Articulatory and lexical repetition effects on durational reduction: speaker experience vs. common ground

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

Volumn 30, Issue 1-2, 2015, Pages 103-119

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

^a The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

audience design; facilitation; reduction; speaker internal processing; word duration

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; SPEECH AND LANGUAGE;

EID: 84934874022     PISSN: 23273798     EISSN: 23273801     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.848989     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. M.Ariel, (1990). Accessing noun–phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
2. J.E.Arnold,, J.M.Kahn,, & G.C.Pancani, (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 505–512. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y
3. J.E.Arnold,, T.Wasow,, T.Losongco,, & R.Ginstrom, (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55.
4. J.E.Arnold,, & D.Watson, (in press). Synthesizing meaning and processing approaches to prosody: Performance matters. Language and Cognitive Processes.
5. M.Aylett,, & A.Turk, (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. doi:10.1177/00238309040470010201
6. R.H.Baayen, (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. D.A.Balota,, J.E.Boland,, & L.W.Shields, (1989). Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 14–36. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90026-0
8. E.G.Bard,, A.H.Anderson, M.Aylett,, G.Doherty-Sneddon,, & A.Newlands, (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
9. E.G.Bard,, & M.Aylett, (2004). Referential form, duration, and modelling the listener in spoken dialogue. In J.Trueswell and M.Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173–191). Cambridge: MIT Press.
10. D.J.Barr, (2008). Pragmatic expectations and linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground. Cognition, 109(1), 18–40. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.005
11. A.Bell,, J.M.Brenier,, M.Gregory,, C.Girand,, & D.Jurafsky, (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92–111. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
12. J.K.Bock, (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1–47. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1
13. P.Boersma,, & D.Weenink, (2009). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.15) [Computer program]. Retrieved August 30, 2009 from http://www.praat.org/
14. H.Bortfeld,, S.D.Leon,, J.E.Bloom,, M.F.Schober,, & S.E.Brennan, (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 32, 229–259.
15. S.E.Brennan,, & H.H.Clark, (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 482–1493. doi:10.1.1.121.3930
16. G.Brown, (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In A.Cutler & D.R.Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 67–77). Springer: Berlin Heidelberg.
17. P.M.Brown,, & G.S.Dell, (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19(4), 441–472.
18. S.Brown-Schmidt, (2009). The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 893–900. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.893
19. S.Brown-Schmidt, (2012). Beyond common and privileged: Gradient representations of common ground in real-time language use. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(1), 62–89. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.543363
20. S.Brown-Schmidt,, & J.E.Hanna, (2011). Talking in another person's shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing. Dialog and Discourse, 2, 11–33.
21. J.Bybee, (1999). Use impacts morphological representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1016–1017. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99252223
22. W.Chafe, (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C.Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
23. H.H.Clark, (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. H.H.Clark,, & J.E.Fox Tree, (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
25. H.H.Clark,, & S.E.Haviland, (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R.O.Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26. H.H.Clark,, & C.R.Marshall, (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K.Joshi, B.L.Webber, & I.S.Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. H.H.Clark,, & T.Wasow, (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201–242. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
28. G.S.Dell, (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
29. V.S.Ferreira,, & G.S.Dell, (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive psychology, 40, 296–340. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
30. C.A.Fowler,, & J.Housum, (1987). Talkers' signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489–504. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7
31. S.Gahl, (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84, 474–496. doi:10.1353/lan.0.0035
32. B.Galantucci,, C.A.Fowler,, & M.T.Turvey, (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 361–377. doi:10.3758/BF03193857
33. A.Galati,, & S.E.Brennan, (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 35–51. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
34. M.F.Garrett, (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B.Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 177–220). London: Academic Press.
35. B.J.Grosz,, & C.L.Sidner, (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.
36. J.Gundel,, N.Hedberg,, & R.Zacharski, (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. doi:10.2307/416535
37. M.A.K.Halliday, (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
38. J.E.Hanna,, M.K.Tanenhaus,, & J.C.Trueswell, (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 43–61. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00022-6
39. J.Hirschberg,, & J.B.Pierrehumbert, (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. In Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 136–144). Association for Computational Linguistics.
40. J.Hirschberg,, & J.Terken, (1993, September). Deaccentuation and persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Proceedings of EUROSPEECH-93, Berlin.
41. W.S.Horton, (2007). The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 1114–1139. doi:10.1080/01690960701402933
42. W.S.Horton,, & R.J.Gerrig, (2005). Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40(1), 1–35. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4001_1
43. T.F.Jaeger, (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
44. T.F.Jaeger, (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
45. J.M.Kahn,, & J.E.Arnold, (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory & Language, 67, 311–325. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002
46. T.Q.Lam,, & D.G.Watson, (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137–1146. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
47. W.J.Levelt, (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
48. W.J.M.Levelt,, A.Roelofs,, & A.S.Meyer, (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90030-2
49. W.J.M.Levelt,, & L.Wheeldon, (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239–269. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90030-2
50. B.Lindblom, (1990). Explaining variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In W.Hardcastle & A.Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
51. G.M.Oppenheim,, & G.S.Dell, (2010). Motor movement matters: The flexible abstractness of inner speech. Memory & cognition, 38, 1147–1160. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1147
52. M.Pluymaekers,, M.Ernestus,, & R.H.Baayen, (2005a). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62(2–4), 146–159. doi:10.1159/000090095
53. E.C.Rosa,, K.H.Finch,, M.Bergeson,, & J.E.Arnold, (2013). The effects of addressee attention on prosodic prominence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1–9. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.772213
54. B.Rossion,, & G.Pourtois, (2001). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object database: Color and texture improve object recognition On-line. Journal of Vision, 1, 413a. doi:10.1167/1.3.413
55. M.F.Schober,, & H.H.Clark, (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90008-X
56. J.G.Snodgrass,, & M.Vanderwart, (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
57. J.J.Venditti,, & J.Hirschberg, (2003). Intonation and discourse processing. In Proceedings of the international congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 315–318). Saarbrücken, Germany: University of Saarbrücken.
58. D.G.Watson,, J.E.Arnold,, & M.K.Tanenhaus, (2008). Tic tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106, 156–1557. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009
59. D.Wilkes-Gibbs,, & H.H.Clark, (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 183–194. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90010-U