The communicative function of ambiguity in language

Cognition

Volumn 122, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 280-291

  Piantadosi, Steven T ^a   Tily, Harry ^b   Gibson, Edward ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Information theory; Language processing; Rational design in language

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ARTICLE; ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE; GERMANY; HOMOPHONY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; NETHERLANDS; POLYSEMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYLLABLE; THEORETICAL STUDY;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84855891889     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Allbritton D., McKoon G., Ratcliff R. Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22(3):714-735.
2. Altmann G., Garnham A., Dennis Y. Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31(5):685-712.
3. Altmann G., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73(3):247-264.
4. Altmann G., Steedman M. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 1988, 30(3):191-238.
5. Ariel M. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents 1990, Routledge.
6. Arnold J. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and cognitive processes 2008, 23(4):495-527.
7. Arnold J., Wasow T., Asudeh A., Alrenga P. Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51(1):55-70.
8. Aylett M., Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 2004, 47:31-56.
9. Baayen, H.R., Piepenbrock, R. Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
10. Chomsky N. An interview on minimalism. N. Chomsky, On Nature and Language 2002, 92-161.
11. Cover T., Thomas J. Elements of information theory 2006, John Wiley and sons.
12. Crain S., Steedman M. On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. Natural Language Parsing 1985, 320-358.
13. Demberg, V. (2010). A broad-coverage model of prediction in human sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh.
14. Fellbaum C., et al. WordNet: An electronic lexical database 1998, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. Ferreira V. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2008, 49:209-246.
16. Ferreira V., Dell G. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 2000, 40(4):296-340.
17. Ferreira V., Slevc L., Rogers E. How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?. Cognition 2005, 96(3):263-284.
18. Ferrer i Cancho R. When language breaks into pieces: A conflict between communication through isolated signals and language. Biosystems 2006, 84(3):242-253.
19. Ferrer i Cancho, R. Loreto, V. (in preparation). Conditions for the emergence of combinatorial communication.
20. Ferrer i Cancho R., Solé R. Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2003, 100(3):788.
21. Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society.
22. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. ETD Collection for University of Connecticut.
23. Frisch, S., Broe, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Similarity and phonotactics in arabic.
24. Frisson S., Rayner K., Pickering M. Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2005, 31(5):862-877.
25. Gale, W., Church, K., & Yarowsky, D. (1992). One sense per discourse. In Proceedings of the workshop on Speech and Natural Language (p. 237).
26. Gelman A., Hill J. Data analysis using regression and hierarchical/multilevel models 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2002). Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics (pp. 199-206).
28. Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2003). Variation of entropy and parse trees of sentences as a function of the sentence number. In Proceedings of empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 65-72).
29. Gbson E. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 1998, 68(1):1-76.
30. Givón T. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution 2009, John Benjamins Publishing Co.
31. Graff, P., & Jaeger, T. (2009). Locality and feature specificity in OCP effects: Evidence from Aymara, Dutch, and Javanese. In Proceedings of the main session of the 45th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, il.
32. Grice H. Utterer's meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review 1969, 78(2):147-177.
33. Grodner D., Gibson E., Watson D. Influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension. Cognition 2005, 95(3):275-296.
34. Gundel J., Hedberg N., Zacharski R. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 1993, 69(2):274-307.
35. Haywood S., Pickering M., Branigan H. Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?. Psychological Science 2005, 16(5):362.
36. Hockett C. The origin of speech. Scientific American 1960, 203:88-96.
37. Jaeger, T. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
38. Jaeger T. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 2010, 61:23-62.
39. Juba, B., Kalai, A., Khanna, S., & Sudan, M. (2011). Compression without a common prior: An information-theoretic justification for ambiguity in language. In 2nd Symposium on innovations in computer science.
40. Jurafsky D. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 1996, 20(2):137-194.
41. Kaiser E., Trueswell J. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 2004, 94(2):113-147.
42. Kamide Y., Altmann G., Haywood S. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 49(1):133-156.
43. Kraljic T., Brennan S. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee?. Cognitive Psychology 2005, 50(2):194-231.
44. Levinson S. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature 2000, MIT Press.
45. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106(3):1126-1177.
46. Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference on neural information processing systems.
47. MacKay D. Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms 2003, Cambridge University Press.
48. Manin D. Zipf's law and avoidance of excessive synonymy. Cognitive Science 2008, 32(7):1075-1098.
49. Marslen-Wilson W., Levy E., Tyler L. Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. Speech, Place, and Action 1982, 339-378.
50. McCarthy, J. (1985). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
51. McCarthy J. Ocp effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 1986, 17(2):207-263.
52. McDonald S., Shillcock R. Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science 2003, 14(6):648.
53. Miller G. Language and communication 1951, McGraw-Hill.
54. Mims, K., & Trueswell, J. (1999). Do speakers help listeners? Prosodic cues, lexical cues, and ambiguity avoidance. In Poster presented at the twelfth annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York.
55. Navigli R. Word sense disambiguation: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 2009, 41(2):10.
56. Paninski L. Estimation of entropy and mutual information. Neural Computation 2003, 15(6):1191-1253.
57. Piantadosi, S., & Gibson, E. (2008). Uniform information density in discourse. In Talk presented at the twenty-first annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing.
58. Piantadosi S., Tily H., Gibson E. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, 108(9):3526.
59. Pinker S., Bloom P. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1990, 13:707-784.
60. Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. (submitted for publication). Cue effectiveness in communicatively efficient discourse production.
61. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422.
62. Reder L., Anderson J., Bjork R. A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1974, 102(4):648-656.
63. Roland D., Elman J., Ferreira V. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 2006, 98(3):245-272.
64. Sedivy J. Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 46(2):341-370.
65. Sedivy J., Tanenhaus M., Chambers C., Carlson G. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 1999, 71(2):109-147.
66. Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 1948, 27:623-656.
67. Snedeker J., Trueswell J. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48(1):103-130.
68. Spivey M., Tanenhaus M. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition 1998, 24:1521-1543.
69. Tanenhaus M., Spivey-Knowlton M., Eberhard K., Sedivy J. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 1995, 268(5217):1632.
70. Tily, H., & Piantadosi, S. 2009. Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
71. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M., Garnsey S. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Memory and Language 1994, 33:285-318.
72. Van Son R., Pols L. How efficient is speech?. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 2003, 25:171-184.
73. Warren T., Gibson E. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 2002, 85(1):79-112.
74. Wasow T., Arnold J. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English 2003, 119-154.
75. Wasow, T., Perfors, A., & Beaver, D. (2005). The puzzle of ambiguity. Morphology and The Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe. CSLI Publications.
76. Yarowsky, D. (1993). One sense per collocation. In Proceedings of the workshop on human language technology (p. 271).
77. Zipf G. The psychobiology of language 1936, Routledge, London.
78. Zipf G. Human behavior and the principle of least effort 1949, Addison-Wesley, New York.