A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 311-325

  Kahn, Jason M ^a   Arnold, Jennifer E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic prominence; Givenness; Predictability; Reduction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865591016     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Anderson A., Bader M., Bard E.G., Boyle E., Doherty G., Garrod S., et al. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech 1991, 34:351-366.
2. Ariel M. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents 1990, Routledge, London.
3. Arnold J.E. Reference form and discourse patterns (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International 1998, 59:2950.
4. Arnold J.E. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23:495-527.
5. Arnold J.E. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistic Compass 2010, 4:187-203.
6. Arnold J.E., Griffin Z.M. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56:521-536.
7. Arnold J.E., Kahn J.M., Pancani G.C. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19:505-512. 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y.
8. Arnold J.E., Wasow T., Losongco T., Ginstrom R. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 2000, 76:28-55.
9. 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.
10. Aylett M., Turk A. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119:3048-3058.
11. Baayen R.H. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press.
12. Balota D.A., Boland J.E., Shields L.W. Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language 1989, 28:14-36.
13. Bard E.G., Anderson A.H. The unintelligibility of speech to children: Effects of referent availability. Journal of Child Language 1994, 21:623-648.
14. Bard E.G., Anderson A.H., Sotillo C., Aylett M., Doherty-Sneddon G., Newlands A. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 42:1-22.
15. Bard E.G., Aylett M.P. Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue. Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions 2004, 173-191. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. J.C. Trueswell, M.K. Tanenhaus (Eds.).
16. Bard E.G., Lowe A., Altmann G. The effects of repetition on words in recorded dictations. Proceedings of EUROSPEECH '89 1989, Vol. 2:573-576. European Speech Communication Association, Paris.
17. Baumann, S., & Hadelich, K. (2003). Accent type and givenness: An experiment with auditory and visual priming. In Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 1811-1814).
18. Baumann S., Grice M. The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 2006, 38:1636-1657.
19. Bell A., Brenier J.M., Gregory M., Girand C., Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:92-111.
20. Bell A., Jurafsky D., Fosler-Lussier E., Girand C., Gregory M., Gildea D. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 113:1001-1024.
21. Birner B.J., Ward G. Information status and noncanonical word order in English 1998, John Benjamins, Philadelphia.
22. Bock J.K. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 1982, 89:1-47.
23. Bock J.K., Irwin D.E. Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1980, 19:467-484.
24. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.15) [Computer program]. <> Retrieved 30.09.09. http://www.praat.org.
25. Breen M., Fedorenko E., Wagner M., Gibson E. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25:1044-1098.
26. Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In A. Cutler, & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 67-77).
27. Brown-Schmidt S. Beyond common and privileged: Gradient representations of common ground in real-time language use. Language and Cognitive Processes 2012, 27:62-89.
28. Chafe W.L. Discourse, consciousness, and time 1994, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
29. Chafe W.L. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic 1976, 25-56. Academic Press, New York. C.N. Li (Ed.).
30. Clark H.H., Haviland S.E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. Discourse production and comprehension 1977, 1-40. Ablex, Norwood, NJ. R.O. Freedle (Ed.).
31. Clark H.H., Haviland S.E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. Discourse production and comprehension 1977, 1-40. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. R.O. Freedle (Ed.).
32. Clark H.H., Marshall C.R. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Elements of discourse understanding 1981, 10-63. Cambridge University Press, New York. A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber, I.S. Sag (Eds.).
33. Cowles H.W., Ferreira V. The influence of topic status on written and spoken sentence production. Discourse Processes 2012, 49:1-28.
34. Dahan D., Tanenhaus M.K., Chambers C.G. Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 47:292-314.
35. Dell G.S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 1986, 93:283-321.
36. Fowler C. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 1988, 31:307-319.
37. Fowler C.A., Housum J. Talkers' signaling of " new" and " old" words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 1987, 26:489-504.
38. Gahl S. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 2008, 84:474-496.
39. Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language.
40. Gahl S., Garnsey S.M. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 2004, 80:748-775.
41. Galati A., Brennan S.E. Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee?. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 62:35-51. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002.
42. Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 177-220). London: Academic Press.
43. Givón T. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study 1983, 1-42. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam. T. Givón (Ed.).
44. Gregory M.L., Raymond W.D., Bell A., Fosler-Lussier E., Jurafsky D. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability on lexical production. CLS-99 1999, 151-166. University of Chicago.
45. Halliday M.A.K. Intonation and grammar in British English 1967, Mouton, The Hague.
46. Horton W.S., Keysar B. When do speakers take into account common ground?. Cognition 1996, 59:91-117.
47. Jurafsky D., Bell A., Gregory M., Raymond W.D. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure 2001, 229-254. Benjamin, Amsterdam. J. Bybee, P. Hopper (Eds.).
48. Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (submitted for publication). Speaker-internal processes drive durational reduction.
49. Lam T., Watson D. Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition 2010, 38:1137-1146.
50. Levelt W.J. Speaking: From intention to articulation 1989, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
51. Levy R., Jaeger T.F. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 19 2007, 849-856. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. B. Schlokopf, J. Platt, T. Homan (Eds.).
52. Lieberman P. Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and preparation of speech. Language and Speech 1963, 6:172-175.
53. Lindblom B. Explaining variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. Speech production and speech modeling 1990, 403-439. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. W. Hardcastle, A. Marchal (Eds.).
54. Pierrehumbert J.B., Hirschberg J. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Intentions in communication 1990, 271-311. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. P.R. Cohen (Ed.).
55. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., Baayen R.H. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 2005, 62:146-159.
56. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., Baayen R.H. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118:2561-2569.
57. Prince E. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. Radical pragmatics 1981, Academic Press, New York. P. Cole (Ed.).
58. Prince E. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text 1992, 295-325. John Benjamins B.V., Philadelphia. S. Thomspon, W. Mann (Eds.).
59. Rosa, E. C., & Arnold, J. E. (2011). The role of attention in choice of referring expressions. In Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference, Boston, 2011.
60. Rosa, E.C., Finch, K., Bergeson, M., & Arnold, J.E. (submitted for publication). The effects of addressee attention on prosodic prominence.
61. Rossion B., Pourtois G. Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object database: Color and texture improve object recognition [On-line]. Journal of Vision 2001, 1:413a.
62. Schmitt B.M., Meyer A.S., Levelt W.J.M. Lexical access in the production of pronouns. Cognition 1999, 69:313-335.
63. Snodgrass J.G., Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1980, 6:174-215.
64. Van der Meulen F.F., Meyer A.S., Levelt W.J.M. Eye movements during the production of nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition 2001, 29:512-521.
65. Venditti, J. J., & Hirschberg, J. (2003). Intonation and discourse processing. In: Proceedings of the international congress of phonetic sciences (ICPhS). Barcelona, Spain.
66. Watson, D., & Arnold, J. E. (2005). Not just given and new: The effects of discourse and task-based constraints on acoustic prominence. In: Poster presented at the 18th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing. Tuscon, AZ.
67. Watson D.G., Arnold J.E., Tanenhaus M.K. Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition 2008, 106:156-1557.
68. Yao, Y. (2011). The effects of phonological neighborhood on pronunciation in conversational speech. UC Berkeley dissertation.