Common ground e gesti. I benefici di un approccio multimodale alla nozione di recipient design / Common ground and gesture. How a multimodal perspective benefits the notion of recipient design

  • Emanuela Campisi
Keywords: Common ground, recipient design, dialogo, gestualità, comunicazione faccia a faccia

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to analyse the notions of common ground and recipient design, according to which participants in face-to-face conversations adapt their messages to the particular addressee they are facing, based on the knowledge they share (CLARK 1996). These notions are nowadays considered a fundamental principle of communicative interaction; however, when we move from a normative dimension to what actually happens in spontaneous conversations, it is difficult to decide what this means. In fact, experimental data concerning not only speech, but also gestures, show opposite results and have been interpreted as evidence that often speakers do not take common ground into account (HORTON & KEYSAR 1996). However, one may wonder whether these results can be really considered as evidence in favour or against recipient design, or rather they suggest the need to better clarify the notion itself. After reviewing the most influent literature on the topic, I will suggest that the adaptation to the addressee is not a monolithic phenomenon, but a complex network of multimodal strategies, which can differ according to the context of interaction and, therefore, is still in need of further investigation.

References

BRENNAN S., GALATI A., KUHLEN A. (2010), Two minds, one dialog: coordinating speaking and understanding, in ROSS B. H., a cura di, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Academic Press, Burlington, pp. 301-344.

CAMPISI E., ÖZYÜREK A. (2013), «Iconicity as a communicative strategy: recipient design in multimodal communication for adults and children», in Journal of Pragmatics, n. 47, pp. 14-27.

CARTMILL E.A., BYRNE R.W. (2007), «Orangutans modify their gestural signaling according to their audience’s comprehension», in Current Biology, n. 17, pp. 1345-1348.

CLARK H. (1996), Using Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CLARK H., HAVILAND J. (1977), Comprehension and the given-new contract, in FREEDLE R. O., a cura di, Discourse production and comprehension, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 1-40.

CLARK H., WILKES-GIBBS D. (1986), «Referring as a collaborative process», in Cognition, n. 22, pp. 1-39.

DELL G.S., BROWN P.M. (1991), Mechanisms for listener adaptation in language production: limiting the role of the ‘model of the listener’, in NAPOLI D. J. KEGL D., a cura di, Bridges between psychology and linguistics, Academic Press, New York.

GALATI A., BRENNAN S.E. (2010), «Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker or for the addressee?» In Journal of Memory and Language, n. 62, pp. 35-51.

GERVIG J., BAVELAS J. B. (2004), «Linguistic influences on gesture’s form», in Gesture, n. 4(2), pp. 157-195.

GIVON T. (1983), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative crosslanguage study, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

GRICE P. (1975), Logic and conversation, in COLE P., MORGAN J., a cura di, Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts, Academy Press, New York, pp. 41-58.

HILLIARD C., COOK S. W. (2015), «Bridging gaps in common ground: speakers design their gestures for their listeners», in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, n. 42(1), pp. 91-103.

HOLLER J., BAVELAS (2017), Multimodal communication and common ground. A review of social functions, in CHURCH R.B., ALIBALI M., KELLY S. D., a cura di, Why gesture? How the hands function in speaking, thinking and communicating, John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 213-240.

HOLLER J., STEVENS R. (2007), «The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to represent size information», in Journal of Language and Social Psychology, n. 26, pp. 4-27.

HOLLER J., WILKIN K. (2009), «Communicating common ground: how mutually shared knowledge influences the representation of semantic information in speech and gesture in a narrative task», in Language and cognitive processes, n. 24, pp. 267-289.

HORTON W., GERRIG R. J. (2002), «Speakers’ experience and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees», in Journal of memory and language, n. 47, pp. 589-606.

HORTON W., KEYSAR B. (1996), «When do speakers take into account common ground?» in Cognition, n. 59, pp. 91-117.

ISAACS E.A., CLARK H. (1987), «References in conversation between experts and novices», in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, n. 116, pp. 26-37.

JACOBS N., GRAHAM A. (2007), «The role of conversational hand gestures in a narrative task», in Journal of Memory and Language, n. 56, pp. 291-303.

KARTTUNEN P., PETERS S. (1979), «Conventional implicature», in Syntax and Semantics, n. 11, pp. 1-56.

KECSKES I., ZHANG F. (2009), «Activating, seeking, and creating common ground. A socio-cognitive approach», in Pragmatics and Cognition, n. 17(2), pp. 331-355.

KENDON A. (1980), Features of the structural analysis of human communicational behaviour, in VON RAFFLER Engel W., a cura di, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication, Swets and Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse.

KENDON A. (2004), Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

LISZKOWSKY U. (2007), Human twelve-month-olds point cooperatively to share interest with and helpfully provide information for a communicative partner, in LIEBAL K., MÜLLER C., PIKA S., a cura di, Gestural Communication in Non-human and Human Primates, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp.121-138.

MAZZONE M. (2016), Pragmatica cognitiva e mindreading, Bonanno Editore, Acireale-Roma.

MAZZONE M., CAMPISI, E. (2013), «Distributed intentionality. A model of intentional behavior in humans», in Philosophical Psychology, n. 26, pp. 267-290.

MCNEILL D. (1992), Hand and mind, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

MORISSEAU T., DAVIES C., MATTHEWS D. (2013), «How do 3- and 5-year olds respond to under- and over-informative utterances?» in Journal of Pragmatics, n. 59, pp. 26-39.

SACKS O., SCHEGLOFF E. A., JEFFERSON G. (1974), «A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation», in Language, n. 50(4), pp. 696-735.

SCHUBOTZ L., HOLLER J., ÖZYÜREK A. (2015), Age-related differences in multi-modal audience design: Young, but not old speakers, adapt speech and gestures to their addressee's knowledge, in FERRÈ G., TUTTON M., a cura di, Proceedings of the 4th GESPIN - Gesture & Speech in Interaction Conference, Université of Nantes, Nantes, pp. 211-216.

WELLMAN H. M. (1990), The child’s theory of mind, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Published
2018-01-23
How to Cite
Campisi, E. (2018) “Common ground e gesti. I benefici di un approccio multimodale alla nozione di recipient design / Common ground and gesture. How a multimodal perspective benefits the notion of recipient design”, Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 00. Available at: http://www.rifl.unical.it/index.php/rifl/article/view/445 (Accessed: 23October2021).