Is alignment always the result of automatic priming?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):203-204 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) mechanistic theory of dialogue attempts to detail the psychological processes involved in communication that are lacking in Clark's theory. By relying on automatic priming and alignment processes, however, the theory falters when it comes to explaining much of dialogic interaction. We argue for the inclusion of less automatic, though not completely conscious and deliberate, processes to explain such phenomena.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,907

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Who is the controller of controlled processes?Daniel M. Wegner - 2005 - In Ran R. Hassin, James S. Uleman & John A. Bargh (eds.), The New Unconscious. Oxford Series in Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience. Oxford University Press. pp. 19-36.
Priming and alignment: Mechanism or consequence?Sarah Brown-Schmidt & Michael K. Tanenhaus - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):193-194.
Situation alignment and routinization in language acquisition.Peter F. Dominey - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):195-195.
Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.Martin J. Pickering & Simon Garrod - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):169-190.
Dialogue: Can two be cheaper than one?Sam Glucksberg - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):199-199.
Interactive alignment: Priming or memory retrieval?Michael Kaschak & Arthur Glenberg - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):201-202.


Added to PP

49 (#332,542)

6 months
4 (#855,130)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?