Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1998; 37(04/05): 471-476
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634550
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

How Groups Co-ordinate their Concepts and Terminology: Implications for Medical Informatics

S. Garrod
1   Human Communication Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Conceptual and terminological systems are established and maintained by the communities who use them. This paper reports experiments which investigate the role of communication and interaction in the process. The experiments show that isolated pairs of communicators and virtual communities of interacting pairs naturally converge on their own conceptual and terminological systems when confronted with a common task. The results also indicate that the system converged on is optimal for that particular group engaged in that particular task. These findings are discussed in relation to the increasing use of tightly coordinated medical teams and its implications for getting them to adopt standardized medical terminologies.

Keywords

Concepts - Medical Terminology - Communication
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Bruner JS, Goodnow J, Austin GA. A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley; 1956
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Biederman I. Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review 1987; 94: 115-47.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Schank R. Conceptual dependency: a theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology 1972; 3: 552-631.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schyns PG, Goldstone RL, Thibaut JP. The development of features in object concepts. Behaviour and Brain Sciences. (in press).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Murphy GL, Medin D. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 1985; 92: 289-316.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Glucksberg S, Danks JH. Experimental Psycholinguistics: an introduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1975
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Anderson A, Garrod S. The dynamics of referential meaning in spontaneous dialogue: some preliminary studies. In: Reilly R. ed. Communication failure in dialogue and discourse. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1987: 161-83.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Garrod S, Anderson A. Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition 1987; 27: 181-218.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Garrod S, Doherty G. Conversation, coordination and convention: an empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition 1994; 53: 181-215.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Levelt WJM. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.;
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Clark HH, Wilkes-Gibbs D. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 1986; 22: 1-39.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar