↓ Skip to main content

What's in a Name? Interlocutors Dynamically Update Expectations about Shared Names

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What's in a Name? Interlocutors Dynamically Update Expectations about Shared Names
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Whitney M. Gegg-Harrison, Michael K. Tanenhaus

Abstract

In order to refer using a name, speakers must believe that their addressee knows about the link between the name and the intended referent. In cases where speakers and addressees learned a subset of names together, speakers are adept at using only the names their partner knows. But speakers do not always share such learning experience with their conversational partners. In these situations, what information guides speakers' choice of referring expression? A speaker who is uncertain about a names' common ground (CG) status often uses a name and description together. This N+D form allows speakers to demonstrate knowledge of a name, and could provide, even in the absence of miscommunication, useful evidence to the addressee regarding the speaker's knowledge. In cases where knowledge of one name is associated with knowledge of other names, this could provide indirect evidence regarding knowledge of other names that could support generalizations used to update beliefs about CG. Using Bayesian approaches to language processing as a guiding framework, we predict that interlocutors can use their partner's choice of referring expression, in particular their use of an N+D form, to generate more accurate beliefs regarding their partner's knowledge of other names. In Experiment 1, we find that domain experts are able to use their partner's referring expression choices to generate more accurate estimates of CG. In Experiment 2, we find that interlocutors are able to infer from a partner's use of an N+D form which other names that partner is likely to know or not know. Our results suggest that interlocutors can use the information conveyed in their partner's choice of referring expression to make generalizations that contribute to more accurate beliefs about what is shared with their partner, and further, that models of CG for reference need to account not just for the status of referents, but the status of means of referring to those referents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 38%
Linguistics 5 31%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,175,336
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,869
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,170
of 299,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#233
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.