The theory of language production and comprehension (TLPC), laid out in impressive keenness in the Pickering & Garrod (P&G) target article, rests on an analogy between language and action. It musters a throng of cutting-edge research on forward modeling and covert simulation to flesh out the analogy. In the following, I examine the utility of the present action view for the understanding of verbal communication and interpersonal alignment. I will first consider the distinct contribution to the analysis of language vis-à-vis earlier language-as-action approaches. Then I will turn to the relation between coordinated joint action, which serves as a blueprint for dialogue coordination, and a key concomitant and product of interpersonal communication, that is, the experience of a shared reality between interlocutors.
One merit of the TLPC lies in its extension of the action-language analogies that have been championed by a prominent lineage of approaches epitomized by Austin (Reference Austin1962) and Grice (Reference Grice, Cole and Morgan1975). These approaches characterized language use as purposeful contextualized action (Holtgraves Reference Holtgraves2002). However, much of the research inspired by the language-as-action perspective did not study issues that are now addressed by the TLPC, primarily the online processes that permit the seamless and instantaneous mutual attunement to the current topic (Holtgraves Reference Holtgraves2002, pp. 180–82). In this respect, the integration of action simulation by the TLPC marks a novel and promising contribution.
However, the focus of the TLPC on co-present interweaving of action, based on prediction processes, outshines key insights from language-as-action work and hence comes at a cost. First of all, the role of context and communicative intentions, essential to any view of language use as action, is mentioned rather parenthetically and relegated to subsidiary information contained in one of the processing modules (viz., the production command). More specifically, it seems that the emphasis on prediction processes underappreciates postdictive processes, that is, the search for an adequate interpretation after utterances have been perceived. Recipients often enough straggle and struggle to infer what is meant by, for instance, nonliteral utterances, figures of speech, or complex (scientific or literary) formulations. According to language-as-action approaches, these efforts are driven by pragmatic assumptions of cooperativeness and mutual adherence to communication rules (Higgins Reference Higgins, Higgins, Herman and Zanna1981).
Furthermore, the view of action execution and perception, which serves as the blueprint for the meticulous modeling of language production and comprehension, restricts the action-language analogy to co-present, oral dialogue. Given the primacy of face-to-face conversation (e.g., Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs Reference Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs1986), such a focus of the theory design is reasonable. However, the role of action in other forms of verbal communication remains an open issue. For instance, writers want to accomplish purposes with what they write; readers attempt to identify these purposes. (Processes underlying reading, specifically prediction-by-association, are addressed only once at the end of P&G's article.) To what extent can the action-view embraced by the TLPC account for the processes that operate, for instance, in typing a tweet or blog commentary, and in reading and interpreting it? In reading, there are no immediate sensory perceptions of an interlocutor's movements or the current interaction context that can help a recipient to infer the intended action or purpose underlying a piece of text; but there are other resources, such as assumptions of conversational rules or background knowledge, that allow recipients to make such inferences. It seems that the role of action outside of co-present conversation can be more readily accounted for by other approaches from the “language-as-action” family (for the reception of literary texts, see, e.g., Ricœur Reference Ricœur1973).
A second issue I want to examine concerns the relation between coordinated joint action and the experience of a shared reality between the interlocutors. Shared reality is of potentially high relevance to verbal communication because interpersonal communication is a key arena of social sharing. In section 2.3, the models of prediction and simulation are applied to action coordination in joint activities such as ballroom dancing or carrying a bulky object. P&G claim that the joint-action model can explain “the experience of ‘shared reality’ that occurs when A and B realize that they are experiencing the world in similar ways” (target article, sect. 2.3, para. 5).
From the perspective of shared-reality theory, however, the commonality or alignment involved in the coordination of action does not necessarily involve the experience of shared reality. According to a current definition (Echterhoff et al. Reference Echterhoff, Higgins and Levine2009), shared reality is the product of the motivated process of experiencing an interpersonal commonality of inner states about the world. The creation of a shared reality allows us, for example, to form political or moral convictions, or to evaluate other people or groups. For instance, when people meet a new employee at their workplace, they tend to form shared impressions of the newcomer with their colleagues. As such, and consistent with extant applications of the theory (e.g., Echterhoff et al. Reference Echterhoff, Higgins, Kopietz and Groll2008), shared reality essentially reflects an evaluative alignment between communicator and audience regarding a target entity or state of affairs.
Given this conceptualization, the experience of shared reality and action coordination can be dissociated. Having common representations of an activity and each other's actions does not mean that the actors have a shared reality regarding how to evaluate the activity. For example, two high-school graduates may perform a seamlessly coordinated ballroom dance at a prom, but the two may feel about and evaluate the dance differently: Whereas one of them may experience it as the exciting beginning of a romantic affair, the other could view it as the mere fulfillment of an obligation, or could even fear subsequent harassment.
This distinction may not come as a surprise because the TLPC is designed to address the key explanandum of psycholinguistic research, that is, the success of conversational interaction, with an emphasis on the rapidity and smoothness of coordination. It is not designed to address higher-level commonalities, such as the sharing of attitudes, evaluations, and judgments. Still, for the sake of further integration and synergy, it may be worthwhile to consider the possible interplay of conversation and shared reality from the perspective of the TLPC.
The theory of language production and comprehension (TLPC), laid out in impressive keenness in the Pickering & Garrod (P&G) target article, rests on an analogy between language and action. It musters a throng of cutting-edge research on forward modeling and covert simulation to flesh out the analogy. In the following, I examine the utility of the present action view for the understanding of verbal communication and interpersonal alignment. I will first consider the distinct contribution to the analysis of language vis-à-vis earlier language-as-action approaches. Then I will turn to the relation between coordinated joint action, which serves as a blueprint for dialogue coordination, and a key concomitant and product of interpersonal communication, that is, the experience of a shared reality between interlocutors.
One merit of the TLPC lies in its extension of the action-language analogies that have been championed by a prominent lineage of approaches epitomized by Austin (Reference Austin1962) and Grice (Reference Grice, Cole and Morgan1975). These approaches characterized language use as purposeful contextualized action (Holtgraves Reference Holtgraves2002). However, much of the research inspired by the language-as-action perspective did not study issues that are now addressed by the TLPC, primarily the online processes that permit the seamless and instantaneous mutual attunement to the current topic (Holtgraves Reference Holtgraves2002, pp. 180–82). In this respect, the integration of action simulation by the TLPC marks a novel and promising contribution.
However, the focus of the TLPC on co-present interweaving of action, based on prediction processes, outshines key insights from language-as-action work and hence comes at a cost. First of all, the role of context and communicative intentions, essential to any view of language use as action, is mentioned rather parenthetically and relegated to subsidiary information contained in one of the processing modules (viz., the production command). More specifically, it seems that the emphasis on prediction processes underappreciates postdictive processes, that is, the search for an adequate interpretation after utterances have been perceived. Recipients often enough straggle and struggle to infer what is meant by, for instance, nonliteral utterances, figures of speech, or complex (scientific or literary) formulations. According to language-as-action approaches, these efforts are driven by pragmatic assumptions of cooperativeness and mutual adherence to communication rules (Higgins Reference Higgins, Higgins, Herman and Zanna1981).
Furthermore, the view of action execution and perception, which serves as the blueprint for the meticulous modeling of language production and comprehension, restricts the action-language analogy to co-present, oral dialogue. Given the primacy of face-to-face conversation (e.g., Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs Reference Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs1986), such a focus of the theory design is reasonable. However, the role of action in other forms of verbal communication remains an open issue. For instance, writers want to accomplish purposes with what they write; readers attempt to identify these purposes. (Processes underlying reading, specifically prediction-by-association, are addressed only once at the end of P&G's article.) To what extent can the action-view embraced by the TLPC account for the processes that operate, for instance, in typing a tweet or blog commentary, and in reading and interpreting it? In reading, there are no immediate sensory perceptions of an interlocutor's movements or the current interaction context that can help a recipient to infer the intended action or purpose underlying a piece of text; but there are other resources, such as assumptions of conversational rules or background knowledge, that allow recipients to make such inferences. It seems that the role of action outside of co-present conversation can be more readily accounted for by other approaches from the “language-as-action” family (for the reception of literary texts, see, e.g., Ricœur Reference Ricœur1973).
A second issue I want to examine concerns the relation between coordinated joint action and the experience of a shared reality between the interlocutors. Shared reality is of potentially high relevance to verbal communication because interpersonal communication is a key arena of social sharing. In section 2.3, the models of prediction and simulation are applied to action coordination in joint activities such as ballroom dancing or carrying a bulky object. P&G claim that the joint-action model can explain “the experience of ‘shared reality’ that occurs when A and B realize that they are experiencing the world in similar ways” (target article, sect. 2.3, para. 5).
From the perspective of shared-reality theory, however, the commonality or alignment involved in the coordination of action does not necessarily involve the experience of shared reality. According to a current definition (Echterhoff et al. Reference Echterhoff, Higgins and Levine2009), shared reality is the product of the motivated process of experiencing an interpersonal commonality of inner states about the world. The creation of a shared reality allows us, for example, to form political or moral convictions, or to evaluate other people or groups. For instance, when people meet a new employee at their workplace, they tend to form shared impressions of the newcomer with their colleagues. As such, and consistent with extant applications of the theory (e.g., Echterhoff et al. Reference Echterhoff, Higgins, Kopietz and Groll2008), shared reality essentially reflects an evaluative alignment between communicator and audience regarding a target entity or state of affairs.
Given this conceptualization, the experience of shared reality and action coordination can be dissociated. Having common representations of an activity and each other's actions does not mean that the actors have a shared reality regarding how to evaluate the activity. For example, two high-school graduates may perform a seamlessly coordinated ballroom dance at a prom, but the two may feel about and evaluate the dance differently: Whereas one of them may experience it as the exciting beginning of a romantic affair, the other could view it as the mere fulfillment of an obligation, or could even fear subsequent harassment.
This distinction may not come as a surprise because the TLPC is designed to address the key explanandum of psycholinguistic research, that is, the success of conversational interaction, with an emphasis on the rapidity and smoothness of coordination. It is not designed to address higher-level commonalities, such as the sharing of attitudes, evaluations, and judgments. Still, for the sake of further integration and synergy, it may be worthwhile to consider the possible interplay of conversation and shared reality from the perspective of the TLPC.