The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Partner‐Specific Adaptation in Dialog
Abstract
No one denies that people adapt what they say and how they interpret what is said to them, depending on their interactive partners. What is controversial is when and how they do so. Several psycholinguistics research programs have found what appear to be failures to adapt to partners in the early moments of processing and have used this evidence to argue for modularity in the language processing architecture, claiming that the system cannot take into account a partner’s distinct needs or knowledge early in processing. We review the evidence for both early and delayed partner‐specific adaptations, and we identify some challenges and difficulties with interpreting this evidence. We then discuss new analyses from a previously published referential communication experiment (Metzing & Brennan, 2003) demonstrating that partner‐specific effects need not occur late in processing. In contrast to Pickering and Garrod (2004) and Keysar, Barr, and Horton (1998b), we conclude that there is no good evidence that early processing has to be be “egocentric,”“dumb,” or encapsulated from social knowledge or common ground, but that under some circumstances, such as when one partner has made an attribution about another’s knowledge or needs, processing can be nimble enough to adapt quite early to a perspective different from one’s own.
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
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678
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
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-citationProbabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution
MacDonald, M. C. (1994) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969408402115 · Cited by 379
Cited by
Toward a second-person neuroscience
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000660 · Cited by 1,510
Language style matching in writing: synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry.
Ireland, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020386 · Cited by 380
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12251 · Cited by 252
Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee?
Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002 · Cited by 200
Self-citationSignalling under Uncertainty: Interpretative Alignment without a Common Prior
Brochhagen, T. (2020) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axx058 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E.
- Venue
- Topics in Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 274-291
- ISSN
- 1756-8757 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-8765
- OpenAlex
- W2159423088
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 103.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Partner‐Specific Adaptation in Dialog. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x
- The paper
- Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner‐Specific Adaptation in Dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.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.