Traditional mechanistic accounts of language processing derive almost entirely from the study of monologue. Yet, the most natural and basic form of language use is dialogue. As a result, these accounts may only offer limited theories of the mechanisms that underlie language processing in general. We propose a mechanistic account of dialogue, the interactive alignment account, and use it to derive a number of predictions about basic language processes. The account assumes that, in dialogue, the linguistic representations employed by the (...) interlocutors become aligned at many levels, as a result of a largely automatic process. This process greatly simplifies production and comprehension in dialogue. After considering the evidence for the interactive alignment model, we concentrate on three aspects of processing that follow from it. It makes use of a simple interactive inference mechanism, enables the development of local dialogue routines that greatly simplify language processing, and explains the origins of self-monitoring in production. We consider the need for a grammatical framework that is designed to deal with language in dialogue rather than monologue, and discuss a range of implications of the account. Key Words: common ground; dialogue; dialogue routines; language comprehension; language production; monitoring; perception-behavior link. (shrink)

_ Convention_ was immediately recognized as a major contribution to the subject and its significance has remained undiminished since its first publication in 1969. Lewis analyzes social conventions as regularities in the resolution of recurring coordination problems-situations characterized by interdependent decision processes in which common interests are at stake. Conventions are contrasted with other kinds of regularity, and conventions governing systems of communication are given special attention.

Analyzes the nature of international disagreements and conflict resolution in terms of game theory and non-zero-sum games.

This paper describes different types of models for the evolution of communication and language. It uses the distinction between signals, symbols, and words for the analysis of evolutionary models of language. In particular, it show how evolutionary computation techniques, such as artificial life, can be used to study the emergence of syntax and symbols from simple communication signals. Initially, a computational model that evolves repertoires of isolated signals is presented. This study has simulated the emergence of signals for naming foods (...) in a population of foragers. This type of model studies communication systems based on simple signal-object associations. Subsequently, models that study the emergence of grounded symbols are discussed in general, including a detailed description of a work on the evolution of simple syntactic rules. This model focuses on the emergence of symbol-symbol relationships in evolved languages. Finally, computational models of syntax acquisition and evolution are discussed. These different types of computational models provide an operational definition of the signal/symbol/word distinction. The simulation and analysis of these types of models will help to understand the role of symbols and symbol acquisition in the origin of language. (shrink)

Human language is a unique ability. It sits apart from other systems of communication in two striking ways: it is syntactic, and it is learned. While most approaches to the evolution of language have focused on the evolution of syntax, this paper explores the computational issues that arise in shifting from a simple innate communication system to an equally simple one that is learned. Associative network learning within an observational learning paradigm is used to explore the computational difficulties involved in (...) establishing and maintaining a simple learned communication system. Because Hebbian learning is found to be sufficient for this task, it is proposed that the basic computational demands of learning are unlikely to account for the rarity of even simple learned communication systems. Instead, it is the problem of *observing* that is likely to be central -- in particular the problem of determining what meaning a signal is intended to convey. (shrink)

Observations on dialect diversity have been recorded for thousands of years, including Old Testament stories and early writings and literature from around the globe. Language diversity remains the subject of much study today — largely in the related fields of socio-linguistics, historical linguistics and dialectology. One key question is why is there so much difference in dialects. To some the question was irrelevant as diversity was somehow obviously a natural feature of human language, one not requiring much explanation — it (...) simply was. Currently the question of why diversity should exist to the degree that it does has been taken quite seriously, with strong differences of opinion apparent. (shrink)