Cover not available

In:Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark
Edited by Inbal Arnon, Marisa Casillas, Chigusa Kurumada and Bruno Estigarribia
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 12] 2014
► pp. 175–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Referential pacts in child language development

 | Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield
ORCiD logo with link | Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield
Published online: 17 July 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.12.15ste
Referential pacts are temporary conventions created by interlocutors for the duration of a conversation. They occur when a speaker somewhat arbitrarily chooses between multiple possible referring expressions (e.g., saying “the spotty dog” rather than “the muddy dog” for a dog that is both spotty and muddy). A listener will expect the speaker to be consistent in this choice of expression from then on, but would not necessarily expect a new conversational partner to make the same choice. We review the adult psycholinguistic literature on referential pacts and present evidence from children. We consider pacts as a prime example of the Principles of Contrast and Convention and suggest further research is warranted into the origin of these assumptions about language use.
References (63)
References
Baldwin, D.A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development , 62(5), 875–890. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, D.J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language , 46(2), 391–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., & Brennan, S.E. (1997). Use and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in referring by native and non-native speakers. Discourse Processes , 23(2), 119–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E., & Clark, H.H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition , 22(6), 1482–1493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A.K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. Psychology of Learning and Motivation , 53, 301–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S.E., & Hanna, J.E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science , 1(2), 274–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P.M., & Dell, G.S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology , 19(4), 441–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language , 61(2), 171–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callanan, M.A., & Sabbagh, M.A. (2004). Multiple labels for objects in conversations with young children: Parents’ language and children’s developing expectations about word meanings. Developmental Psychology , 40(5), 746–763. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). On the logic of contrast. Journal of Child Language , 15(2), 317–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language , 17(2), 417–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition . Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1997). Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition , 64(1), 1–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). First language acquisition . Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). Conventionality and contrast in language and language acquisition. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 115, 11–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E.V., & Svaib, T.A. (1997). Speaker perspective and reference in young children. First Language , 17(51), 57–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition , 22(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., and Brennan, S.A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: APA Books Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, B. (1980). ‘Baby’ or ‘fetus’?: Language and the construction of reality in a manslaughter trial. Semiotica , 32(3–4), 187––220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deák, G.O., Yen, L., & Pettit, J. (2001). By any other name: When will preschoolers produce several labels for a referent? Journal of Child Language , 28(3), 787–804. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G. (2005). The principles of conventionality and contrast in word learning: An empirical examination. Developmental Psychology , 41(3), 451–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G., & Markson, L. (2001). Children’s avoidance of lexical overlap: A pragmatic account. Developmental Psychology , 37(5), 630–641. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doherty, M.J. (2000). Children’s understanding of homonymy: Metalinguistic awareness and false belief. Journal of Child Language , 27(2), 367–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Church, B.A., & Chambers, K.E. (2004). Learning to identify spoken words. In D.G. Hall & S. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 3–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, C.A., Brown, J.M., Sabadini, L., & Weihing, J. (2003). Rapid access to speech gestures in perception: Evidence from choice and simple response time tasks. Journal of Memory and Language , 49(3), 396–413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fremery, J., & Grassman, S. (In prep). Do 4-year-olds choose referential expressions according to speaker-specific referential pacts ?
Galati, A., & Brennan, S.E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language , 62(1), 35–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition , 27(2), 181–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context , Vol. 5. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldinger, S.D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review , 105(2), 251–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S.A., Sedivy, J., & Khu, M. (2013). That’s not what you said earlier: Preschoolers expect partners to be referentially consistent. Journal of Child Language, FirstView , 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huygens, C., & der Wetenschappen, H.M. (1893). Oeuvres complétes de Christiaan Huygens: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köymen,B.,Schmerse,D.,Lieven,E., &Tomasello, M. (submitted). Young children create partner-specific referential pacts with peers.
Krauss, R.M., & Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 4(3), 343–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D.J. (2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language , 56(3), 436–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M., & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology , 14(1), 78–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence (pp. 221–260). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lockridge, C., & Brennan, S. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 9(3), 550–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Butcher, J., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Two- and four-year-olds learn to adapt referring expressions to context: Effects of distracters and feedback on referential communication. Topics in Cognitive Science , 4(2), 184–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2010). What’s in a manner of speaking? Children’s sensitivity to partner-specific referential precedents. Developmental Psychology , 46(4), 749–760. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzing, C., & Brennan, S.E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language , 49(2), 201–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nilsen, E.S., Graham, S.A., Smith, S., & Chambers, C.G. (2008). Preschoolers’ sensitivity to referential ambiguity: Evidence for a dissociation between implicit understanding and explicit behavior. Developmental Science , 11(4), 556–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nurmsoo, E., Robinson, E., & Butterfill, S. (2010). Children’s selective learning from others. Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 1(4), 551–561. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perner, J., Rendl, B., & Garnham, A. (2007). Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind & Language , 22(5), 475–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perner, J., Stummer, S., Sprung, M., & Doherty, M. (2002). Theory of mind finds its Piagetian perspective: Why alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development , 17(3–4), 1451–1472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M.J., & Ferreira, V.S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin , 134(3), 427–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 27(2), 169–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The sources of normativity: Young children’s awareness of the normative structure of games. Developmental Psychology , 44(3), 875–881. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, D.C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science , 29(6), 1045–1060. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabbagh, M.A., & Baldwin, D.A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers’ theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development , 72(4), 1054–1070. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schelling, T.C. (1980). The strategy of conflict . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffer, S.R. (1972). Meaning . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schober, M.F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition , 47(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schober, M.F., & Clark, H.H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology , 21(2), 211–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scofield, J., & Behrend, D.A. (2007). Two-year-olds differentially disambiguate novel words and facts. Journal of Child Language , 34(4), 875–889. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2007). You said it before and you’ll say it again: Expectations of consistency in communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition , 33(2), 357–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science , 1(2), 260–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sobel, D.M., Sedivy, J., Buchanan, D.W., & Hennessy, R. (2012). Speaker reliability in preschoolers’ inferences about the meanings of novel words. Journal of Child Language , 39(1), 90–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2010). Seventeen-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others’ referential communication. Developmental Science , 13(6), 907–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stellmann, P., & Brennan, S. (1993). Flexible perspective-setting in conversation. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.
Van Der Wege, M.M. (2009). Lexical entrainment and lexical differentiation in reference phrase choice. Journal of Memory and Language , 60(4), 448–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wyman, E., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Young children understand multiple pretend identities in their object play. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 27(2), 385–404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Leung, Ashley, Daniel Yurovsky & Robert D. Hawkins
2025. Parents spontaneously scaffold the formation of conversational pacts with their children. Child Development 96:2 ► pp. 546 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue