Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue

Mehdi Purmohammad

University of Bern

The aim of this paper is to investigate alignment in L1–L2 dialogue. More

specifically, I examine to what extent alignment in L1–L2 is different from

alignment in L1–L1 dialogue. I investigate different variables that may affect

linguistic alignment in the course of L1–L2 dialogue. As more variables, such as

differences in language proficiency of interlocutors, affect the linguistic align-

ment in L1–L2 dialogue, it appears that linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue

is different from linguistic alignment in L1–L1 dialogue both quantitatively

and quantitatively. I also discuss the mechanisms that permit lexical alignment

during dialogue. This study interprets the alignment process in terms of the

activation threshold hypothesis (Paradis 1993) and a link is made between the

activation threshold hypothesis and Pickering and Garrods’ (2013) account that

language production and language comprehension are interwoven. Based on

Swiss multilingualism, language selection is proposed as the macro-linguistic

alignment process.

Keywords: dialogue, linguistic alignment, lexical alignment, L2 speakers,

L1–L2 dialogue, interlocutors, macro-linguistic alignment

1. Introduction

Everyday language use is mainly in the form of dialogue which is essentially a joint

action (Garrod and Pickering 2009). As the conversational process is primarily

not predetermined (see Weigand, 2009), it demands linguistic co-ordination be-

tween the two interlocutors for communication to succeed (Clark 1996; Clark and

Schaefer 1989). The speakers’ ability to co-ordinate their linguistic behaviour dur-

ing dialogue is fundamental to reaching a common goal. During dialogue, speak-

ers use language in an interactive rather than an isolated way. It is exactly this

interactive mechanism that makes dialogue so easy (Garrod and Pickering 2004).

Consequently, one of the main aims of research on dialogue should be to explain

how the two interlocutors come to co-ordinate their linguistic behaviour. However,

Language and Dialogue 5:2 (2015), 312–333. doi 10.1075/ld.5.2.07pur

issn 2210–4119 / e-issn 2210–4127 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

313

this problem is hard to tackle because dialogue is highly complex and different lin-

guistic and non-linguistic factors affecting it should be taken into account simulta-

neously. Dialogue includes a vast range of interface problems. Speakers need to de-

cide when it is socially appropriate to speak and they also need to plan what to say

while listening to their partner (Garrod and Pickering 2004). As the researchers

put it, these multi-tasking and task switching procedures are indeed challenging.

Not surprisingly then, an L1–L2 dialogue, in which an L2 speaker communicates

with an L1 speaker, will involve even more interface problems.

When two interlocutors converse, they coordinate their turn-taking (Sacks

et al. 1974). In conversation, when they refer to a new object, they might create

a temporary agreement upon how to name it. The addressee conceptualizes that

new object (Brennan and Clark 1996). For example, a particular “bottle opener”

may be conceptualized as a “corkscrew” or as a “bottle opener” or as “that new bot-

tle opener” (Brennan and Clark 1996). Brennan and Clark (1996, 1484) call this

process “establishing a conceptual pact”. The conversation partners’ co-ordination

is not limited to speech, though. For example, the interlocutors might need to

match their own postures (Condon and Ogston 1966). The aim of such coordina-

tion is to make sure that their conversation flows easily and that interlocutors are

favourably disposed towards each other (Richardson et al., 2007). Co-ordination

occurs both within and between language dialogues.

Common ground, as part of the background knowledge that is shared be-

tween the interlocutors (Clark and Marshall 1981), has been the major direction of

research in dialogue studies for many years. Common ground deals with “what my

interlocutors and I have in common when it comes to our cultural, linguistic, and

other backgrounds” (Mey 2008, 256). Most researchers (e.g. Clark and Wilkes-

Gibbs 1986) have proposed that if the interlocutors share a common ground, they

will experience successful communication. For example, if I want to ensure that

you understand what I mean by “Takht-e Jamshid”, I should know what you know,

and what you know that I know. If such coordination occurs, we may expect to

have a successful dialogue. However, this view, which echoes the relevance-theo-

ry approach, has come under fire in recent years (Gil 2011). Recent studies (e.g.,

Garrod and Pickering 2007a, 2009) have shown that “parallel lower level interac-

tion mechanisms” (Colston 2008, 151) such as the priming effect are enormously

influential in constructing a dialogue. Current psycholinguistic studies on dia-

logue (Garrod and Pickering 2007a, 2007b, 2009) have shown, for instance, that

the mechanism underlying dialogue largely depends on joint action. That is, inter-

locutors “work together to establish a joint understanding of what they are talking

about” (Garrod and Pickering 2004, 8). Thus, despite traditional psycholinguistic

studies (e.g., Levelt 1989) that “focus on individual acts of production or com-

prehension” (Garrod and Pickering 2009, 292), recent psycholinguistic studies on

dialogue have indicated that a deep understanding of the speakers’ linguistic be-

haviour demands “the study of interacting individuals” (292) and the process of a

joint action.

In a conversation, speakers readjust their linguistic behaviour depending on

the need of each other. These linguistic co-ordinations occur during the course of

dialogue when communicators tend to align with each other. Alignment is con-

sidered a convergent linguistic behaviour (Branigan et al. 2010) that occurs in

dialogue. Speakers may align on their choice of syntactic structures (Gries 2005;

Branigan, et al. 2000; Levelt and Kelter 1982). For example, studies have shown

that speakers tend to use passive sentences if the conversational partner has al-

ready used it (see Hartsuiker et al. 2004). In the same vein, if a speaker uses a

prepositional object structure such as “The pirate handing the cake to the sailor”, it

is more likely that his or her addressee will respond using the same structure (e.g.,

the girl giving the book to the teacher) rather than using a double object structure

such as “the girl giving the teacher the book” (Branigan et al., 2007). This phe-

nomenon is called syntactic (structural) priming (for an overview, see Branigan

2007). As Mehler et al. (2011) put it, priming is the central mechanism that was

acknowledged within the Interactive Alignment Model proposed by Pickering and

Garrod (2004) (see Schiller and de Ruiter 2004 and Krauss and Pardo 2004 for a

contrasting interpretation). Interlocutors may use the same referring expressions

in order to refer to particular objects (Pickering and Garrod 2004). This sort of

alignment is called lexical alignment (lexical entrainment). Lexical alignment is

the most salient form of linguistic alignment that occurs in dialogue (see Garrod

and Anderson 1987; Brennan and Clark 1996; Schober and Clark 1989). During

dialogue, when speakers “refer repeatedly to the same object, they tend to reuse

the same terms as they coordinate their perspectives” (Brannan and Clark 1996,

1482). An example of linguistic alignment is found in the walkie-talkie conversa-

tion between two bank robbers, one in the bank vault and another robber who

acted as a lookout on a rooftop, in Schenkein (1980). The bank robbers re-used

each other’s words, as well as the grammatical structures.

(1) “A: …Cor, the noise downstairs, you’ve got to hear it and witne ss it to real ize

how bad it is.

B: You have got to experience exactly the same position as me, mate, to

understand how I feel”. (Schenkein 1980, 23)

Garrod and Anderson (1987) examined how speakers establish a common seman-

tic and conceptual system during dialogue. To that aim, the researchers used a

computer game that consisted of a maze. The maze included box-like frames con-

nected by tiny paths along which participants (acting as players) would move their

position markers. Two participants collaborated in order to solve a joint maze.

315

The players moved their position markers until they had both “reached their re-

spective goal positions” (185). Each player had only partial information about his

partner’s location so that verbal exchanges about their positions became neces-

sary. Garrod and Anderson found that when an interlocutor used, for instance,

the words “column” and “row”, it would be more likely that his or her interlocu-

tor would respond with “column” and “row”. Similarly, when he or she used nu-

merals and/or letters, his or her interlocutor would likely respond with numerals

and/or letters. In other words, when a speaker used a word, the same word was

highly activated in the mental lexicon of the listener. This process prompted the

listener to use the same words. Thus, interlocutors “align on a characterization

of the representational domain, for instance using coordinate systems (e.g., A4,

D3) or figural descriptions (e.g., T-shape, right indicator) to refer to positions in

a maze” (Menenti et al. 2012, 1). The linguistic behaviour of the partic ipants also

demonstrates that informativeness is one of the factors that might affect speak-

ers’ conceptualizations. Accordingly, speakers’ referring expressions should pro-

vide enough information so that it would enable the interlocutor “to pick out the

referent uniquely” (Brannan and Clark 1996, 1482). Such co-ordination results in

linguistic alignment during conversation.

As stated above, although dialogue is indeed “the most natural form of using

language” (Ni Eochaidh 2010, 1), it appears to be the most complex form, because

interlocutors’ activities need to be coordinated with precise timing (Menenti et al.

2012). L1–L2 dialogue is a form of verbal exchange in which one interlocutor uses

his or her L1 while the other uses his or her L2. In L1–L2 dialogue, an L1 speaker

typically cannot speak the first language of the L2 interlocutor. L1–L2 dialogue

appears to be more complex than L1–L1dialogue, given the fact that there are

some variables (e.g., the language proficiency of L2 speakers) in L1–L2 dialogue

that are absent in dialogues between two native speakers. For example, in order to

have successful joint action, an L1 speaker may use a simplified form of language

or foreigner talk (Costa et al. 2008). In foreigner talk, an L1 speaker avoids using

less frequent words, slang and idioms (see Ellis, 1997 for the characteristics of for-

eigner talk). For example, L1 speakers may repeat their L2 interlocutors’ language

production more often than when they are speaking with an L1 speaker. Moreover,

in a dialogue condition in which one of the interlocutors is not a native speaker of

the conversation language, we might expect that he or she is not fully competent

(Costa et al. 2008). As argued above, L1–L1 dialogue is more likely to differ from

L2–L1 dialogue, because an L1 speaker might use some strategies that he or she

does not normally use when speaking to an L1 partner, including the use of more

frequent words, avoiding rare expressions, and recasting the interlocutor’s sen-

tence (see Gass 2003). Moreover, one of the variables that affects L1–L2 dialogue

is the non-native speakers’ language proficiency. A non-native speaker depends

more on “non-automatic routes to alignment” (Costa et al. 2008, 537) than a na-

tive speaker. Therefore, as the researchers state, L1–L2 dialogue might not be as

fluent as the dialogues between two native speakers. We will discuss these points

in greater detail below.

In this paper, I investigate some aspects of the dialogue between an L1 speak-

er and an L2 speaker. More specifically, the differences between L1–L1 dialogue

and L1–L2 dialogue are highlighted, focusing on linguistic alignment in L1–L2

dialogue. I investigate the extent to which alignment in L1–L2 is different from

alignment in L1–L1 dialogue. I also examine the factors that cause L1 speakers to

interact differently with L2 speakers than with native speakers during dialogue.

Non-linguistic variables that may affect the degree of alignment have rarely been

discussed in the literature. These non-linguistic factors will also be discussed. In

order to investigate the mechanism that permits lexical alignment, I interpret the

processing of lexical alignment in terms of the “activation threshold hypothesis”

proposed in Paradis (1993, 1997, 2004).

2. Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue

Garrod and Pickering (2006) propose that alignment is an automatic process and

linguistic alignment is primarily unconscious. Speakers “intend to produce and

interpret expressions in the same way as their partners have just done” (204).

Although lexical alignment is considered as the most obvious type of alignment

(Ni Eochaidh 2010), alignment occurs at different linguistic levels (e.g., phono-

logical and syntactic levels) (Branigan et al. 2011). Based on the interactive align-

ment model proposed by Pickering and Garrod (2004), if “communicators come

to understand relevant aspects of the world in the same way as each other” (294),

their communication will be successful. In the interactive alignment account, it

is assumed that successful dialogue requires that the two interlocutors develop

alignment at different linguistic levels (e.g., syntax, lexicon). Sometimes during di-

alogue, an interlocutor uses the words or the structure that his or her interlocutor

has already used. Linguistic alignment may occur as a function of priming mecha-

nisms at different linguistic representations. Due to the priming mechanism, some

degree of automatic alignment is predicted in any dialogue (Costa et al. 2008). In

this account, lexical priming leads to alignment at the lexical level (lexical entrain-

ment), and syntactic (structural) priming leads to alignment at the syntactic level

(Pickering and Garrod 2004). Moreover, priming at one level enhances alignment

at other levels (Pickering and Garrod 2006). For example, Branigan, Pickering,

and Cleland (2000) found more syntactic priming effect in the same-verb pairing

condition in which the prime and the target cards involved the same verb (e.g.,

317

loan-loan) than in the different-verb condition in which the prime and the target

cards involved different verbs (e.g., loan-lend).

L2 speakers may align with L1 speakers for the purpose of improving their

language proficiency. As there are several reasons to learn a language, L2 users

may have multiple communicative goals (Bongaerts 1999; Butler and Hakuta

2004; Cook 2002). One of the main goals of non-native speakers, especially those

with a lower level of proficiency, in a conversation with an L1 speaker is to improve

their language proficiency (Costa et al. 2008). For L2 speakers, native interlocutors

are regarded as reliable sources to learn language. In order to speak the language as

native-like as possible, they generally consider conversation with native speakers

as one of the most efficient ways to improve their speaking abilities (Gass 2003). L2

speakers might deliberately align with an L1 speaker at different linguistic levels

(e.g., lexicon, phonology-accent) in order to improve their language proficiency.

When they hear new expressions that native speakers used during a conversation,

they may repeat them. The repetition of new words or expressions both facilitates

language learning and alignment. By repeating new lexical items, a non-native

speaker makes them more available in his or her mental lexicon, because “this pro-

cess leads to the development of a lexicon of expressions relevant to the dialogue”

(Pickering and Garrod 2004, 175). We may assume that these sorts of alignment

increase the frequency of lexical items (see Section 4 for more details). For exam-

ple, in dialogue with L1 speakers or highly proficient L2 speakers, an L2 speaker

may notice that they use some adverbs such as “actually” or some adjectives such

as “salient, nasty, weird, and wee” more frequently. An L2 speaker may decide to

use them in his or her speech as well whenever possible.

An L1 speaker’s linguistic behaviour affects the degree of alignment during

dialogue. An L1 speaker might correct or re-structure L2 speakers’ ungrammatical

sentences during a conversation. Gass (1977, 2003) labels this as “recasting”, and

is defined as “instances in which an interlocutor rephrases an incorrect utterance

with a corrected version, while maintaining the integrity of the original meaning”

(Gass 2003, 239). Recasting is likely especially when the interlocutor can guess

what meaning a speaker intended to convey (see example 2).

(2) A: I eated the sandwich quickly.

B: You ate the sandwich quickly.

According to Cabaroglu, Basaran and Roberts (2010), some researchers (e.g.

Lyster and Ranta 1997) consider recasting as “an implicit negative feedback” (15);

however, one of the main purposes of recasting is to promote the alignment of

situation models (Costa et al. 2008). However, in such cases, native speakers use

non-automatic linguistic alignment. As example (2) shows, re-structuring does

not carry any new message. In other words, the aim of recasting is, therefore, not

always to provide correct information that an interlocutor wants during dialogue,

but communicators use “recasting” as they believe that it may enhance alignment

and communication quality. Thus, recasting should not be considered as only an

indicator of interlocutors’ preferences for well-formed rather than ungrammati-

cal sentences (see Lee et al. 2009). Clearly, an L1 speaker may fail to align with an

L2 interlocutor on some occasions. If the language production of the non-native

speaker is not grammatically correct, and the native speaker is not able to guess

what he or she means from the context (Costa et al. 2008), there is the possibility

that an L1 speaker will be unable to align with the L2 speaker. For example, if an

L2 speaker of Persian uses a wrong collocation (e.g., pas dādan, meaning to give

something back vs. pas gereftan, meaning to take or recall something), a Persian

L1 speaker may fail to align.

Speakers’ beliefs about each other, for instance, their belief about the inter-

locutors’ cultural communities (Clark 1996), and their beliefs about the interlocu-

tors’ language proficiency (Bortfeld and Brennan 1997) affect the extent to which

they align. Speakers’ prior beliefs about their interlocutors influence “the form and

communicativeness of their messages” (Fussell and Krauss 1992, 379). Branigan,

Pickering, Pearson, McLean and Brown (2011) examined whether speakers’ align-

ment in dialogue is mediated by their beliefs about their interlocutors. They used

an interactive labeling task. The subjects were told that they were communicating

with either a human partner or a computer. Participants were then asked to select

pictures according to their partner’s descriptions and name pictures so that their

partners could select the pictures. Participants revealed a very “strong tendency to

use their partner’s choice of object name” (47). That is, when their partners used

the favoured name, they almost always used the same favoured name. More inter-

estingly, when their partner used a disfavoured name (e.g., using settee to name

a sofa), participants often used the same disfavoured name as well. The degree of

alignment varied depending on the participants’ beliefs about the capability of

their partners. Branigan and colleagues (2011) report that alignment was more

pronounced with computer partners than with human partners. More strikingly,

they found that participants’ tendency to align with the less capable computers

was stronger than with more capable computers. The researchers concluded that

the tendency to align seems to be mediated by the speakers’ beliefs about their

interlocutors.

As stated above, speakers’ beliefs about their interlocutors’ language profi-

ciency affect the extent to which they align with L2 speakers. In experiment 3 in

Bortfeld and Brennan’s (1997) study, the researchers examined to what extent na-

tive speakers adjust their speech to non-native speakers, or as the researchers put

it, they examined the extent to which the native speakers “sacrificed idiomaticity

in adjusting to non-native speakers” (134). The researchers reported that native

319

speakers significantly aligned their referring expressions to their non-native inter-

locutors. For example, in one interesting case, a native speaker used “the one with

five little tires” to describe an “office chair” to a non-native speaker, while native

speakers usually prefer to call it “the office chair with wheels” (133). Even though

the native speaker is aware of the everyday term used to describe the object, he

or she may instead choose to rely on words that are perceived to be more acces-

sible to non-native speakers. Thus, the findings in Bortfeld and Brennan (1997) re-

vealed that sometimes native speakers use highly inappropriate or unfitting names

in order to achieve lexical alignment (e.g., the use of “tires” instead of “wheels”).

Although such conscious decisions to align are cognitively costly (i.e., to deac-

tivate the appropriate lexical item and simultaneously activate an inappropriate

lexical item or a string of lexical items), it is not uncommon in L1–L2 dialogue.

These results suggest that referring to objects in L1–L2 dialogue demands a more

collaborative process.

The tendency to show “affiliation with (or disaffiliation from) the cultural

communities to which interlocutors perceive each other to belong” (Branigan et

al. 2011, 55) also affects interlocutors’ alignment. For example, a native English

speaker who knows about Muslim communities and the way they call each oth-

er within such communities may use the term “brother” when addressing an L2

Muslim speaker. L1 speakers’ use of terms such as “brother” that L2 speakers nor-

mally use when they speak in their communities promotes alignment. However,

in an interactive context, “feedback from the ongoing conversation” (Fussell and

Krauss 1992, 390) may determine the degree of speakers’ reliance on their prior

beliefs. As Fussell and Krauss (1992, 390) put it, “feedback can lead to modifica-

tions of one’s prior beliefs about the addressee’s category memberships and about

the kinds of knowledge that are characteristic of a given social category”. Garrod

and Pickering (2007b) also consider feedback as one of the main sources of align-

ment. Bevales, Coates and Johnson (2000) report that a speaker sometimes al-

ters his contribution after the addressee’s feedback. Thus, it is possible that the

utterances are reformulated with respect to the communicator’s feedback. The

quality of feedback significantly affects the interlocutors’ contribution during dia-

logue (Schober and Clark 1989). This idea is, therefore, close to what Garrod and

Pickering (2007a) label “strategic alignment”. Accordingly, in order for a speaker

to establish a successful alignment especially in an L1–L2 dialogue, the amount

of feedback a speaker receives from his interlocutor must be sufficient. Moreover,

the implication of such behaviour during dialogue is that the reliance on com-

mon ground might change as the conversation continues. For example, during a

conversation between a Muslim L2 speaker and a non-Muslim L1 speaker, one

of the interlocutors might find that his or her belief about certain aspects of the

interlocutor’s community, such as his or her religion, was not valid. This may lead

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue 320

to a shift in common ground during conversation. Thus, common ground can be

modified. Its utilization may be increased or decreased during the course of dia-

logue (Colston 2008), especially during an L2–L1 dialogue.

In an L1–L2 dialogue, speakers may employ two opposing strategies in order

to achieve an interactive alignment. On the one hand, L1 speakers may avoid us-

ing less frequent words or more frequent synonyms. They may also describe an

object or, as Bortfeld and Brennan put it, use “descriptive referring expressions”

(128) instead of naming it. They may also name an object followed by a descrip-

tion of that object. All these strategies help non-native speakers understand L1

speakers’ intended meaning. On the other hand, in order to avoid being consid-

ered as non-proficient-non-native speakers, proficient L2 speakers may occasion-

ally use some rare words rather than using more frequent words. Such a strategy

might also affect their topic selection. An L2 speaker may also decide to mention

cultural features specific to the L1 speakers’ culture. For example, an L2 speaker

of Persian might start speaking about Iranian ceremonies of the New Year (e.g.,

chāhār šanbehsuri, the event held in the last Wednesday of the year). Such oppos-

ing strategies adopted by L1 and L2 speakers improve alignment.

Regarding the alignment of pragmatics during dialogue, this topic has hardly

been addressed in the literature, especially in L1–L2 dialogue. As “we don’t always

say what we mean, and often don’t mean what we say” (Bavelas et al.1986, 6), it is

more likely that speakers reuse indirect language and align pragmatically during

conversation. Roche, Dale and Caucci (2012) investigated whether speakers come

to reuse indirect language (IL) and align pragmatically when they hear IL from a

partner. The researchers used the term IL (indirect language) to refer to any prag-

matic discourse form that encompasses broadly any statement that has both literal

and nonliteral meanings. Saying “what a quiet day” on a busy day, is an example

of IL. They propose that pragmatics also undergoes alignment. IL may cause some

problems for alignment in both native and non-native speakers’ dialogue, because

in these cases, the interlocutors might first interpret the IL literally. According

to Roche, Dale and Caucci (2012) when a speaker finds that the literal meaning

does not match the immediate context, he/she wonders whether the partner re-

ally believes that it is a quiet day or he intends to “be playfully ironic”. We may

expect that L2 speakers have more problems with IL than L1 speakers especially in

complex cases of IL, because an L2 speaker may not be familiar with those types of

expressions (e.g. sarcasm or irony as types of IL), which are parts of the pragmatic

knowledge. However, in order to avoid failing to align, the addresser may pro-

vide some pragmatic cues. For example, the speaker may use “joyful intonation”

or adopt a particular facial expression during IL. However, when alignment fails

due to the addresser’s use of IL, two outcomes may occur. The speech act may be

neglected by the interlocutor “because the pragmatic goal was never realised” or,

alternatively, more cues related to the pragmatic intent may be provided by the ad-

dresser that attempt to further prevent the pragmatic goal from failing during or

after IL (Roche et al., 2012). For example, the speaker may say “oh, I was joking”.

In doing so, the two interlocutors return to what I would call their “established

literal alignment”.

3. Obstacles to the alignment process in L1–L2 dialogue

Whereas some strategies facilitate linguistic alignment during L1–L2 dialogue,

some linguistic behaviour may hinder it. For example, naming an object or an

event differently might be problematic for lexical alignment during the course of

dialogue, especially in a dialogue between an L1 speaker and an L2 speaker. If the

two interlocutors in L1–L2 dialogue use different terms to refer to the same object

or to address the same event, this situation might not enable strong alignment.

While such a situation might also arise in a dialogue between two L1 speakers,

using different referring terms occurs more frequently in an L1–L2 conversation

than in an L1–L1 conversation (Costa et al. 2008). An L1 or L2 speaker might

prefer to use a specific name for an object as the speaker may believe that the use

of this particular term increases communicative success (Branigan et al. 2011).

Moreover, a speaker might believe that using a particular name is more appropri-

ate when speaking to a particular interlocutor. Using a specific label also implies

an underlying conceptualization of the event or object (Brannan and Clark 1996).

The interlocutor, however, may or may not agree with the same conceptualization.

The speaker’s referring expression is, thus, provisional until it is accepted or modi-

fied by his or her partner (Brennan, 1996). Since past histories may underlie using

some words, naming things or events sometimes has serious social and/or politi-

cal consequences (Jackson 2005). This problem may exist in dialogue between two

speakers who prefer to use different terms for the same thing or event. As Jackson

(2005) states, to “call an act of political violence terrorist is not merely to describe

it but to judge it. …. Two names for the same act have very contrasting meanings

and would likely elicit very different responses” (22) from the two interlocutors.

For example, calling international forces in Iraq “peacekeepers” or calling them

“occupying forces” might trigger vastly different reactions from an Iraqi interlocu-

tor or even a Middle Eastern speaker. Another example is calling “Persian Gulf”

“Gulf ”, which may yield different reactions from an Iranian interlocutor.

There are, however, some cases where a speaker might choose a divergent label

or name for an object or event, even though he is aware that that particular label or

name is not appropriate from the perspective of the interlocutor. In other words,

the interlocutors do not express any intent to align on the same labels or names. A

Mehdi Purmohammad

speaker might also be aware that choosing a particular term dramatically decreas-

es communicative success. To put it differently, a speaker might use a disfavoured

name for an object or an event regardless of whether it might disrupt alignment.

It is reasonable to assume that this would occur more frequently when a speaker

talks about a sensitive topic such as religion, politics, war, gender and so on. Under

the circumstances, conveying a message might be much more important for some

speakers than establishing linguistic alignment. Difficulties arise as soon as dia-

logue is viewed as pure exchange of information (Stalnaker 1974). “The difficul-

ties come with contexts in which other interests besides communication are being

served by the conversation” (201). In these situations, it appears that the automatic

linguistic alignment seems to vary in different dialogues (Costa et al. 2008).

One of the more interesting cases in conversations between a non-native

speaker and a native interlocutor, which has not been specifically addressed in

literature, is when a native speaker chooses not to promote alignment (e.g., word

choice, phonology) with his or her non-native interlocutor. One of the reasons

for this might be that native speakers believe that they should not be concerned

about whether their non-native interlocutor understands what they are saying. A

speaker might assume that it is the interlocutor’s responsibility to improve his or

her language proficiency. Thus, there are some situations in which speakers do not

appear to be concerned with the interlocutors’ level of language proficiency. This

might be rooted in the economic status of L1 speakers’ countries. Interlocutors’

political views or general economic status may play pivotal roles in adopting such

non-aligned linguistic strategies. For example, when the rate of unemployment

increases in a society, native speakers of the country’s language might assume that

one of the reasons for unemployment is that foreigners (for our purposes here,

nonnative speakers) who are residing in their country have robbed them of their

job opportunities. This might cause native speakers to not express any tendency to

align with non-native speakers, which, in turn, causes them to continue using their

own non-simplified/non-aligned language. Some degree of deviance from com-

mon ground is, therefore, expected for various reasons. It is obvious that too much

deviance from the common ground can stifle talk (Colston 2008). An imbalance

caused by the degree of language proficiency, and the lack of tendency to align

with the interlocutor can harm interaction. The interlocutor in such situations

may feel lost or even insulted. For example, a foreign student at the University of

Edinburgh or Glasgow who is not familiar with the Scottish accent may feel in-

sulted or at least uncomfortable if during a meeting a professor continues using a

strong Scottish accent, ignoring the student’s difficulty with it. Using non-aligned

language in L1–L2 dialogue might be prevalent in some societies. Thus, it is sug-

gested that questions related to the ways in which sociocultural and economic fac-

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue 3

tors affect linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue remain largely unanswered and,

consequently, require further study.

Costa, Pickering and Sorace (2008) propose that there is a correlation be-

tween the degree of an L2 speaker’s language proficiency and alignment with an

L1 speaker. When the speaker is highly proficient, automatic alignment occurs

normally between L1 and L2 speakers as would be the case with L1–L1 dialogue.

If, however, a non-native speaker is not fluent enough to provide the automaticity

needed for successful alignment, this “may disrupt the timing of the L1 speak-

er’s responses” (Costa et al. 2008, 549). Moreover, language proficiency of an L2

speaker is a crucial factor that determines to what extent he or she is engaged

in conversation with an L1 speaker. For example, L2 speakers might feel intimi-

dated if on some occasions their native speaker classmates ask them to repeat what

they have already said. This might “preclude them from generating productive

discussions” (Kawanani and Kawanani 2009, 2), meaning that lack of proficiency

decreases interaction during dialogue, which, in turn, further decreases the pos-

sibility of alignment.

The degree of similarity or difference between the L1 and the L2 has a crucial

role in alignment. When the representations in the two languages are similar, they

may be transferred from language A to B or vice versa. Thus, similarity across the

two languages may increase priming (Costa, et al. 2008). For example, if a bilin-

gual speaker hears a construction such as a passive structure that has the same

construction in the other language, we may expect cross-linguistic priming at syn-

tactic level to occur (see Hartsuiker et al. 2004 for cross-linguistic syntactic prim-

ing). As many studies show, cross-linguistic syntactic priming occurs only when

the two languages of bilinguals have the same structures (see Bernolet et al. 2007).

Thus, we may predict that in general, a French-English speaker has a better chance

of creating more alignments with a native English speaker than a Japanese-English

speaker, since there are simply many more cognate words in French and English

than in Japanese and English. This means that “an L2 speaker’s profile is strongly

influenced by his L1 knowledge” (Costa et al. 2008, 541).

Native speakers of a language typically share more common knowledge about

the cultural aspects of their communities compared to interlocutors in L1–L2 dia-

logue. To rephrase this, L2 speakers may share much less information that is part of

the L1 speakers’ socio-cultural background. This type of knowledge is called “com-

munity membership” by Clark and Marshall (1981). In circumstances in which

L1 speakers find that their addressees do not know much about the socio-cultural

aspects of their lives, they may be required to frequently establish meanings for

such unknown facts during dialogue. Once the information has been grounded, it

would be possible for interlocutors to “make use of these shared perspectives on

subsequent trials of task” (Horton 2008, 205). Thus, some background knowledge,

Mehdi Purmohammad

that is shared among L1 speakers, only becomes accessible to an L2 speaker dur-

ing the course of the dialogue. These occurrences make the linguistic alignment

process challenging for both parties. Under the circumstances, the L1 speaker

may need to spend considerable time explaining such things as “what it is”, “what

people are doing”, and “how things are” to the L2 speaker. The aim of such explana-

tions is to establish more common ground between the two interlocutors. I would

call this a “backward process to re-establish common ground”. An L1 speaker may

need to produce longer descriptions, thus more hedges are expected during L1–L2

dialogue than L1–L1 conversation.

The lack of sociocultural information may make an L2 speaker appear as out

of touch with the reality of the L1 speaker during the course of dialogue. L2 speak-

ers may not be completely engaged in the various aspects of the culture of those

who speak that language natively. (see Council of Europe 2001, for more details on

the sociocultural knowledge). These areas might include an inadequate knowledge

of traditional foods, social events, famous musicians and music works, actors and

actresses, history, popular TV shows, and so on. In such cases, interaction and

alignment would be suboptimal, because alignment typically occurs when speak-

ers believe that they understand each other. In other words, alignment is achieved

to the extent that speakers “share much relevant background knowledge” (Garrod

and Pickering 2009, 294).

4. Mechanisms involved in linguistic alignment

As discussed above, linguistic alignment occurs in dialogue. The question that

arises here is what mechanisms permit lexical alignment? As mentioned above, the

priming mechanism leads to alignment. As a function of the priming mechanism,

some degree of automatic linguistic alignment is, thus, predicted in any dialogue

(Pickering and Garrod 2004). Lexical alignment may also be interpreted in terms

of the “activation threshold hypothesis” proposed in Paradis (1993, 1997, 2004).

According to this hypothesis, when there are two or more competitors for selec-

tion, the lexical item with the lower activation threshold level is selected. In a bilin-

gual setting, there are at least two competitors for any word selection (Kroll et al.

2008), one competitor is from the base language and the other is its equivalent in

the other language. The hypothesis asserts that the item that has the lower activa-

tion threshold level is selected regardless of which language it belongs to. However,

the base language continues to govern the exchange and to define communica-

tion patterns. According to the hypothesis, there are two main factors that lower

the activation threshold level of a lexical item: the word’s frequency of use, and

its recency of use (Paradis 2004). This idea, therefore, shares important features

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue 5

with the very well-established effects (primacy and recency) in human memory.

According to the recency effect, “recall would likely be greatest, all else held equal,

for items most recently grounded in conversation” (Colston 2008, 154). Thus, it is

possible that recency influences the overall structure of dialogue (see Brennan and

Clark 1996 for recency effect). If a word has already been used, or if it has been

used more frequently, it is more likely to be selected instead of its equivalent. This

is consistent with the account of lexical alignment that each term selection is af-

fected by the availability of the terms. Under this interpretation, the recency of past

references affects the speakers’ choice of words (Brannan and Clark 1996). Thus,

when a speaker uses a word during the course of dialogue, its activation threshold

level is lowered both in the memory of the speaker and the interlocutor. In other

words, a speaker’s production of a word enhances the availability of that item in the

memory of the interlocutor as well (see Jucks et al. 2008 for extensive discussion).

Thus, a bridge is made between the mental lexicon of the speaker and his addressee

during dialogue. The activation of lexical items does not always occur as a function

of “autonomous processes within the interlocutor, but can just as well be due to

prior contributions by her partner” (Pickering and Garrod 2006, 201).

The account that a speaker’s production of a word lowers the activation

threshold level of that word in the mental lexicon of his or her comprehender

is in line with Pickering and Garrods’ (2013) proposal that language produc-

tion and language comprehension are interwoven. The researchers postulate that

language production and comprehension are not quite distinct from each other.

Accordingly, interlocutors’ tendency to become aligned with each other during di-

alogue indicates the close link between language production and comprehension.

Pickering and Garrod (2013) postulate that “the tight coupling between interlocu-

tors in dialogue is the evidence for effects of comprehension processes on acts of

production and vice versa” (9). I submit that the activation threshold level account

could well be integrated with the alignment account in dialogue. Together, they

might ultimately be captured in one single integrated account that includes both

production and comprehension processes.

As argued above, the two interlocutors co-ordinate their linguistic behaviour

in different ways. Co-ordination during dialogue is made possible through low

level mechanisms of linguistic alignment that function to increase the similarity

of mental representations across interlocutors (Horton 2008). According to the

interactive alignment account (Pickering and Garrod 2004) the automatic prim-

ing mechanism enhances the likelihood that a particular linguistic behaviour pro-

duced by a speaker during dialogue will be produced more frequently by both the

same speaker again and the interlocutor as well. Thus, the mental representations of

interlocutors are aligned through the automatic priming processes (Horton 2008).

The aim of this coordination is to make sure that their conversation flows easily

Mehdi Purmohammad

and intelligibly and that interlocutors are favorably disposed toward each other

(Richardson et al. 2007). The speakers’ formulation of utterances in dialogue has

at least two main components: first, the speakers’ prior beliefs about the interlocu-

tor, his or her culture, norms, and background; second, the immediate feedback

that is received from the interlocutor. Feedback from the interlocutor might affect

a speaker’s word and topic selection, and so on. Thus, communication is achieved

jointly through the “alignment of information states” (Pickering and Garrod 2006,

209) and the dynamic emergence of feedback during the course of dialogue.

5. Language selection and the linguistic alignment in multilingual

communities

I consider language selection to be the “macro-linguistic alignment” process in

multilingual communities. Language choice alignment is a necessary factor that

makes successful communication possible in multilingual communities such as

Switzerland in which more than two languages are spoken (four national lan-

guages — German, French, Italian, and Romansh). (see Werlen 2007, for Swiss

multilingualism). Moreover, as English is taught as a foreign language at school,

many people have some degree of proficiency. As is the case in Switzerland, it is

not unusual to find people who speak different languages or different dialects (e.g.,

Bernese dialect in Switzerland) in multilingual communities. Naturally, the first

step to establish linguistic alignment is likely to be the selection of an appropri-

ate language or even an appropriate dialect. In fact, in a multilingual community,

where people have the option to select one of the languages or dialects for com-

munication, language or dialect choice alignment is the most obvious example of

linguistic alignment. Selecting an appropriate language in multilingual communi-

ties enhances alignments at other levels of language production (e.g., word choice,

accent). Extending the notion of linguistic alignment to “language choice align-

ment” might first be interpreted as a deviation from the main accounts of linguis-

tic alignment. However, considering multilingualism and the various ways people

with different languages communicate with each other in Switzerland may point

to the fact that in some multilingual communities “language choice alignment” is

considered to be both a sort of linguistic alignment and the most important step

toward establishing different types of linguistic alignments.

As stated above, it is common to find people who can speak more than one

language in Switzerland. The main question, therefore, is what mechanism governs

the choice of language to use for communication. Werlen (2007) first reviewed the

two models proposed by Kolde (1981) and then introduced two additional mod-

els. According to Kolde (1981, cited in Werlen 2007), in the “Swiss model”, the

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue 7

second speaker answers in his or her own first language. It means that in the Swiss

model everyone speaks their own language. But if a speaker follows the second

model (Biel/Bienne model), known also as the monolingual model, the second

speaker will answer in the same language as the first speaker (the interlocutor).

Thus, the main difference between the “Swiss model” and the Biel/Bienne model

is that, while in the second model the addressee’s language choice is accepted, in

the first model the addressee’s language is not accepted (Werlen 2007). In a third

model (default model) proposed by Werlen (2007), everybody chooses “the de-

fault language of the territory” (142). However, applying a lingua franca model will

lead speakers to use a language that is “neither participant’s language” (142). Lüdi

(2007) argues that further communication models may exist. For example, the

monolingual model might be integrated with the lingua franca model. As Swiss

multilingualism shows, speakers’ language choice can have a great effect on lin-

guistic alignment during dialogue. Each of the language choice models permits

different levels of linguistic alignment during dialogue. For example, while vari-

ous types of linguistic alignment might occur in the Biel/Bienne and lingua franca

models, no or not much alignment is expected in the Swiss model. For example,

in the Swiss model, lexical alignment may only be possible through using mixed

speech (e.g., code switching).

6. Conclusion

Dialogue is the most natural form of language use (Ni Eochaidh 2010). However, it

is also the most complex form of language use, because precise timing is required

to properly coordinate interlocutors’ activities (Menenti et al. 2012). Dialogue is

also easy (Garrod and Pickering 2004). As Garrod and Pickering put forward,

part of the explanation why dialogue is easy is that dialogue is a joint activity and

that interlocutors work jointly to construct a mutual understanding of what they

are speaking about. Both the interlocutors and the dialogue are highly dynamic.

Interlocutors perform a joint action during dialogue (Garrod and Pickering 2009).

Thus, dialogue is not merely a transferred message from one speaker to another in

a neutral space, but speakers rather negotiate meaning by “interweaving their con-

tributions” (Pickering and Garrod 2013,1). This is, however, true for both L1–L1

dialogue and L1–L2 dialogue.

It follows that, as L1–L2 dialogue may be affected by other resources and states

that are not available or present in dialogue between two native speakers, there

will naturally be some differences between L1–L1 dialogue and L1–L2 dialogue.

These differences influence linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue. The degrees of

alignment in L1–L2 depend on some other variables that may be absent in L1–L1

Mehdi Purmohammad

dialogue. Therefore, we might expect more different patterns of alignment in L1–

L2 dialogue than in dialogue between two native speakers. What makes L1–L2 di-

alogue more complicated than L1–L1 dialogue is that in the former, communica-

tion partners are not only differentiated by linguistic factors. They may have very

different beliefs, identities, cultures and backgrounds. This situation may exist in

L1–L1 dialogue, but as stated above, more differences of these types are expected

in L1–L2 conversation. Thus, one of the main steps in establishing alignment is to

know about the interlocutors’ beliefs, identities, cultures, and background, because

the extent to which speakers align is affected by their beliefs about the identity of

their interlocutors (Branigan et al. 2011). There is evidence (Giles et al. 1991) that

when interlocutors show some affiliation with the culture of the other interlocutor,

they are more quickly engaged to build successful alignment.

Given that dialogue between a native speaker and a non-native speaker is likely

to differ from L1–L1 dialogue, more alignment in L1–L2 dialogue needs to be made

by the two interlocutors at different linguistic levels (e.g., syntax, pragmatic and lex-

ical) in order for communicators to maintain successful dialogue. This suggests that

alignment in L1–L1 dialogue might also be different from L1–L2 dialogue quanti-

tatively. Such alignment of differing linguistic representations may occur through

priming mechanisms (Costa et al. 2008). However, a speaker’s affiliation with the

culture of the other interlocutor (Branigan et al. 2011), feedback from the inter-

locutor, the L2 speaker’s goal to learn the language, recasting, and the degree of lan-

guage proficiency of L2 speaker will all impact alignment in L1–L2 dialogue as well.

Finally, linguistic alignment may also be interpreted in terms of the activation

threshold hypothesis (Paradis 2004). According to this interpretation, language

production of speakers may lower the activation threshold levels of those items or

structures in the memory of their interlocutors. Consequently, a bridge is made

between the mental lexicon of the speaker and the addressee during dialogue. This

account is in line with Pickering and Garrods’ (2013) account that language pro-

duction and language comprehension are interwoven.

References

Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Charles R. Lemery, and Jennifer Mullett. 1986. I Show How You

Feel: Motor Mimicry as a Communicative Act.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

50 (2): 322–329. DOI: 10.1037/ 0022 -3514 .50 .2.322

Bavelas, Janet B., Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson. 2000. “Listeners as co-narrators.” Journal of

Personali ty and Social Psychology 79: 941–952.

Bernolet, Sarah, Robert J. Hartsuiker, and Martin J. Pickering. 2007. “Shared Syntactic

Representations in Bilinguals: Evidence for the Role of Word-Order Repetition.” Journal of

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue 9

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33: 931–949.

DOI: 10.1037 /0278 -7393 .33 .5 .931

Bongaerts, Theo. 1999. “Ultimate Attainment in L2 Pronunciation: The Case of Very Advanced

Late L2 Learners.” In Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, ed. by

David Birdsong, 133–159. Mahwah, New: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bortfeld, Heather, and Susan E. Brennan. 1997. “Use and Acquisition of Idiomatic Expressions

in Referring by Native and Non-native Speakers.” Discourse Processes 23: 119–147.

DOI: 10.1080 /01638537709544986

Branigan, Holly P. 2007. “Syntactic Priming”. Language and Linguistics Compass 1 (1-2): 1–16.

DOI: 10.1111/j .1749-818X.2006 .00001 .x

Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, Janet F. McLean, and Ash Brown. 2011.

“The Role of Beliefs in Lexical Alignment: Evidence from Dialogs with Humans and

Computers.” Cognition 121: 41–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011

Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Janet F. McLean. 2010. “Linguistic

Alignment between People and Computers.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2355–2368.

DOI: 10.1016 /j .p ragm a.2009 .12.012

Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, Janet F. McLean, and Alexandra A. Cleland. 2007.

“Syntactic Alignment and Participant Role in Dialogue.” Cognition 104 (2): 163–197.

DOI: 10.1016/j .cogni tion .2006 .05 .006

Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, and Alexandra A. Cleland. 2000. “Syntactic Coordination

in Dialogue.” Cognition 75: B13–B25. DOI: 10.1016/ S0010-0277(99 )00081-5

Brennan, Susan E., and Herbert H. Clark. 1996. “Conceptual Pacts and Lexical Choice in

Conversation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22:

1482–1493 . DOI: 10.1037/ 0278 -7393 .22 .6 .1482

Butler, Yuko G., and Kenji Hakuta. 2004. “Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition.”

In The Handbook of Bilingualism, ed. by Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie, 114–144.

Massachus ett s: Blackwell Publishing.

Cook, Vivian. 2002. “Background to the L2 User.” In Portraits of the L2 User, ed. by Vivian Cook,

1–28. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.

Cabaroglu, Nese, Suleyman Basaran, and Jon Roberts. 2010. “A Comparison between the

Occurrence of Pause, Repetitions and Recasts under Conditions of Face-to-face- and

Computermediated Communication: A Preliminary Study.” The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology. April. 9 (2).

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

DOI: 10.1017/ CB O9780511620539

Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer. 1989. “Contributing to Discourse.” Cognitive Science

13: 259–294 . DOI: 10.1207/s 15516709cog1302_7

Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. “Referring as a Collaborative Process.”

Cognition 22: 1–39. DOI: 10.1016/ 0010-0277(86 )90010 -7

Clark, Herbert H., and Catherine R. Marshall. 1981. “Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge.”

In Elements of discourse understanding , ed. by Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ivan Sag,

10–63. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Colston, Herbert L. 2008. “A New Look at Common Ground: Memory, Egocentrism, and Joint

Action.” In Intention, Common Ground, and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan

Kecskes and Jacob Mey, 151–188. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Condon, William S., and William D. Ogston. 1966. “Sound Film Analysis of Normal and

Pathological Behavior Patterns.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 143: 338–347.

DOI: 10.1097/ 00005053 -196610000-00005

Costa, Albert., Martin J. Pickering, and Antonella Sorace. 2008. “Alignment in Second Language

Dialogue.” Language and Cognitive Processes 23 (4): 528–556.

DOI: 10.1080 /01690960801920545

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

teaching, assessment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, Rod. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Fussell, Susan R., and Robert M. Krauss. 1992. “Coordination of Knowledge in Communication:

Effects of Speakers’ Assumptions about What Others Know.” Journal of Personality and

Social Psychol ogy 62: 378–391. DOI: 10.1037/ 0022 -3514.62 .3 .378

Garrod, Simon C., and Anthony Anderson. 1987. “Saying What You Mean in Dialogue: A Study

in Conceptual and Semantic Co-ordination.” Cognition 27 (2): 181–218.

DOI: 10.1016/ 0010 -0277(87 )90018 -7

Garrod, Simon, and Martin J. Pickering. 2009. “Joint Action, Interactive Alignment, and

Dialogue.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1:292–304 . DOI: 10.1111/j .1756 -8765 .2009 .01020.x

Garrod, Simon, and Martin J. Pickering. 2007a. “Alignment in Dialogue.” In Oxford Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gareth Gaskell, 443–451. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garrod, Simon, and Martin J. Pickering. 2007b. “Automaticity in Language Production in

Monologue and Dialogue.” In Automaticity and Control in Language Processing, ed. by

Antje S. Meyer, Linda R. Wheeldon, and Andrea Krott, 1–21. Hove: Psychology Press.

Garrod, Simon, and Martin J. Pickering. 2004. “Why Is Conversation So Easy?” Trends in

Cognitive Sciences 8: 8–11. DOI: 10.1016/j .t i cs .2003 .10 .016

Gass, Susan M. 2003. “Input and Interaction.” In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition,

ed. by Catherine J. Doughty and Michael H. Long, 224–255. Massachusetts: Blackwell

Publishers . DOI: 10.1002/ 9780470756492 .ch9

Gass, Susan M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gil, José Maria. 2011. “Relevance Theory and Unintended Transmission of Information.”

Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (1): 1–40. DOI: 10.1515/IPRG.2011.001

Giles, Howard, Nikolas Coupland, and Justine Coupland. 1991. “Accommodation Theory:

Communication, Context, and Consequence.” In Contexts of Accommodation: Developments

in Applied Sociolinguistics, ed. by Howard Giles, Justine Coupland, and Nikolas Coupland,

1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511663673.001

Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. “Syntactic Priming: a Corpus-based Approach.” Journal of Psycholinguistic

Research 34: 365–399. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3

Hartsuiker, Robert J., Martin J. Pickering, and Eline Veltkamp. 2004. “Is Syntax Separate

or Shared between Languages? Cross-linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish/English

Bilinguals.” Psychol og ical Science 15: 409–414 . DOI: 10.1111/j .0956 -7976 .2004 .00693 .x

Horton, William S. 2008. “A Memory-based Approach to Common Ground and Audience

Design.” In Intention, Common Ground, and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan

Kecskes and Jacob Mey, 189–222. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jackson, Richard. 2005. “Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-

terrorism (New Approaches to Conflict Analysis).” Manchester University Press.

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue 31

Jucks, Regina, Becker Maria Bettina, and Rainer Bromme. 2008. “Lexical Entrainment in

Written Discourse: Is Expert’s Word Use Adapted to the Addressee?” Discourse Processes

45: 497–518 . DOI: 10.1080 /01638530802356547

Kawanani, Sachiyo, and Kawanani Kazuya. 2009. “Evaluation of World Englishes among

Japanese Junior and Senior High school Students.” Second Language Studies 27 (2): 1–69.

Kolde, Gottfried. 1981. “Sprachkontakte in gemischtsprachigen Städten. Vergleichende

Untersuchungen über Voraussetzungen und Formen sprachlicher Interaktion verschie-

densprachiger Jugendlicher in den Schweizer Städten Biel/Bienne und Fribourg/ Friburg

i.Ue.” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte H.37. [Language contacts in

mixed-language towns. Comparative studies on conditions and voice interaction forms dif-

ferent language of young people in the Swiss cities of Biel / Bienne and Fribourg / Friburg

i.Ue. Journal of dialectology and linguistics, supplements H.37]

Krauss, Robert M., and Jennifer S. Pardo. 2004. “Is Alignment Always the Result of Priming?”

Behaviou r al and Brain Science 27: 203–204 . DOI: 10.1017/S 0140525X0436005X

Kroll, Judith F., Susan C. Bobb, Maya Misra, and Taomei Gue. 2008. “Language Selection in

Bilingual Speech: Evidence for Inhibitory Process.” Acta Psychologica 128: 416–430.

DOI: 10.1016/ j.a ctp s y.2008 .02 .001

Lee, Danielle H., and Peter Brusilovsky. 2009. “Reinforcing Recommendation Using Implicit

Negative Feedback.” In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, Lecture Notes in

Computer Science, ed. by Geert Jan Houben, Gord McCalla, Fabio Pianesi, and Massimo

Zancanaro, 422–427. Vol. 5535. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02247-0_47

Levelt, William J. M. 1989. Speaking from Intention to Articulation. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Levelt, William J. M., and Stephanie Kelter. 1982. “Surface Form and Memory in Question

Answering.” Cognitive Psychol ogy 14: 78–106. DOI: 10.1016/ 0010 -0285(82 )90005 -6

Lüdi, Georges. 2007. “The Swiss Model of Plurilingual Communication.” In Receptive

Multilingualism. Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts, ed. by Jan D.

Ten Thije and Ludger Zeevaert, 159–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075/hsm.6.10lud

Lyster, Roy, and Leila Ranta. 1997. “Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of

Form in Communicative Classrooms.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 37–66.

Mehler, Alexander, Andy Lücking, and Peter Menke. 2011. “Modelling Lexical Alignment in

Spontaneous Direction Dialogue Data by Means of a Lexicon Network Model.” In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing).

Menenti, Laura, Martin J. Pickering, and Simon Garrod. 2012. “Toward a Neural Basis of

Interactive Alignment in Conversation.” Frontiers in human neuroscience 6 (185): 1–9.

DOI: 10.3389 /fnhum .2012 .00185

Mey, Jacob L. 2008. “Impeach or Exorcise?” or, What’s in the (Common) Ground.” In Intention,

Common Ground, and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob Mey,

254–275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter New York. DOI: 10.1515/9783110211474

Ni Eochaidh, Ciara. 2010. The Role of Conceptual and Word Form Representations in Lexical

Alignment: Evidence from Bilingual Dialogue. (Masters’ thesis). Edinburgh: The University

of Edinburgh.

Paradis, Michel. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075/ si bil .18

Paradis, Michel. 1997. “The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Bilingualism.” In Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Annette M. B. De Groot and Judith F.

Kroll, 331–354. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Paradis, Michel. 1993. “Linguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Interference

in Bilingual Speakers: The Activation Threshold Hypotheses.” International Journal of Psycholinguistics: 133–145 .

Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2013. “An Integrated Theory of Language Production

and Comprehension.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (4): 1–64.

DOI: 10.1017/ S0140525X11002160

Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2006. “Alignment as the Basis for Successful

Communication.” Research on Language and Computation 4: 203–228.

DOI: 10.1007/s 11168-0 0 6-9004 -0

Pickering, Martin J., and Simon Garrod. 2004. “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.”

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–225.

Richardson, Daniel C., Rick Dale, and Natasha Z. Kirkham. 2007. “The Art of Conversation Is

Coordination Common Ground and the Coupling of Eye Movements during Dialogue.”

Psychol og ical Science 18 (5): 403–413. DOI: 10.1111/j .1467-9280 .2007 .01914 .x

Roche, Jennifer M., Rick Dale, and Gina M. Caucci. 2012. “Doubling up on Double Meanings:

Pragmatic Alignment.” Language and Cognitive Processes 27 (1): 1–24.

DOI: 10.1080/ 01690965 .2010.509929

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematic for the

Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.

DOI: 10.1353 /l an .1974 .0010

Schenkein, Jim. (1980). “A Taxonomy for Repeating Action Sequences in Natural Conversation.”

In Language production Vol. 1. Speech and talk. ed. by Brian Butterworth, 21–47. London:

Academic Press.

Schiller, Niels O., and Jan Peter de Ruiter. 2004. “Some Notes on Priming, Alignment, and

Selfmonitoring.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 208–209.

DOI: 10.1017/S 0140525X0441005X

Schober, Michael F., and Herbert H. Clark. 1989. “Understanding by Addressees and

Overhearers.” Cognitive Psychology 21: 211–232. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-X

Stalnaker, Robert A. 1974. “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by

Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Ungerer, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.

Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue: From Roles to Principles of Probability, ed. by

Sebastian Feller. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ds.5

Werlen, Iwar. 2007. “Receptive Multilingualism in Switzerland and the Case of Biel/Bienne.” In

Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts, ed. by

Jan D. Ten Thije and Ludger Zeevaert, 137–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075 /hs m.6 .09w er