Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1137-1146

  Lam, Tuan Q ^a   Watson, Duane G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHONETICS; PROBABILITY; SEMANTICS; SHORT TERM MEMORY; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ATTENTION; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHONETICS; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 78650665646     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1137     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Anderson, A. H., & Howarth, B. (2002). Referential form and word duration in video-mediated and face-to-face dialogues. In J. Bos, M. E. Foster, & C. Matheson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 13-20). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
2. Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
3. Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language & Speech, 47, 31-56. doi:10.1177/00238309040470010201
4. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Baker, R. E., & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language & Speech, 52, 391-413. doi:10.1177/0023830909336575
6. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty- Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 1-22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
7. Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. P. (1999). The disassociation of deaccenting, givenness, and syntactic role in spontaneous speech. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granville, & A. C. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1753- 1756). San Francisco.
8. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M. L., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 92-111. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
9. Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M. L., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1001-1024. doi:10.1121/1.1534836 (Pubitemid 36240728)
10. Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945-983). San Diego: Academic Press.
11. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.5.14) [Computer program]. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from www.praat.org/.
12. Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441-472.
13. Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 292-314. doi:10.1016/S0749 -596X(02)00001-3
14. Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language & Cognitive Processes, 5, 313-349. doi:10.1080/01690969008407066
15. Fosler-Lussier, E., & Morgan, N. (1999). Effects of speaking rate and word predictability on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication, 29, 137-158. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00035-7 (Pubitemid 30514828)
16. Fowler, C. A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated context words produced in various communicative contexts. Language & Speech, 31, 307-319.
17. Fowler, C. A., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers' signaling of "new" and "old" words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 489-504. doi:10.1016/0749 -596X(87)90136-7
18. Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), The 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 933-938). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
19. Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 35, pp. 151-166). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, J. K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 313-338. doi:10.1006/ jmla.1997.2547
21. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117. doi:10.1016/0010 -0277(96)81418-1
22. Isaacs, A. M., & Watson, D. G. (2009, March). Speakers and listeners don't agree: Audience design in the production and comprehension of acoustic prominence. Poster presentation at CUNY 2009: Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.
23. Isaacs, A. M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Accent detection is a slippery slope: Direction and rate of f 0 change drives listeners' comprehension. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25, 1178-1200.
24. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26-37.
25. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23-62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych. 2010.02.002
26. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 824-843. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824
27. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229-254). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
28. Kidd, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008, April). Prosodic phrasing and function word pronunciation. Paper presented at Experimental and Theoretical Advances in Prosody, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
29. Lieberman, R. (1963). Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language & Speech, 6, 172-175. doi:10.1121/1.1918465
30. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
31. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
32. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds), Intentions in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005a). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62, 146-159. doi:10.1159/000090095 (Pubitemid 43030010)
34. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005b). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2561-2569. doi:10.1121/1.2011150 (Pubitemid 41463966)
35. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2001). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object database: Color and texture improve object recognition. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 413a.
36. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174-215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
37. Watson, D. G. (2010). The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 52, pp. 163-183). Burlington: Academic Press.
38. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106, 1548-1557. doi:10.1016/ j.cognition.2007.06.009 (Pubitemid 351172244)
39. Wingfield, A. (1968). Effect of frequency on identification and naming objects. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 226-234. doi:10.2307/1421267
40. Zipf, G. K. (1929). Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 15, 1-95.