Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T01:27:24.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resource-rationality beyond individual minds: the case of interactive language use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Mark Dingemanse Open the ORCID record for Mark Dingemanse [Opens in a new window]
Mark Dingemanse*
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, 6525 HTNijmegen, Netherlands. m.dingemanse@let.ru.nlhttps://www.ru.nl/english/people/dingemanse-m/ Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6525 HRNijmegen, Netherlands Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6525 XDNijmegen, Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resource-rational approaches offer much promise for understanding human cognition, especially if they can reach beyond the confines of individual minds. Language allows people to transcend individual resource limitations by augmenting computation and enabling distributed cognition. Interactive language use, an environment where social rational agents routinely deal with resource constraints together, offers a natural laboratory to test resource-rationality in the wild.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e9
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bender, A. & Beller, S. (2014) Mangarevan invention of binary steps for easier calculation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(4):1322–27. doi:10.1073/pnas.1309160110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böckler, A., Knoblich, G. & Sebanz, N. (2010) Socializing cognition. In: Towards a theory of thinking, ed. Glatzeder, B., Goel, V. & Müller, A., pp. 233–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03129-8_16. Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1998) Magic words: How language augments human computation. In: Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, ed. Carruthers, P. & Boucher, J., pp. 162–83. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2006) Material symbols. Philosophical Psychology 19(3):291–307. doi:10.1080/09515080600689872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2017) On the margins of language: Ideophones, interjections and dependencies in linguistic theory. In: Dependencies in language, ed. Enfield, N. J., pp. 195–202. doi:10.5281/zenodo.573781. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gisladottir, R. S., Kendrick, K. H., Levinson, S. C., Manrique, E., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N. J. (2015) Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS One 10(9):e0136100. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enfield, N. J. (2013) Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2017) How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (1995) The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 34(6):709–38. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2001) Listeners’ uses of um anduh in speech comprehension. Memory & Cognition 29(2):320–26. doi:10.3758/BF03194926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, M. C. & Goodman, N. D. (2012) Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336(6084):998. doi:10.1126/science.1218633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fusaroli, R., Tylén, K., Garly, K., Steensig, J., Christiansen, M. H. & Dingemanse, M. (2017) Measures and mechanisms of common ground: Backchannels, conversational repair, and interactive alignment in free and task-oriented social interactions. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, ed. Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T. & Davelaar, E., pp. 2055–60.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction ritual. Aldine.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2018) Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J., Adam Noah, J., Zhang, X., Dravida, S. & Ono, Y. (2018) A cross-brain neural mechanism for human-to-human verbal communication. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 13(9):907–20. doi:10.1093/scan/nsy070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R., Cann, R., Gregoromichelaki, E. & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2016) Language as mechanisms for interaction. Theoretical Linguistics 42(3–4):203–76. doi:10.1515/tl-2016-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konvalinka, I. & Roepstorff, A. (2012) The two-brain approach: How can mutually interacting brains teach us something about social interaction? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6:215. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lestrade, S. (2017) Unzipping Zipf's law. PLoS One 12(8):e0181987. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2016) Turn-taking in human communication – origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(1):6–14. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2012) The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122(3):280–91. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Risko, E. F. & Gilbert, S. J. (2016) Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(9):676–88. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S. G. & Levinson, S. C. (2017) Conversation, cognition and cultural evolution: A model of the cultural evolution of word order through pressures imposed from turn taking in conversation. Interaction Studies 18(3):404–31. doi:10.1075/is.18.3.06robCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T. & Vogeley, K. (2013) Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4):393–414. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12000660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooij, I., Kwisthout, J., Blokpoel, M., Szymanik, J., Wareham, T. & Toni, I. (2011) Intentional communication: Computationally easy or difficult? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5:1–18. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldron, V. R. & Cegala, D. J. (1992) Assessing conversational cognition: Levels of cognitive theory and associated methodological requirements. Human Communication Research 18(4):599–622. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00573.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar