The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding by addressees and overhearers
Open accessAbstract
In conversation speakers design their utterances to be understood against the common ground they share with their addressees—their common experience, expertise, dialect, and culture. That ordinarily gives addressees an advantage over overhearers in understanding. Addressees have an additional advantage, we propose, because they can actively collaborate with speakers in reaching the mutual belief that they have understood what was said, whereas overhearers cannot. As evidence for the proposal, we looked at triples of people in which one person told another person in conversation how to arrange 12 complex figures while an overhearer tried to arrange them too. All three began as strangers with the same background information. As predicted, addressees were more accurate at arranging the figures than overhearers even when the overhearers heard every word. Other evidence suggests that the very process of understanding is different for addressees and overhearers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977) · Language · doi:10.2307/413107 · Cited by 5,150
Referring as a collaborative process
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7 · Cited by 2,401
Self-citationConcurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication.
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1966) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0023705 · Cited by 342
Cited by
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
An integrated theory of language production and comprehension
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001495 · Cited by 1,569
Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1482 · Cited by 1,457
Self-citationChi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2504_1 · Cited by 855
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016 · Cited by 733
Metadata
- Authors
- Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H.
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1989-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-232
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2158247508
- Cited by
- 690
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 60.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding by addressees and overhearers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-x
- The paper
- Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.