Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Misyak, Jennifer B.; Noguchi, Takao; Chater, Nick (2016)
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd.
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: P1
Humans can communicate even with few existing conventions in common (e.g., when they lack a shared language). We explored what makes this phenomenon possible with a nonlinguistic experimental task requiring participants to coordinate towards a common goal. We observed participants creating new communicative conventions using the most minimal possible signals. These conventions, furthermore, changed trial-by-trial in response to shared environmental and task constraints. Strikingly, as a result, signals of the same form were able to successfully convey contradictory messages from trial to trial. Such behavior implicates what we term "joint inference," in which social interactants are inferring, in the moment, the most sensible communicative convention in light of their common ground. Joint inference may help to elucidate how communicative conventions emerge “instantaneously,” and how they are modified and reshaped into the elaborate systems of conventions involved in human communication, including natural languages.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bergen, L., Levy, R., & Goodman, N. (2016). Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semantics and Pragmatics. Advance online publication. doi:10.3765/sp.9.20
    • Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482- 1493.
    • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    • Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
    • Croft, W. (2011). Language as a process. In I. Arnon & E. V. Clark (Eds.), Trends in language acquisition research: Vol. 7. Experience, variation, and generalization: Learning a first language (pp. 241-260). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
    • Fay, N., Ellison, T. M., & Garrod, S. (2014). Iconicity: From sign to system in human communication and language. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22, 243-262.
    • Fitzgerald, F. S. (1948). This side of paradise. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons. (Original work published 1920)
    • Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998.
    • Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737-767.
    • Galantucci, B. (2009). Experimental semiotics: A new approach for studying communication as a form of joint action. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 393-410.
    • Galantucci, B., & Garrod, S. (2011). Experimental semiotics: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, Article 11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00011
    • Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor & Symbol, 15, 5-27.
    • Goldin-Meadow, S., & Feldman, H. (1977). The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science, 197, 401-403.
    • Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41- 58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    • Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 43-61.
    • Hough, R. (1994). Captain James Cook: A biography. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
    • Jahr, E. H. (1996). On the pidgin status of Russenorsk. In E. H. Jahr & I. Broch (Eds.), Language contact in the Arctic: Northern pidgins and contact languages (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, Vol. 88, pp. 107-122). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
    • Karaman, B. I. (2008). On contronymy. International Journal of Lexicography, 21, 173-192.
    • Keysar, B., Bar, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32-38.
    • Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 10681-10686.
    • Klégr, A. (2013). The limits of polysemy: Enantiosemy. Linguistica Pragensia, 23, 7-23.
    • Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Locke, J. (1964). An essay concerning human understanding. Cleveland, OH: Meridian. (Original work published 1690)
    • Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (Eds.). (2004). Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280-291.
    • Protassova, E. (1992). Play without a common language. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 5, 73-86.
    • Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159-163.
    • Scaife, M., & Bruner, J. (1975). The capacity for joint visual attention in the infant. Nature, 253, 265-266.
    • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Scott-Phillips, T. C., Kirby, S., & Ritchie, G. R. S. (2009). Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. Cognition, 113, 226-233.
    • Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70-76.
    • Smith, L., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition, 106, 1558-1568.
    • Smith, N. J., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2013). Learning and using language via recursive pragmatic reasoning about other agents. In C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (NIPS 2013). Retrieved from https:// papers.nips.cc/paper/4929-learning-and-using-language-viarecursive-pragmatic-reasoning-about-other-agents.pdf
    • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
    • Tamariz, M., & Kirby, S. (2016). The cultural evolution of language. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 37-43.
    • Verhoef, T., Kirby, S., & de Boer, B. (2015). Iconicity and the emergence of combinatorial structure in language. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/ cogs.12326
    • Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-situational statistics. Psychological Science, 18, 414-420.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

Cite this article