Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 78, Issue C, 2015, Pages 1-17

  Pate, John K ^a   Goldwater, Sharon ^b  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Language production; Language production efficiency; Predictability effects; The smooth signal hypothesis; Uniform information density

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961335835     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Altmann G.T., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73(3):247-264.
2. 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(1):31-56.
3. Baayen R., Davidson D., Bates D. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
4. Baese-Berk M., Goldrick M. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24(4):527-554.
5. 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.
6. Bard E.G., Aylett M.P. Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue 2005, (pp. 173-191), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
7. Beckman M., Hirschberg J., Shattuck-Hufnagel S. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. Prosodic typology-The phonology of intonation and phrasing 2005, Oxford University Press. S.-A. Jun (Ed.).
8. 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.
9. Berwick R.C., Friederici A.D., Chomsky N., Bolhuis J. Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2013, 17(2):89-98.
10. Boyle E.A., Anderson A.H., Newlands A. The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. Language and Speech 1994, 70(1).
11. Brent M.R., Siskind J.M. The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition 2001, 81:31-44.
12. Bresnan J., Cueni A., Nikitina T., Baayen R.H. Predicting the dative alternation 2007, (pp. 69-94), Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, Amsterdam.
13. Brown P., Dell G.S. Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology 1987, 19:441-472.
14. Buz, E., Jaeger, T. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation. In Proceedings of 36th annual meeting of the cognitive science society.
15. Calhoun S., Carletta J., Brenier J., Mayo N., Jurafsky D., Steedman M., et al. The NXT-format Switchboard corpus: A rich resource for investigating the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and prosody of dialogue. Language Resources and Evaluation 2010, 44(4):387-419.
16. Clark H.H. Using language 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
17. Clark H.H., Carlson T.B. Hearers and speech acts. Language 1982, 58(2):332-373.
18. Clark H.H., Marshall C.R. Definite reference and mutual knowledge 1981, (pp. 10-63), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. Claude Junqua J. The influence of acoustics on speech production: A noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex. Speech Communciation 1996, 20:13-22.
20. Coco, M. I., & Keller, F. (2010). Scan pattern in visual scenes predict sentence production. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society.
21. Cook, S. W., Jaeger, T. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2009). Producing less preferred structures: More gestures, less fluency. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society.
22. Dell G.S., Brown P.M. Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the "Model of the Listener" 1991, (pp. 105-129), Psychology Press.
23. Esteve-Gibert N., Prieto P. Prosodic structure shapes the temporal realization of intonation and manual gesture movements. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2013, 56:850-864.
24. Fernald A., Simon T. Expanded intonation contours in mothers' speech to newborns. Developmental Psychology 1984, 40(1):104-113.
25. Ferreira V.S. The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying "that" is not saying "that" at all. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:209-246.
26. Ferreira V.S. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 2008, 49:209-246.
27. Ferreira V.S., Dell G.S. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 2000, 40:296-340.
28. Ferrer-i-Cancho R. Zipf's law from a communicative phase transition. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 2005, 47(3):449-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2005-00340-y.
29. Ferrer-i-Cancho R., Deȩbowski Ł., Moscoso del Prado Martín F. Constant conditional entropy and related hypotheses. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013, 7.
30. Fine, A. B., Frank, A. F., Jaeger, T. F., & Van Durme, B. (2014). Biases in predicting the human language model. In Proceedings of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 7-12).
31. Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Proceedings of CogSci (pp. 933-938).
32. Fukumura K., van Gompel R.P.G. Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee's discourse model?. Cognitive Science 2012, 36:1289-1311.
33. Gahl, S., Garnsey, S. M., Fisher, C., & Matzen, L. (2006). "That sounds unlikely": Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation. In Proceedings of the 27th meeting of the cognitive science society.
34. Gahl S., Garnsey S.M. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 2004, 80:748-775.
35. Gahl S., Yao Y., Johnson K. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:789-806.
36. 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.
37. Gould S.J., Lewontin R.C. The spandrels of san marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 1979, 205(1161):581-598.
38. Graf, H. P., Cosatto, E., Strom, V., & Huang, F. J. (2002). Visual prosody: Facial movements accompanying speech. In Proceedings of the fifth IEEE international conference on automatic face and gesture recognition.
39. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Speech acts 1975, Vol. III:41-58. Academic Press, New York.
40. Harrell F.E. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis 2001, Springer, New York.
41. Heller D., Gorman K.S., Tanenhaus M.K. To name or to describe: Shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science 2012, 4:290-305.
42. Horton W.S., Gerrig R.J. Speakers' experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 47:589-606.
43. Horton W.S., Gerrig R.J. The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition 2005, 96:127-142.
44. Horton W.S., Keysar B. When do speakers take into account common ground?. Cognition 1996, 59:91-117.
45. Ito K., Speer S. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58(2):541-573.
46. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. October.
47. Jaeger T.F. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 2010, 61:23-62.
48. Jaeger T.F. Corpus-based research on language production: Information density and reducible subject relatives 2011, (pp. 161-197), CSLI Publications, Stanford.
49. Jaeger T.F. Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication. Frontiers in Psychology 2013, 4(230):247-264.
50. Jaeger T.F., Ferreira V. Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2013, 36(4):359-360.
51. Khouw E., Ciocca V. Perceptual correlates of Cantonese tones. Journal of Phonetics 2007, 35(1):104-117.
52. Kirov, C., & Wilson, C. (2012). The specificity of online variation in speech production. In Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 587-592).
53. Kuperman V., Bresnan J. The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:359-383.
54. Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Communicatively efficient language production and case-marker omission in Japanese. In Proceedings of 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society.
55. Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (submitted for publication). Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese.
56. Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference on neural information processing systems.
57. Lindblom B. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H & H theory 1990, (pp. 403-439), Kluwer Academic Publishers.
58. Lockridge C.B., Brennan S.E. Addressees' needs influence speakers early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002, 9:550-557.
59. Lombard E. Note rectificative. Annales des Maladies de l'Oreille et du Larynx 1910, 36:34-35.
60. Lombard E. A propos de la note rectificative et de la rectification. Annales des Maladies de l'Oreille et du Larynx 1910, 36:111-112.
61. Lombard E. Le signe de l'élévation de la voix. Annales des Maladies de l'Oreille et du Larynx 1911, 37:101-119.
62. Manin D. Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language. Journal of Information Processes 2006, 6(3):229-236.
63. Martin A., Utsugi A., Mazuka R. The multidimensional nature of hyperspeech: Evidence from japanese vowel devoicing. Cognition 2014, 132:216-228.
64. Mathews D., Lieven E., Theakston A., Tomasello M. The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 2006, 27:403-422.
65. Papoušek M., Hwang S.C. Tone and intonation in mandarin babytalk to presyllabic infants: Comparison with registers of adult conversation and foreign language instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics 1991, 12(4):481-504.
66. Peramunage D., Blumstein S.E., Myers E.B., Goldrick M., Baese-Berk M. Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word production: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 23(3):527-554.
67. Piantadosi S., Tily H., Gibson E. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, 108(9):3526.
68. Pickett J.M. Effects of vocal force on the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 1956, 28(5):902-905.
69. Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., et al. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech (2nd release) <. http://www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.
70. Priva, U. C. (2008). Using information content to predict phone deletion. In Proceedings of the 27th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 90-98).
71. Roche, J., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2010). The resolution of ambiguity during conversation: More than mere mimicry? In Proceedings of 32nd annual meeting of the cognitive science society.
72. Roche, J. M., Paxton, A., Ibarra, A., Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). From minor mishap to major catastrophe: Lexical choice in miscommunication. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
73. Roland D., Elman J.L., Ferreira V.S. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 2006, 98:209-246.
74. Rytting C.A., Brew C., Fosler-Lussier E. Segmenting words from natural speech: subsegmental variation in segmental cues. Journal of Child Language 2010, 37(3):513-543.
75. Sedivy J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Chambers C.G., Carlson G.N. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 1999, 71(1):109-147.
76. Seyfarth S. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 2014, 133(1):140-155.
77. Shannon C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 1948, 27:379-423.
78. Summers W.V., Pisoni D.B., Bernacki R.H., Pedlow R.I., Stokes M.A. Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 1988, 84(3):917-928.
79. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Eberhard K., Sedivy J.C. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 1995, 268:1632-1634.
80. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Eberhard K.M., Sedivy J.C. Using eye-movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually-mediated incremental interpretation 1996, (pp. 457-478), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
81. Tily H., Gahl S., Arnon I., Snider N., Kothari A., Bresnan J. Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition 2009, 1(2):147-165.
82. Uther M., Knoll M.A., Burnham D. Do you speak E-N-G-L-I-S-H? A comparison of foreigner- and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication 2007, 49:2-7.
83. Vance T.J. Tonal distinction in Cantonese. Phonetica 1977, 34:93-107.
84. Wasow T., Jaeger T.F., Orr D.M. Lexical variation in relativizer frequency 2011, (pp. 175-195), De Gruyter.
85. Werker J.F., Pegg J.E., McLeod P.J. A cross-language investigation of infant preference for infant-directed communication. Infant Behavior and Development 1994, 17(3):323-333.
86. Whitehill T.L., Ciocca V., Chow T.Y. Acoustic analysis of lexical tone contrast in dyarthria. Journal of Medical Speech and Language Pathology 2000, 8:337-344.
87. Zhao Y., Jurafsky D. The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics 2009, 37:231-247.
88. Zipf G.K. Human behavior and the principle of least effort 1949, Addison-Wesley.