Summary of Plausible Constraints--论文代写范文精选

语言是用来交流,交流是一种共同思考。谈话的过程,一般来说,经常被比喻为一个游戏。演讲者会引用一些对象,行动或事件的活动环境。演讲者使用一个特定的参考，在特定水平的参考函数。下面的essay代写范文进行阐述。

Abstract
Structure, complexity, language, and activity (along with embodiment and personrelated constraints) represent an A-list rather than a catalog of all plausible extraconversational constraints on referential convention. These A-list constraints appear obvious constituents of any overarching shareability constraint, each may affect the joint cognitive effort of sharing a concept. Nevertheless, few empirical researchers have examined how referential communication might amplify, dampen, or distort these constraints (for exceptions see Markman & Makin, 1998, and Malt & Sloman, 2004). 

Intuitively, one might suspect that structural regularities in the world and the complexity of those structures should constrain communicating individuals in ways similar to isolated individuals, but how and to what extent is not certain. Moreover, many of the studies on use and usefulness of category labels assume that one can decouple language from communication. Language is for communicating, and communicating is for thinking jointly and in public (cf., Wittgenstein, 2001 [1958]). The use of language requires both a self and an other—whether actual or implied.

In new or rare or unfamiliar joint activities, actors often coordinate their actions through conversation (Clark, 1996). Since Wittgenstein (2001 [1958]), the processes of conversation, in general, and referential communication, in particular, have often been formulated as a game (cf., Higgins, 1981; Crawford & Sobel, 1982; Blume, Dejong, Kim, & Sprinkle, 1998; Pietarinen, 2006). The players, as speaker and addressee, set the rules of play and keep score through their ongoing joint construal of the various referents and their significance to the activity (Lewis, 1979). Coordination proceeds through a turntaking process where, at any iteration, a speaker will refer to some object, action or event in the activity environment. The speaker’s use of a particular reference at a particular level of reference functions as a public categorization of the referent, differentiating the referent and highlighting its significance to the activity (see Russell, 1905; Brown, 1958; Grice, 1975; Cruse, 1977; Barr & Kronmüller, 2006 for various formulations of the conceptual function of reference). In reply, the addressee can ratify the proposed categorization, seek clarification, or offer a counter-proposal (cf., Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Sacks et al., 1974; Clark & Krych, 2004; Hulstijn & Maudet, 2006; W. Deutsch & Pechmann, 1982). The conversational turn continues until joint-construal is confirmed.

To illustrate such a game, imagine Bonita and Belle collaborating in what for them is a novel activity, cooking. Rummaging in the pantry for ingredients, Bonita requests, “could you sharpen the big knife?” Grasping a carving knife, Belle asks, “this long one?” “Is it big?” Bonita checks, to which Belle insists, “long is big.” “Fine, the wide one,” clarifies Bonita. Carrying shallots from the pantry, Bonita finds a sharpened cleaver on her cutting board and responds, “well, you can use that to hack apart the rib chops, but that’s not a dicing tool.” “It’s wide,” persists Belle. “I need the one that widens from a point to a round belly,” Bonita further clarifies. “Oh, this one,” pulling the chef’s knife from the block; “it’s like half a bow” she counter proposes. “Yes,” Bonita confirms, “the half-bow knife.”

Early in conversation, each actor is likely to propose and/or counter-propose relatively idiosyncratic or private categorizations of the objects, actions, and event in the activity environment (Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar, Barr, Balin, & Brauner, 2000; Keysar, Barr, Balin, & Paek, 1998; Kronmüller & Barr, 2007; Furnas, Landauer, Gomez, & Dumais, 1987). Like Bonita and Belle, they may differ in perspective (Barsalou & Sewell, 1984; Keysar, Lin, & Barr, 2003), intentions (Barresi & Moore, 1996), knowledge (Chi et al., 1981; Gauthier et al., 1998; Tanaka & Taylor, 1991; Murphy & Wright, 1984; Schvaneveldt et al., 1985), and goals (Barsalou, 1983; Ratneshwar et al., 2001). Thus, each actor might approach a novel activity with differing expectations (c.f., Murphy & Medin, 1985) and use differing heuristics (cf. Lin & Murphy, 1997). For 21 example, Bonita uses the heuristic big => wide, while Belle uses the heuristic big => long. With each iteration of proposal/counter-proposal and ratification/clarification, each actor relies increasingly on publicly available information, shifting from private to public categories (cf., Fussell & Krauss, 1989; Krauss & Fussell, 1991; Clark & Brennan, 1991).

Joint Attention, Joint Intention, and Joint Reference 
With each iteration of proposal/counter-proposal and ratification/clarification, actors establish joint attention to publicly relevant features of the referent (Clark, 1972; Clark et al., 1983; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986; Kaplan & Hafner, 2006; Tomasello, 1999). In particular, actors http://www.51due.com/writing/essay/direct each other's attention (Kronmüller & Barr, 2007; Metzing & Brennan, 2003; Baldwin, 1991) to those features that allow each of them to differentiate the target referent from other possible referents (E.V. Clark, 1987; Mervis & Crisafi, 1982; Murphy & Brownell, 1985) and to infer the referent's significance to the activity (Brown, 1958; Gluck & Corter, 1985). For instance, Bonita directs Belle’s attention to the widening curve of the chef’s knife, which both differentiates it from the carving knife and, perhaps, suggests its function as a precise cutting tool. Further, actors establish the joint intention to act on the referent to accomplish mutual goals (Clark & Lucy, 1975; Francik & Clark, 1985; Tomasello et al., 2005). Bonita and Belle jointly intend the sharpening of the chef’s knife. More importantly, having established joint reference to “the half-bow knife,” Bonita and Belle are likely to reuse this precedent (Brennan & Clark, 1996), reducing the effort of sharing attention and intentions on subsequent conversational turns (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986).essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)