Résultat de la recherche
Procedural coordination in the matching task
Participants in conversation who recurrently discuss the same targets require fewer and fewer words to identify them. This has been attributed to the collaborative elaboration of conceptual pacts, that is, semantic coordination. But participants do not only coordinate on the semantics of referring expressions; they also coordinate on how to do the task, that is, on procedural coordination. In a matching task experiment (n = 22 dyads), we examined the development of four aspects of procedural coordination: Card placement (CP), implicit generic coordination (IGC), explicit generic coordination (EGC) and general procedural coordination (GPC) in two conditions (the classic condition where targets remain the same over trials, and a new cards condition, where they change at each trial, thus increasing the difficulty of semantic coordination). Procedural coordination constituted almost 30% of the total amount of talk in the matching task. Procedural coordination was more effortful when semantic coordination was more difficult and the four aspects of procedural coordination developed differently depending on participant roles.
Flexible Coordination of Stationary and Mobile Conversations with Gaze: Resource Allocation among Multiple Joint Activities
Gaze is instrumental in coordinating face-to-face social interactions. But little is known about gaze use when social interactions co-occur with other joint activities. We investigated the case of walking while talking. We assessed how gaze gets allocated among various targets in mobile conversations, whether allocation of gaze to other targets affects conversational coordination, and whether reduced availability of gaze for conversational coordination affects conversational performance and content. In an experimental study, pairs were videotaped in four conditions of mobility (standing still, talking while walking along a straight-line itinerary, talking while walking along a complex itinerary, or walking along a complex itinerary with no conversational task). Gaze to partners was substantially reduced in mobile conversations, but gaze was still used to coordinate conversation via displays of mutual orientation, and conversational performance and content was not different between stationary and mobile conditions. Results expand the phenomena of multitasking to joint activities.