Alignment und Aushandlung im Dialog
Abstract
Zusammenfassung. Im Dialog sind zwei unterschiedliche Koordinationsarten zu beobachten, nämlich das explizite Aushandeln und das implizite Alignment, das keiner bewussten Steuerung oder Kontrolle unterliegt. In jüngster Zeit ist der Alignment-Begriff - angeregt durch die Studie von Pickering und Garrod (2004) - verstärkt in der Psycholinguistik diskutiert worden. Es kann gezeigt werden, dass zwar das Phänomen bereits früher in der Psycholinguistik partiell von Bühler (1934), Hörmann (1976) und Herrmann (1982, 1985) beschrieben worden ist, dass aber erst durch die derzeitige Diskussion die Tragweite von Alignmentprozessen erkannt wird. Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht, im Rahmen dieser Diskussion einige Forschungsperspektiven aufzuzeigen.
Abstract. Two different forms of coordination can be observed in dialogue, namely explicit negotiation and implicit alignment. The latter does not underlie any conscious monitoring or control. Recently, the notion of alignment - put forward in a paper by Pickering and Garrod (2004) - has been the subject of increased discussion in psycholinguistics. Though the phenomenon has been described earlier in psycholinguistics partially by Bühler (1934), Hörmann (1976) and Herrmann (1982, 1985), the many implications of alignment processes have only been recognised through the present discussion. This contribution aims at outlining some research perspectives within the framework of alignment in dialogue.
Literatur
Asher, N. , Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressBranigan, H. P. , Pickering, M. J. , Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75 , 813– 825Bratman, M. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics, 104 , 97– 113Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie . Jena: G. FischerClark, H. H. (Ed.) (1992). Arenas of Language Use . Chicago: U. Chicago PressClark, H. H. (1996). Using language . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressClark, H. H. , Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1990). Referring as a collaborative process. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 463-494). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressClark, H. H. , Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, I. A. Sag, & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressClark, H. H. , Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13 , 259– 294Cohen, P. , Levesque, H. (1990). Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 221-255). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCook, Z. A. , Limber, J. L. , O‘Brien, E. J. (2001). Situation based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 , 220– 234Crocker, M. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language . Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic PublishersCraik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present ... and future?. Memory, 10 , 305– 318Egg, M. , Pinkal, M. , Pustejowsky, J. (Eds.) (2001). Underspecification. Special Issue. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10 , 4Erickson, T. D. , Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 20 , 540– 551Ferreira, F. , Bailey, K. G. D. , Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 , 11– 15Garnham, A. (1992). Minimalism versus constructionism: A false dichotomy in theories of inference during reading . Psycoloquy, 92.3.63.reading-inference-1.1 [with commentary]Garrod, S. C. (1999). The challenge of dialogue for theories of language processing. In S. C. Garrod & M. Pickering (Eds.), Language Processing (pp. 399-413). Hove: Psychology PressGentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7 , 155– 170Gentner, D. , Markman, A. B. (1993). Analogy - watershed or Waterloo? Stuctural alignment and the development of connectionist models of analogy. In S. J. Hanson, J. D. Cowan & C. L. Giles (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5 (pp. 855-862). San Mateo: Morgan KaufmannGlenberg, A. M. , Mathew, S. (1992). When minimalism is not enough: Mental models in reading comprehension . Psycoloquy, 92.3.64.reading-inference-2.1 [with commentary]Günther, U. , Kindt, W. , Schade, U. , Sichelschmidt, L. , Strohner, H. (1993). Elliptische Koordination. Linguistische Berichte, 146 , 312– 340Henderson, J. M. , Ferreira, F. (Eds.) (2004). The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world . New York: Psychology PressHerrmann, T. (1982). Sprechen und Situation. Eine psychologische Konzeption zur situationsspezifischen Sprachproduktion . Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: SpringerHerrmann, T. (1985). Allgemeine Sprachpsychologie. Grundlagen und Probleme . München: Urban & Schwarzenberg. 2. Aufl. 1995, Weinheim: Beltz, Psychologie-Verlags-UnionHörmann, H. (1976). Meinen und Verstehen. Grundzüge einer psychologischen Semantik . Frankfurt a.M.: SuhrkampKallmeyer, W. , Schütz, F. (1976). Konversationsanalyse. Studium Linguistik, 1 , 1– 28Kindt, W. (2001). Syntax und Pragmatik: Eine zu entdeckende Verwandtschaft. In F. Hundsnurscher & F. Liedtke (Hrsg.), Pragmatische Syntax (S. 5-29). Tübingen: NiemeyerKindt, W. (2002). Koordinations-, Konstruktions- und Regulierungsprozesse bei der Bedeutungskonstitution. In A. Deppermann & Th. Spranz-Fogasy (Hrsg.), Bedeuten - Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht (S. 34-58). Tübingen: StauffenburgKindt, W. (2003). Ellipsen und andere syntagmatische Aspekte. In G. Rickheit, Th. Hermann & W. Deutsch (Hrsg.), Psycholinguistik - ein internationales Handbuch (S. 306-316). Berlin: de GruyterLevelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation . Cambridge, MA.: MIT PressMauner, G. , Tanenhaus, M. K. , Carlson, G. N. (1995). Implicit arguments in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 34 , 357– 382McKoon, G. , Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99 , 440– 466McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago PressMüller, H. M. (2003). Neurobiologische Grundlagen der Sprache. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann & W. Deutsch (Hrsg.), Psycholinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch (S. 57-80). Berlin: de GruyterMüller, H. M. (2004). Speech Processing. In P. Strazny (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Routledge (in press)Pickering, M. J. , Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (to appear)Poesio, M. , Rieser, H. (2003). Coordination in a Poesio-Traum-Muskens approach to dialogue . Poster at DiaBruck 2003Poesio, M. , Traum, D. R. (1997). Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13 , 309– 347Poesio, M. , Traum, D. R. (1998). Towards an axiomatisation of dialogue acts. In J. Hulstijn & A. Nijholt (Eds.), Twendial’98. Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Proceedings (pp. 207-221). Twente: Eindhoven U. PressPomplun, M. , Prestin, E. , Rieser, H. (1998). Eye-Movement Research and Dialogue Structure. Report 1998/12, SFB 360 . Bielefeld: U. BielefeldRickheit, G. , Strohner, H. (1993). Grundlagen der kognitiven Sprachverarbeitung . Tübingen, Basel: Francke (UTB 1735)Sanford, A. J. , Barton, S. B. , Moxey, L. M. , Paterson, K. (1995). Cohesion processes, coherence, and anomaly detection. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann & W. Deutsch (Hrsg.), Psycholinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch (S. 203-213). Berlin: de GruyterSacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31-74). Free PressSchegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75-119). Free PressSichelschmidt, L. , Jang, K. W. , Kösling, H. (2003). Perspective alignment in referential communication . 12th European Conference on Eye Movements, Dundee, 20-24 August, 2003Singer, W. (1994). Coherence as an organizing principle of cortical functions. International Review of Neurobiology, 37 , 153– 183Traum, D. R. (1999). Computational Models of Grounding in Collaborative Systems. In: Working Notes of AAAI Fall Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication (pp. 124-131)Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25 , 221– 261Weiss, S. , Müller, H. M. (2003). The contribution of EEG coherence to the investigation of language. Brain and Language, 85 , 325– 343Weiss, S. , Müller, H. M. , Rappelsberger, P. (2000). Theta synchronization predicts efficient memory encoding of concrete and abstract nouns. NeuroReport, 11 , 2357– 2361
