Cover not available

Article In: Interaction Studies: Online-First Articles

Seventeen times six equals eleven-twelve

A multi-level analysis of a conversation with Donald Trump

ORCiD logo with link | University of California, Merced
 | Department of Psychology University of Wisconsin — Madison
 | Independent ScholarSanta CruzCA
 | University of RochesterNY
 | University of California, San Diego
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
In this interdisciplinary examination of a complex multi-party conversation, we apply a variety of theoretical perspectives and tools for understanding discourse to a segment of a popular talk show. We use a broad range of psycholinguistic and social psychological principles and methodologies to make sense of a situation in which, for a considerable time, the wrong answer to an arithmetic question is accepted as correct among a heterogeneous group of people with different agendas. Our analysis of the interaction identifies phenomena occurring at multiple levels as eight people are clamoring to influence the conversation in their own way, arguing, interrupting one another, aligning on certain phrases, and generating embodied mental imagery. While math errors are common human mistakes, what stands out is how social dominance allows an incorrect answer to be accepted as correct. We suggest that when multiple theoretical perspectives and tools are applied together to examine real-world linguistic phenomena, a multi-scale richness and massive interactivity becomes apparent that is sometimes neglected when language scientists focus solely on a single level of analysis.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods
    • Research design
    • Data collection
    • Data analysis
    • Trustworthiness and ethics
  • The conversation
  • Levels of language games
  • Pragmatic illegitimacy
  • Gestures and mental imagery
  • “Good Enough Processing” and a “Noisy-channel”
  • Referential pacts and convergence
  • Social dominance and deference
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • Author queries
  • References
References (67)
References
Abney, D. H., Dale, R., Louwerse, M. M., & Kello, C. T. (2018). The bursts and lulls of multimodal interaction: Temporal distributions of behavior reveal differences between verbal and non-verbal communication. Cognitive Science, 42(4), 1297–1316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., & Bakker, A. (2016). Making sense of movement in embodied design for mathematics learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alviar, C., Kello, C. T., & Dale, R. (2023). Multimodal coordination and pragmatic modes in conversation. Language Sciences, 97, 101524. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, J. A. (1998). Learning arithmetic with a neural network: Seven times seven is about fifty. In Scarborough & Stenberg (Eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science (vol. 4, p. 255–300). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrén, M. (2010). Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. PhD dissertation. Lund University.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723–742. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, P., Léone, J., Gardes, M. L., & Prado, J. (2024). Fraction knowledge in adults with persistent mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(1), 30–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brehm, L., Jackson, C. N., & Miller, K. L. (2021). Probabilistic online processing of sentence anomalies. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(8), 959–983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. J. Exp. Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, N. B., Barner, D., Frank, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2018). The role of gesture in supporting mental representations: The case of mental abacus arithmetic. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 554–575. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruna, P., & Kello, C. (2025). Least effort and alignment in task-oriented communication. Cognitive Science, 49(4), e70062. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calbris, G. (1990). Semiotics of French gesture. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooperrider, K., Abner, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2018). The palm-up puzzle: Meanings and origins of a widespread form in gesture and sign. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, D. (2025, October 17). Fact check: Five false numbers Trump used at one event. CNN. [URL]
Dale, R., Dietrich, E., & Chemero, A. (2009). Explanatory pluralism in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 739–742. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., & Enfield, N. J. (2024). Interactive repair and the foundations of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(1), 30–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Conversation analysis. In Smith, J. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. (pp. 133–159). Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2023). Scale in language. Cognitive Science, 47(10), e13341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, M. C., & Barner, D. (2012). Representing exact number visually using mental abacus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 134–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 145–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8051–8056. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 300–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunlogson, C. (2004). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, J. L., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2003). Processing the meanings of what speakers say and implicate. Discourse Processes, 35(1), 59–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J., & Ward, G. (1992). The influence of pitch range, duration, amplitude and spectral features on the interpretation of the rise-fall-rise intonation contour in English. Journal of Phonetics, 20(2), 241–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, G., & Ferrara, L. (2022). Iconicity as multimodal, polysemiotic, and plurifunctional. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 808896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibarra, A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2016). The flexibility of conceptual pacts: Referring expressions dynamically shift to accommodate new conceptualizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 561. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kita, S. (Ed.). (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Psychology Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kundu, P., & Cummins, D. D. (2013). Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to moral decisions. Social Influence, 8(4), 268–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 234–243). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2013). The difficulties of executing simple algorithms: Why brains make mistakes computers don’t. Cognition, 129(3), 615–636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McQuown, N., Bateson, G., Birdwhistell, R., Brosin, H., & Hockett, C. (1971). The natural history of an interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Library.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of structures and objects for conversation. Pragmatics, 17(2), 195–225.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morand, D. A. (1996). Dominance, deference, and egalitarianism in organizational interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of power and politeness. Organization Science, 7(5), 544–556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onnis, L., & Spivey, M. J. (2012). Toward a new scientific visualization for the language sciences. Information, 3(1), 124–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raafat, R. M., Chater, N., & Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rajaram, S. (2011). Collaboration both hurts and helps memory: A cognitive perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 76–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ryskin, R., & Fang, X. (2021). The many timescales of context in language processing. In Psychology of learning and Motivation (Vol. 75, pp. 201–243). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagi, E., & Diermeier, D. (2017). Language use and coalition formation in multiparty negotiations. Cognitive Science, 41(1), 259–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequency organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2014). The cultural evolution of emergent group-level traits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 243–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Batzloff, B. J. (2018). Bridgemanian space constancy as a precursor to extended cognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 164–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, M., Joanisse, M., & McRae, K. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternau, M., Ariel, M., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2015). Levels of interpretation: New tools for characterizing intended meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 84, 86–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When to nod. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Is conversation built for two? The partitioning of social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabatabaeian, S., O’bi, A., Landy, D., & Marghetis, T. (2025). An information-theoretic foreshadowing of mathematicians’ sudden insights. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(35), e2502791122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Perniss, P., & Vinson, D. (2014). Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., ... & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 24824–24837. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilmes, S. E. D. & Siry, C. (2021). Multimodal interaction analysis: A powerful tool for examining plurilingual students’ engagement in science practices. Research in Science Education, 51, 71–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). Philosophical investigations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley- Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Y. C., & Coulson, S. (2007). Iconic gestures prime related concepts: An ERP study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 57–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Ryskin, R., & Gibson, E. (2023). A noisy-channel approach to depth-charge illusions. Cognition, 232, 105346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue