Is alignment always the result of automatic priming?

Area of Science:

• Psycholinguistics
• Cognitive Science
• Communication Theory

Background:

• Clark's theory of communication lacks detailed psychological processes.
• Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) theory attempts to address this by focusing on automatic priming and alignment.
• Existing theories inadequately explain complex dialogic interactions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critique the reliance on automatic processes in P&G's mechanistic theory of dialogue.
• To propose the integration of less automatic cognitive processes.
• To enhance the explanation of psychological mechanisms in communication.

Main Methods:

• Theoretical analysis of existing dialogue theories (Clark, P&G).
• Identification of limitations in automatic priming and alignment explanations.
• Argument for incorporating intermediate cognitive processes.

Main Results:

• P&G's theory, while mechanistic, is insufficient due to over-reliance on automaticity.
• Automatic processes alone cannot fully account for the nuances of dialogic interaction.
• Less automatic, non-deliberate cognitive processes are crucial for explaining dialogue.

Conclusions:

• Dialogue requires a broader range of cognitive processes beyond automatic priming and alignment.
• Integrating less automatic cognitive mechanisms will improve mechanistic theories of dialogue.
• Further research should explore these intermediate processes in communication.