The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production
Abstract
Speakers in conversation routinely engage in audience design. That is, they construct their utterances to be understood by particular addressees. Standard accounts of audience design have frequently appealed to the notion of common ground. On this view, speakers produce well-designed utterances by expressly considering the knowledge they take as shared with addressees. This article suggests that conversational common ground, rather than being a category of specialized mental representations, is more usefully conceptualized as an emergent property of ordinary memory processes. This article examines 2 separate but equally important processes: commonality assessment and message formation. Commonality assessment involves the retrieval of memory traces concerning what information is shared with an addressee, whereas message formation involves deciding how to use that information in conversation. Evidence from the CallHome English corpus of telephone conversations shows how each of these processes is rooted in basic aspects of human memory. The overall goal of this article is to demonstrate the need for a more cognitive psychological account of conversational common ground.
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
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
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
Speaking: From Intention to Articulation
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 · Cited by 4,804
Tulving, E. (1985) · Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne · doi:10.1037/h0080017 · Cited by 4,638
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
Barsalou, L. W. (1983) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03196968 · Cited by 1,879
Monitoring and self-repair in speech.
Levelt, W. (1983) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 · Cited by 1,676
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
Cited by
Alignment as the Basis for Successful Communication
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2006) · Research on Language and Computation · doi:10.1007/s11168-006-9004-0 · Cited by 329
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
Bartolozzi, F., Jongman, S. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000944 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Horton, W. S.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-07
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-35
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W2022894946
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 50.39
- 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: Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1
- The paper
- Horton, W. S. (2005). Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1
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.