Drawing on a corpus of eight task-based interactions involving a map task (Australian National Database of Spoken Language (ANDOSL)), this article seeks to focus on how speakers orient to directional terms in an interactional context, and in so doing, to add to features that can be deemed to characterize this speech exchange system. Analysis of the data using conversation analysis showed that features of the talk were confirmation and clarification checks, which provided an opportunity to check understanding and the accuracy of the instruction leading to a correction, acknowledgement or further information; modulated repair and mitigated criticism, resulting in the maintenance of an affiliative stance towards the other speaker; and avoidance of problems that viewpoints or directional terms might cause. Problems with the directional terms in this corpus confirm prior research that the confusion between east and west, and left and right are the terms that cause problems for speakers.
AndersonAH (1995) Negotiating coherence in dialogue. In: GernsbacherMAGivónT (eds) Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–40.
2.
AndersonAHBaderMBardE. (1991) The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech34: 351–366.
3.
BardESottiloCAylettM. (2000) Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language42(1): 1–22.
4.
CarlettaJMellishCS (1996) Risk-taking and recovery in task-oriented dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics26: 71–107.
5.
ClarkHH (1973) Space, time, semantics and the child. In: MooreTE (ed.) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press, pp. 27–63.
6.
CoventryKRTenbrinkTBatemanJA (eds) (2009) Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
FilipiAWalesRJ (2004) Perspective-taking and perspective-shifting as socially situated and collaborative actions. Journal of Pragmatics36: 1851–1884.
8.
FilipiAWalesRJ (2009) An interactionally situated analysis of what prompts shift in the motion verbs come and go in a map task. In: CoventryKRTenbrinkTBatemanJA (eds) Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–69.
9.
FilipiAWalesRJ (2010) The organization of assessments produced by children and adults in task based talk. Journal of Pragmatics42: 3114–3129.
GardnerMPottsR (2010) Hand dominance influences the processing of observed bodies. Brain and Cognition73(1): 35–40.
12.
GarrettMF (1993) Errors and their relevance for models of language production. In: BlankenGDittmannJGrimmH. (eds) Linguistic Disorders and Pathologies: An International Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 72–92.
13.
GarrodSC (1997) How groups co-ordinate their concepts and terminology: Implications for medical informatics. Methods of Information in Medicine37: 471–476.
14.
GarrodSCAndersonA (1987) Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition27: 181–218.
15.
GarrodSCDohertyG (1994) Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition53: 181–214.
16.
GarrodSCPickeringMJ (2004) Why is conversation so easy?Trends in Cognitive Science8: 8–11.
17.
GrabowskiJMillerGA (2000) Factors affecting the use of dimensional prepositions in German and American English: Object orientation, social context, and prepositional pattern. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research29(5): 517–553.
18.
HallJK (1993) The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics14: 145–166.
19.
HeritageJ (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.
20.
JeffersonG (1984) Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics17: 197–216.
21.
JeffersonG (1987) On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In: ButtonGLeeJRE (eds) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 86–100.
22.
Johnson-LairdPN (1983) Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
LeveltWJM (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition14: 41–104.
24.
LeveltWJM (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
MainwaringSTverskyBOhgishiMSchianoDJ (2003) Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spatial Cognition and Computation: An Interdisciplinary Journal3(1): 3–42.
26.
MillarBVonwillerJHarringtonJDermodyP (1994) The Australian National Database of Spoken Language. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 94, Adelaide, Vol. 1, pp. 197–100.
27.
MullerPPrévotL (2009) Grounding information in route explanation dialogues. In: CoventryKRTenbrinkTBatemanJA (eds) Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 166–177.
28.
PickeringMGarrodSC (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Science27: 169–225.
29.
PsathasG (1986) Some sequential structures in direction-giving. Human Studies9: 231–246.
30.
SchegloffEA (1972) Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In: SudnowD (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.
31.
SchegloffEA (1987) Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In: ButtonGLeeJRE (eds) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 70–85.
32.
SchegloffEA (1992a) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology97: 1295–1345.
33.
SchegloffEA (1992b) On talk and its institutional occasions. In: DrewPHeritageJ (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–134.
34.
SchegloffEA (1997a) Third turn repair. In: GuyGRFeaginCSchiffrinDBaughJ (eds) Towards a Social Science of Language. Papers in Honor of William Labov, Vol. 2: Social Interaction and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–40.
35.
SchegloffEA (1997b) Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes23: 499–545.
36.
SchegloffEA (2000) When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics21: 205–243.
37.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction, Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SchegloffEAJeffersonGSacksH (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53: 361–382.
39.
SchoberMF (1993) Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition47: 1–24.
40.
SchoberMF (1995) Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations?Discourse Processes20: 219–247.
41.
SchoberMF (1998) How addressees affect spatial perspective choice in dialogue. In: OlivierPGappKP (eds) Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 231–245.
42.
SchoberMF (2009) Spatial dialogue between partners with mismatched abilities. In: CoventryKRTenbrinkTBatemanJA (eds) Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–39.
43.
ShollMJEgethHE (1981) Right–left confusion in the adult: A verbal labelling effect. Memory and Cognition9: 339–350.
44.
SvennevigJ (2008) Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics40(2): 333–348.
45.
TaylorHTverskyB (1996) Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language35: 371–391.
46.
TenbrinkTRossJRThomasKE. (2010) Route instructions in map-based human–human and human–computer dialogue: A comparative analysis. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing21(5): 292–309.
47.
TverskyBLeePMainwaringS (1999) Why do speakers mix perspectives?Journal of Spatial Cognition and Computation1: 399–412.
48.
WatsonMEPickeringMJBraniganHP (2009) Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In: CoventryKRTenbrinkTBatemanJA (eds) Spatial Language and Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 8–22.
49.
WunderlichDReineltR (1982) How to get there from here. In: JarvellaRJWolfgangK (eds) Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 183–201.
