Psychological Development and Education ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (5): 523-532.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.05.02

Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Influence of Communicative Context on Language Accuracy of Both Sides of Learning

ZHANG Hengchao   

  1. Department of Psychology, School of Law, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134
  • Published:2018-10-25

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Abstract: The study arranged communication task and individual task, created three communicative contexts, and compared the language accuracy of both sides in different contexts. The results showed that:(1)In the three contexts, language accuracy was the highest in only language communication. Object visibility in the context of communication hampered the rate of language accuracy, and expression visibility reduced the level of language accuracy. The efficiency and effect of language accuracy in high similarity subjects were higher than those in low similarity subjects. (2)Under the condition of language, the level of language accuracy was the highest in the communication task; in the context of object visibility, the accuracy level was the lowest in the individual task. Compared to the communication task, the high similarity subject in the individual task was more accurate. The results suggested that:language cognition did not fully represent communication cognition, object visibility hindered language cognition and communication cognitive level, and expression visibility and language together improved the cognitive level of communication.

Key words: context, communication, learning, language

CLC Number: 

  • B844
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning:Evidence from students' and teachers' gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 207-215.
Arnold, J. E., Kahn, J. M., & Pancani, G. C. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 19(3), 505-512.
Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L., & Jansen, C. (2011). Overspecification facilitates object identification. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 361-374.
Barnett, M, D., & Johnson, D, M. (2016). The perfectionism social disconnection model:The mediating role of communication styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 200-205.
Berezan, O., Yoo, M., & Christodoulidou, N. (2016). The impact of communication channels on communication style and information quality for hotel loyalty programs. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 7(1), 100-116.
Beyer, H., & Liebe, U. (2015). Three experimental approaches to measure the social context dependence of prejudice communication and discriminatory behavior. Social Science Research, 49, 343-355.
Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). Coordinating cognition:The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465-1477.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482-1493.
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of memory and language, 61(2), 171-190.
Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation:Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers' subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68-86.
Clark, H.H., & Marshall, C.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, I.A. Sag and B.L. Webber (eds), Elements of discourse understanding (10-63). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.
Davies, C. N. (2011). Over-Informativeness in Referential Communication (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).
Duran, N. D., & Dale, R. (2014). Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 131-146.
Gahl, S., & Strand, J. F. (2016). Many neighborhoods:Phonological and perceptual neighborhood density in lexical production and perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 162-178.
Galati, A. (2009). Assessing Common Ground in Conversation:The Effect of Linguistic and Physical Co-Presence on Early Planning. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2013). Collaborating in spatial tasks:how partners coordinate their spatial memories and descriptions. Cognitive processing,14(2), 1-3.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). From action to abstraction:Gesture as a mechanism of change. Developmental Review, 38, 167-184.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture's role in speaking, learning, and creating. Annual review of psychology, 64, 257-283.
Graziano, M., & Gullberg, M. (2013). Gesture production and speech fluency in competent speakers and language learners. In Tilburg Gesture Research Meeting (TiGeR) 2013. Tilburg University.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and semantics, 3:Speech Acts (41-58). New York:Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 22-40.
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 and Language, 49, 43-61.
Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe:shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290-305.
Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker's intentions:Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86.
Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49), 143-159.
Katsos, N. (2009). Evaluating under-informative utterances with context-dependent and context-independent scales:Experimental and theoretical implications. In U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro (eds), Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics (51-73), London:Palgrave.
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?:Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and language, 48(1), 16-32.
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction:A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1, 113-114.
Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2015) Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension:a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1-19.
Lewis, M. L., & Frank, M. C. (2016). The length of words reflects their conceptual complexity. Cognition, 153, 182-195.
Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S. (1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 127(4), 331-354.
Nappa, R., & Arnold, J. E. (2014). The road to understanding is paved with the speaker's intentions:Cues to the speaker's attention and intentions affect pronoun comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 58-81.
O'Carroll, S., Nicoladis, E., & Smithson, L. (2015). The effect of extroversion on communication:Evidence from an interlocutor visibility manipulation. Speech Communication, 69, 1-8.
Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1-5.
Perniss, P., Özyürek, A., & Morgan, G. (2015). The influence of the visual modality on language structure and conventionalization:Insights from sign language and gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 2-11.
Rogers, S. L., Fay, N., & Maybery, M. (2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PloS one, 8(2), e57211.
Sacchi, S., Riva, P., & Aceto, A. (2016). Myopic about climate change:Cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 68-73.
Sedivy, J. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast:Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 3-23.
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J.C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions:The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49(3), 238-299.
Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more:A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 260-273.
Vanlangendonck, F., Willems, R. M., Menenti, L., & Hagoort, P. (2013). The role of common ground in audience design:Beyond an all or nothing story. In the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions:Bridging the Gap between computational and empirical Approaches to Reference the (PRE-CogSci 2013).
Vesper, C., Schmitz, L., Safra, L., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2016). The role of shared visual information for joint action coordination. Cognition, 153, 118-123.
Zwaan, R. A.(2014). Embodiment and language comprehension:reframing the discussion. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(5), 229-234.
张恒超. (2013). 参照性交流中的"听者设计". 心理发展与教育, 29(5), 552-560.
张恒超. (2017). 共享因素对参照性交流双方学习的影响. 心理学报, 49(2), 197-205.
张恒超. (2018a). 交流语言认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26(2), 270-282.
张恒超. (2018b). 交流手势的认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 796-809.
[1] WANG Kunyan, HUANG Yinghang, DENG Jue, WANG Xuan, ZHANG Xiangkui. From Social Mindfulness to Prosocial Behavior: The Developmental Association in Children Aged 4 to 7 [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(4): 457-466.
[2] LU Furong, JIANG Shitao, WEN Mengyu, WANG Lixian, ZHANG Yali, ZHANG Cai. Differential Effects of Congruence and Incongruence in Parental Educational Anxiety and Involvement on Junior High School Students’ Learning Engagement [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(4): 553-562.
[3] ZHENG Xiaoxing, LI Peijin, XING Qiang. Active Control Influences Self-regulated Category Learning: The “Decision-driven” Perspective [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(3): 370-378.
[4] LIU Ying, LIU Rude, MAO Chenying, LIN Jingmin, LIU Jiabin. Influence of Teacher Feedback Timing and Feedback Complexity on College Students’ Learning Engagement during Online Video Learning [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(3): 408-417.
[5] CHENG Mengting, XU Qinmei, GE Yuqing, MA Sa, YAN Chenyu. The Relationship between Maternal Responses and Infant Emotion Regulation Strategies [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(2): 162-171.
[6] ZHANG Sensen, DING Fengqin. Emotions Change with the Circumstances: The Conceptual Metaphor of Moral Emotions in Cleanliness-dirtiness and Its Contextuality [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 9-17.
[7] ZHAO Xiaomei, ZHAO Xinrui, WANG Keke. The Processing of Text-graphic Information Knowledge Integration of College Students: Evidence from ERP [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 18-27.
[8] WANG Zhen, SHI Baoying, ZHAO Haoli, GUO Yunfei, WANG Enguo. Effects of Emotional Expression and Role of Affective Pedagogical Agent on Video Learning: The Moderating Role of Learners’ Experience [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 60-69.
[9] JIANG Ying, GAI Xiaosong. A Meta-analysis Comparing the Training Effects of English Phonological Awareness between Native Chinese Speakers and Native English Speakers [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 70-84.
[10] WANG Yulong, WANG Danyun, LIN Xiuyun. The Relationship between Non-suicidal Self-injury and Suicidal Ideation during Early Adolescence: The Longitudinal Moderating Role of Parent-child Communication [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 142-152.
[11] XIE Yu, HE Huizhong, WANG Lei, DAI Weixi. A Comparative Study on Implicit Learning of Objects’ Contextual Cueing between Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Typically Developing Children [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(6): 761-769.
[12] QIAO Peihua, CHENG Meixia, WANG Fuxing. Pedagogical Agent with Testing Interaction Could Facilitate Multimedia Learning [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(6): 850-858.
[13] SHI Licheng, LENG Ying, TAN Dingliang. The Neural Basis of Physical Manipulation Promoting Children’s Learning of Geometric Concept: An fNIRS Study [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(4): 500-509.
[14] JIANG Ying, GAI Xiaosong, JENNY Thomson. Experience in Phonological and Semantic Connections Influences the Effect of Phonics Instruction [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(3): 368-376.
[15] XIE Li, JIN Hui, WANG Zhiying, HU Yufei, YANG Xilan, XI Juan. The Influence of Endogenous Power for Poverty Elimination on Impoverished College Students’ Learning Engagement: The Mediating Effect of Self-control and the Moderating Effect of Social Support [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(3): 386-397.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright 2018 © Editorial office of Psychological Development and Education
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd