects: A and B, are located in different roomsthey can communicate via audio linkA and B have maps of a maze in front of them



cooperative gametwo subjects: A and B, are located in different roomsthey can communicate via audio linkA and B have maps of a maze in front of themA tries to describe his position (arrow) to B


Dialogue and Alignment • A sample dialogue



B: ... Tell me where you are?



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:B: Two along from the bottom, which side?



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:B: Two along from the bottom, which side?A: The left: going from left to right in the second box.B: Your‘re in the second box.



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:B: Two along from the bottom, which side?A: The left: going from left to right in the second box.B: Your‘re in the second box.A: One up :(1 sec.) I take it we‘ve got identical mazes?B: Yeah well:



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:B: Two along from the bottom, which side?A: The left: going from left to right in the second box.B: Your‘re in the second box.A: One up :(1 sec.) I take it we‘ve got identical mazes?B: Yeah well: right, starting from the left, you‘re one along:A: Uh-huh:B: and one up?



B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:B: Two along from the bottom, which side?A: The left: going from left to right in the second box.B: Your‘re in the second box.A: One up :(1 sec.) I take it we‘ve got identical mazes?B: Yeah well: right, starting from the left, you‘re one along:A: Uh-huh:B: and one up?A: Yeah, and I‘m trying to get to ...



28 utterances later



B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)

28 utterances later



B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)A: Two along: I‘m not in the first box, I‘m in the second box:B: You‘re two along:



B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)A: Two along: I‘m not in the first box, I‘m in the second box:B: You‘re two along:A: Two up (1 sec.) counting the: if you take: the first box as being one up:B: (2 sec.) Uh-huh:



B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)A: Two along: I‘m not in the first box, I‘m in the second box:B: You‘re two along:A: Two up (1 sec.) counting the: if you take: the first box as being one up:B: (2 sec.) Uh-huh:A: Well I‘m two along, two up (1,5 sec.)B: Two up?



B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)A: Two along: I‘m not in the first box, I‘m in the second box:B: You‘re two along:A: Two up (1 sec.) counting the: if you take: the first box as being one up:B: (2 sec.) Uh-huh:A: Well I‘m two along, two up (1,5 sec.)B: Two up? :A: Yeah (1 sec.) so I can move down one:



B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)A: Two along: I‘m not in the first box, I‘m in the second box:B: You‘re two along:A: Two up (1 sec.) counting the: if you take: the first box as being one up:B: (2 sec.) Uh-huh:A: Well I‘m two along, two up (1,5 sec.)B: Two up? :A: Yeah (1 sec.) so I can move down one:B: Yeah I see were you are


Dialogue and Alignment • A sample dialogue • Analysis


At first glance this dialogue looks disorganized




At first glance this dialogue looks disorganized:Many utterances do not constitute grammatical sentences




At first glance this dialogue looks disorganized:Many utterances do not constitute grammatical sentencesThere is shared production between speakers (7./8., 43./44.)




At first glance this dialogue looks disorganized:Many utterances do not constitute grammatical sentencesThere is shared production between speakers (7./8., 43./44.)The speakers seemingly do not know how to say what they want to say (4. vs. 46.)




B: You are starting from the left, you‘re one along, one up? (2 sec.)A: Two along: I‘m not in the first box, I‘m in the second box:B: You‘re two along:A: Two up (1 sec.) counting the: if you take: the first box as being one up:B: (2 sec.) Uh-huh:A: Well I‘m two along, two up (1,5 sec.)B: Two up? :A: Yeah (1 sec.) so I can move down one:B: Yeah I see were you are





Assumption: dialogue is a joint activity





Assumption: dialogue is a joint activityit involves cooperation between interlocutors in a way that allows them to sufficiently understand the meaning of the dialogue as a wholedialogue is a game of cooperation



Conversational analysts argue that dialogue turns are linked across interlocutors

This means that production and comprehension processes become coupled




Conversational analysts argue that dialogue turns are linked across interlocutors

This means that production and comprehension processes become coupled

Furthermore, the meaning of what is being communicated depends on the interlocutors‘ agreement/consensus, and is hence subject to negotiation [ (4) - (11) ]

B: ... Tell me where you are?A: Ehm: Oh God (laughs)B: (laughs)A: Right : two along from the bottom one up:B: Two along from the bottom, which side?A: The left: going from left to right in the second box.B: Your‘re in the second box.A: One up :(1 sec.) I take it we‘ve got identical mazes?B: Yeah well: right, starting from the left, you‘re one along:A: Uh-huh:B: and one up?A: Yeah, and I‘m trying to get to ...


Dialogue and Alignment • Situation models



Situation model: a multi-dimensional representation of the situation under discussion (space, time, causality, intentionality, individuals); assumed to capture what people are thinking about while understanding a text




Think of mental models, Johnson-Laird style, that always have been in thediscussion concerning inference etc.




Assumption: in successful dialogue, interlocutors develop (approximately) aligned situation models





The alignment of situation models is not necessary in principle but it would be inefficient not to align (maintaining two representations of the same situation)






Under some circumstances representing differences seems to be necessary (deception, concealment)






Under some circumstances representing differences seems to be necessary (deception, concealment)

Interlocutors need not align their situation models entirely


Dialogue and Alignment • Situation models • How to align them

In theory, interlocutors could achieve alignment through explicit negotiation, but in practice they normally do not




Global alignment seems to result from local alignment at the level of the linguistic representations




Global alignment seems to result from local alignment at the level of the linguistic representations This works via a priming mechanism, the process is resource-free (economic) and automatic (unconscious)


Dialogue and Alignment • Linguistic representations



There is evidence for alignment at various levels of linguistic representation



There is evidence for alignment at various levels of linguistic representation:

• alignment of lexical processing during dialogue interlocutors develop the same set of referring expressions, expressions becomes shorter and more similar on repetition





• syntactic alignment in dialogue interlocutors tend to repeat syntactic form






• alignment at the level of articulation reduction, accent and speech rate






• alignment at the level of articulation reduction, accent and speech rate

• alignment in comprehension question/answer – pairs with repeated forms more natural


Dialogue and Alignment • Linguistic representations • How to align them

Thesis: Aligned representations at one level lead to aligned representations at other levels




Examples of influences between levels:• establishing dialogue lexicons (local interpretations)




Examples of influences between levels:• establishing dialogue lexicons (local interpretations)• syntactic alignment is enhanced when more lexical items are shared




Examples of influences between levels:• establishing dialogue lexicons (local interpretations)• syntactic alignment is enhanced when more lexical items are shared• semantic relations between lexical items enhance syntactic priming





The closer the relationship at one level (e.g. semantic), the stronger the tendency to align at another (e.g. syntactic)






Important consequences: Interlocutors will tend to align expressions at many different levels at the same time and repeat each other in the same way






Important consequences: Interlocutors will tend to align expressions at many different levels at the same time and repeat each other in the same way

Prediction: Dialogue should be highly repetitive & should make extensive use of fixed expressions (dialogue routines)


Dialogue and Alignment • Failing alignment

The primitive processes of alignment are not fool-proof, interlocutors might align only superficially


Dialogue and Alignment • Failing alignment

The primitive processes of alignment are not fool-proof, interlocutors might align only superficially

They might need to be able to appeal to other mechanisms – repair processes - in order to maintain alignment

These mechanisms (more later) supplement the basic process of alignment


Dialogue and Alignment • The processing model


Dialogue and Alignment • The processing model • The old story



The prevailing psycholinguistic approach (e.g. Levelt):

• transfer of information takes place via decoupled / isolated production and comprehension processes





• no particular association between levels of representation used by speaker and listener






• production: non-linguistic idea / message is converted into a series of linguistic representations






• production: non-linguistic idea / message is converted into a series of linguistic representations final representation is converted into articulatory program intermediate representations serve as way-stations on the road to production






• production: non-linguistic idea / message is converted into a series of linguistic representations final representation is converted into articulatory program intermediate representations serve as way-stations on the road to production

• comprehension: decodes product by converting into successive levels of linguistic representation until message is (re-)constructed



The prevailing psycholinguistic approach (e.g. Levelt)

PhonologicalRepresentation

SyntacticRepresentation

LexicalRepresentation

SemanticRepresentation

PhoneticRepresentation

Situation Model

Message Message

Situation Model








There is evidence that in dialogue production and comprehension processesare coupled (Garrod 1999) with tight interleaving of production and comprehension




• production: speaker is guided by what has just been said




• production: speaker is guided by what has just been said• comprehension: listener is constrained by what he has just said





Utterances are built up as joint activities• interlocutors align at many levels of representation






• each level of representation is causally implicated in the process of communication






• each level of representation is causally implicated in the process of communication• intermediate representations are retained implicitly






• each level of representation is causally implicated in the process of communication• intermediate representations are retained implicitly

Because alignment at one level leads to alignment at others, the interlocutors can understand each other (alignment at the level of situation models)


Dialogue and Alignment • The processing model • The new story



Core assumptions:

Successful dialogue involves the development of aligned representations by the interlocutors



Core assumptions:


These are brought about by• priming mechanisms at each level of linguistic representation



Core assumptions:


These are brought about by• priming mechanisms at each level of linguistic representation• percolation between the levels: alignment at one level enhances alignment at other levels



Core assumptions:


These are brought about by• priming mechanisms at each level of linguistic representation• percolation between the levels: alignment at one level enhances alignment at other levels• repair mechanisms, for cases of misalignment








Situation Model

Message Message

Situation Model






: Channel of alignment



Channels of alignment• are bi-directional, direct and automatic: unconscious



Channels of alignment• are bi-directional, direct and automatic: unconscious• linguistic information conveyed is encoded in sound




The communicative mechanism exploited is priming• lexical priming• syntactic priming etc.





Things are different with monologue• the goal of monologue is not to get aligned representations





Things are different with monologue• the goal of monologue is not to get aligned representations• representations can rapidly diverge





Things are different with monologue• the goal of monologue is not to get aligned representations• representations can rapidly diverge• priming in monologue can be thought of as an epiphenomenal effect



The IAM assumes that production and comprehension draw upon the same linguistic representations parity between comprehension and production




A representation that has just been constructed (in comprehension) can be used for production or vice versa





Parity• requires the representations to be the same, but the processes need not be related (e.g. reversed)





Parity• requires the representations to be the same, but the processes need not be related (e.g. reversed)• of representation is somewhat controversial among psycholinguists





Parity• requires the representations to be the same, but the processes need not be related (e.g. reversed)• of representation is somewhat controversial among psycholinguists• might be a means of explaining nonlinguistic perception/action links


Dialogue and Alignment • Common ground, misalignment & interactive repair



Common Ground (CG) is one of the key conceptual notions in current research on dialogue:

• critical pre-condition for successful communication




• critical pre-condition for successful communication• reflects the pool of background knowledge that one can reasonably assume to be shared by the interlocutors on the basis of the (linguistic and non-linguistic) evidence at hand




• critical pre-condition for successful communication• reflects the pool of background knowledge that one can reasonably assume to be shared by the interlocutors on the basis of the (linguistic and non-linguistic) evidence at hand• related notions: common -, mutual - & joint knowledge





Clark‘s (1996) notion of CG (shared basis)





Clark‘s (1996) notion of CG (shared basis): p is common ground for members of C iff

• every member of C has information that basis b holds






• every member of C has information that basis b holds,• b indicates to every member of C that every member of C has information that basis b holds






• every member of C has information that basis b holds,• b indicates to every member of C that every member of C has information that basis b holds, • b indicates to every member of C that p.



Implicit common ground (ICG) is information that is shared by the interlocutors due to alignment



Implicit common ground (ICG) is information that is shared by the interlocutors due to alignment; it

• gets built up automatically,




• gets built up automatically, • is used in basic repair mechanisms




• gets built up automatically, • is used in basic repair mechanisms• is effective, because with (nearly) aligned situation models, both interlocutors foreground the same information




• gets built up automatically, • is used in basic repair mechanisms• is effective, because with (nearly) aligned situation models, both interlocutors foreground the same information• gets extended as the conversation proceeds





ICG vs. CG:Establishing full CG involves modelling one‘s interlocutors mental state(s): this is unnecessary & costly





ICG vs. CG:Establishing full CG involves modelling one‘s interlocutors mental state(s): this is unnecessary & costlyInterlocutors go to full CG only when necessary in repairing misalignment when more basic means fail





ICG vs. CG:Establishing full CG involves modelling one‘s interlocutors mental state(s): this is unnecessary & costlyInterlocutors go to full CG only when necessary in repairing misalignment when more basic means failThe processes involved when building full CG are specialized & non-automatic



The use of CG is limited



The use of CG is limited:

There is evidence that in situations without direct interaction language users do not always take into account full CG during production / comprehension





These findings (and/or alternative explanations) seem to extend to fully interactive dialogue






However, there is evidence that – under certain circumstances – interlocutors do engage in strategic inference based on full CG







So performing inferences on full CG• is an optional strategy







So performing inferences on full CG• is an optional strategy• is employed only when resources allow







So performing inferences on full CG• is an optional strategy• is employed only when resources allow• most simple conversation works without it



Improper alignment leads to faulty ICG – a (basic) interactive repair mechanism helps to maintain ICG



Improper alignment leads to faulty ICG – a (basic) interactive repair mechanism helps to maintain ICG; the mechanism relies on two processes:

• checking whether one can interpret the input in relation to one‘s own representation




• checking whether one can interpret the input in relation to one‘s own representation• in case of fail: reformulating the utterance in a way that hopefully leads to establishing ICG





Possibilities for reformulation :• repetition with rising intonation





Possibilities for reformulation :• repetition with rising intonation • repetition with additional query





Possibilities for reformulation :• repetition with rising intonation • repetition with additional query• radical restatement





Possibilities for reformulation :• repetition with rising intonation • repetition with additional query• radical restatement

This can be regarded as involving a kind of externalized inferencebecause of it‘s dependence on interaction between interlocutors



Situations, where full CG is necessary e.g. • cases of deception



Situations, where full CG is necessary e.g. • cases of deception,

• concealment of information




• concealment of information or • agreeing not to align at some level (situation model)





Maintaining CG may involve complex internalized reasoning that is probably conscious & costly in terms of processing resources





Maintaining CG may involve complex internalized reasoning that is probably conscious & costly in terms of processing resourcesThere may be great differences between people‘s abilitiesHowever: explicit negotiation remains a possibility






Claim: such strategic inferences are overlaid on the basic interactive alignment mechanism







Alignment is viewed as a primitive mechanism, not a replacement for more complicated strategies that may be employed







Alignment is viewed as a primitive mechanism, not a replacement for more complicated strategies that may be employeddialogues may serve more complicated functions than alignment of representations


Dialogue and Alignment • Alignment and routinization



Interlocutors draw upon representations that have been developed during dialogue




Advantage: it is not necessary to construct representations from scratch




Advantage: it is not necessary to construct representations from scratch

Prediction: interlocutors develop and use routines during a particular interaction



Levelt describes stages involved (conceptualization, formulating the utterance through a series of representations, finally articulation) in language production




His core assumption: the speaker has to go through all the stages; he quotes experimental research to back up this assumption





But it seems to be possible to take short-cuts, to avoid levels of representation in production (as well as in comprehension), e.g. in repeating a whole phrase





But it seems to be possible to take short-cuts, to avoid levels of representation in production (as well as in comprehension), e.g. in repeating a whole phraseEvidence: natural dialogue – unlike monologue – is highly repetitive (example dialogue 82% vs. paragraph in paper 25% of the words)





But it seems to be possible to take short-cuts, to avoid levels of representation in production (as well as in comprehension), e.g. in repeating a whole phraseEvidence: natural dialogue – unlike monologue – is highly repetitive (example dialogue 82% vs. paragraph in paper 25% of the words)

Hence, the assumption that repetitions are unusual is a bias



A „routine“ is an expression that is „fixed“ to some extent



A „routine“ is an expression that is „fixed“ to some extent• it has a higher frequency than the frequency of its component words would lead to expect



A „routine“ is an expression that is „fixed“ to some extent• it has a higher frequency than the frequency of its component words would lead to expect• it has a particular analysis at each level of linguistic representation



A „routine“ is an expression that is „fixed“ to some extent• it has a higher frequency than the frequency of its component words would lead to expect• it has a particular analysis at each level of linguistic representation• highly frequent in dialogue



A „routine“ is an expression that is „fixed“ to some extent• it has a higher frequency than the frequency of its component words would lead to expect• it has a particular analysis at each level of linguistic representation• highly frequent in dialogue

„Routinization“ establishes routines on the fly:if an interlocutor uses an expression in a particular way, it may become a routine for the purpose of the conversation



A „routine“ can occur because most stretches of dialogue are about restricted topics and therefore have a limited vocabulary




Besides this, routinization is implied by interactive alignment




Besides this, routinization is implied by interactive alignmentA repeated expression (with same analysis and interpretation) is aligned at many levels of representation (lexical, syntactic, semantic)




Besides this, routinization is implied by interactive alignmentA repeated expression (with same analysis and interpretation) is aligned at many levels of representation (lexical, syntactic, semantic)Hence, interlocutors are likely to use the same expressions in the same way, to refer to the same things





Use of routines contributes to the fluency of dialogue; smaller set of alternatives guarantees fast access to particular units





Use of routines contributes to the fluency of dialogue; smaller set of alternatives guarantees fast access to particular units

Routines seem to be easier to produce than non-routines


Dialogue and Alignment • Alignment and routinization • Production

Most models of word production assume that the apparent fluency of productionhides a number of stages




Evidence for the sequential nature of activation seem to be, e.g., • time-course data




Evidence for the sequential nature of activation seem to be, e.g., • time-course data• tip-of-the-tongue data





The dialogical perspective does not lead to a radically different view of word production – however, contextual activation is likely to have some effects on the time-course of production






Contrary to models of isolated sentence production, it seems to be possible to break the assumed order (message-> syntactic->phonological->sound) by building a sentence around a particular phrase that has been focused in dialogue






Contrary to models of isolated sentence production, it seems to be possible to break the assumed order (message-> syntactic->phonological->sound) by building a sentence around a particular phrase that has been focused in dialogue

Effects of strong context, in dialogue or monologue, may be to change the process of production


Dialogue and Alignment • Alignment and routinization • Comprehension

IAM suggests that lexical comprehension in dialogue is different from monologue




The local context becomes central as a consequence of alignment at the lexical level („dialogue lexicon“)





In dialogue, the frequency of an expression should become less important and replaced by accessibility with respect to the local context





In dialogue, the frequency of an expression should become less important and replaced by accessibility with respect to the local contextPeople fall back on frequency in monologue because they have no strong context





In dialogue, the frequency of an expression should become less important and replaced by accessibility with respect to the local contextPeople fall back on frequency in monologue because they have no strong context

With respect to lexical ambiguity, it is predicted that effects of meaning frequency can be overridden by context comprehension of routines is like lexical comprehension: frequency and interpretation set by dialogue


Dialogue and Alignment • Self-monitoring



Self-monitoring exploits the usual mechanisms of alignment, but „within the speaker“




All models assume that speakers monitor their own output, (e.g. Levelt)There is an outer loop: monitoring production by using the comprehension system, monitoring actual outputs; compatible with both ATA and IAM





Inner loops proposed at the level of phonological and conceptual representation fit with IAM but not with ATA





Inner loops proposed at the level of phonological and conceptual representation fit with IAM but not with ATAProposal: speaker performs monitoring at different levels in a way that leads to self-alignment





Inner loops proposed at the level of phonological and conceptual representation fit with IAM but not with ATAProposal: speaker performs monitoring at different levels in a way that leads to self-alignmentSelf-correction is similar to repair processes in interaction





Inner loops proposed at the level of phonological and conceptual representation fit with IAM but not with ATAProposal: speaker performs monitoring at different levels in a way that leads to self-alignmentSelf-correction is similar to repair processes in interaction

Prediction: monitoring can occur at any level of representation that can be aligned (e.g. syntactic monitoring)



Self-monitoring appears to be a consequence of dialogue – as a by-product of a language processing system that is sufficiently flexible to allow comprehension and production to occur to some extent simultaneously



Self-monitoring appears to be a consequence of dialogue – as a by-product of a language processing system that is sufficiently flexible to allow comprehension and production to occur to some extent simultaneously

Prediction: monitoring should be hard during periods of overlapping speech


Dialogue and Alignment • Linguistics



Formal linguistics has mainly failed to address dialogue

A sketch of how linguistic theory could support dialogue raises two issues:

• the analysis of linked utterances



Formal linguistics has mainly failed to address dialogue

A sketch of how linguistic theory could support dialogue raises two issues:

• the analysis of linked utterances• the architecture of the language system


Dialogue and Alignment • Linguistics • Linked utterances

Chomsky-style grammar treats the contribution of a single speaker as the relevant unit of analysis


Chomsky-style grammar treats the contribution of a single speaker as the relevant unit of analysis; this cannot account for:

• syntactic restrictions on well-formed exchanges




• syntactic restrictions on well-formed exchanges• syntactic parallelism constraint between turns (elliptical utterances)





IAM predicts parallelism as a general phenomenon, makes use of narrowly linguistic mechanisms in order to explain production and comprehension of linked contributions – no need for complicated mechanisms (e.g. bridging inferences)





IAM predicts parallelism as a general phenomenon, makes use of narrowly linguistic mechanisms in order to explain production and comprehension of linked contributions – no need for complicated mechanisms (e.g. bridging inferences)

Any appropriate grammatical account should be able to deal with non-sentential fragments and allow their interpretation to be integrated into the dialogue contextrequires a flexible notion of constituency



IAM assumes independent, but linked representations for syntax, semantics and phonology (at least)

Dialogue and Alignment • Linguistics • Language system



This sits ill with Chomskyan theory, posing a central generative syntactic component, peripheral semantic and phonological systems





IAM is compatible with constraint-based approaches, e.g. HPSG, where syntax, semantics and phonology form parts of a multi-dimensional sign





IAM is compatible with constraint-based approaches, e.g. HPSG, where syntax, semantics and phonology form parts of a multi-dimensional sign

Jackendoff‘s framework seems like a perfect fit with IAMThe linguistic basis for a psycholinguistic account of dialogue is the integration of a framework that incorporates multiple generative components with a grammar that follows a flexible approach to constituency



Dialogue and Monologue


Dialogue is seen as the primary setting for language use,dialogic processing as the basic form of language processing



Dialogue is seen as the primary setting for language use,dialogic processing as the basic form of language processing

Dialogue and monologue have been treated as distinct kinds of language useBut is there a clear-cut distinction or do they range along a dialogic continuum?



Claim: Interactive activities vary according to the degree of coupling between the agents

Dialogue and Monologue • Degrees of coupling



Different styles of communication vary in the degree of coupling between communicators (e.g. one-to-one intimate conversation vs. giving a lecture)





IAM is developed to account for tightly coupled processing in face-to-face spontaneous dyadic conversation between equals with short contributions





IAM is developed to account for tightly coupled processing in face-to-face spontaneous dyadic conversation between equals with short contributionsAs the conversational setting deviates, alignment becomes less automatic and important






True monologue (no feedback) processing – production, as well as comprehension – is difficult






True monologue (no feedback) processing – production, as well as comprehension – is difficult

Language users need to develop a range of elaborate strategies (planning, routines; making inferences) to become competent



Relevance of the IAM for a range of issues beyond dialogue

Implications


Relevance of the IAM for a range of issues beyond dialogue:

IAM might serve as the basis for accounts of predominantly automatic social interaction more generally (alignment is presumably not purely linguistic): automatic perception-behavior link postulated by social psychologists

Implications




IAM fits well with recent proposals about the central role of imitation within psychological and neuroscientific theory

Implications




IAM fits well with recent proposals about the central role of imitation within psychological and neuroscientific theory

IAM might find application to language acquisition, because alignment underlies occuring imitative processes

Implications


Dialogue example & situation

(A)Inst: So, jetzt nimmst du

Well, now you takeCnst: eine Schraube

a screw.Inst: eine <-> orangene mit einem

Schlitz.an <-> orange one with a slit

Cnst: Ja. Yes



(A)Inst: So, jetzt nimmst du

Well, now you takeCnst: eine Schraube

a screw.Inst: eine <-> orangene mit einem

Schlitz.an <-> orange one with a slit

Cnst: Ja. Yes

Available Bolts



Previous step : highest coordination peak point



(B)

Inst: Und steckst sie dadurch, also

And you put it through there,

let’s see

Cnst: Von oben.

From the top.

Inst: Von oben, daß also die drei festgeschraubt werden dann.

From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.

Cnst: Ja.

Yes.

Intended Junction

Intended Result



(A)Inst: Well, now you takeCnst: a screw.Inst: an <-> orange one with a slitCnst: Yes.

(B)Inst: And you put it through there, let’s seeCnst: From the top.Inst: From the top, so that the three bars get fixed.Cnst: Yes.









Situation Model

Message Message

Situation Model






: Channel of alignment


The Alignment Perspective

Documents

Transcript of The Alignment Perspective