A Processing-based Account of Acoustic Reduction (or: Reduction Comes From Facilitation of Levels of Language Production) Jason M. Kahn & Jennifer E. Arnold UNC-CH ETAP Montreal!

Thanks Molly Bergeson, Andrés Buxó, Kellen Carpenter, Sam Handel, Leighanne Mcgill, Kayla Finch, Alyssa Ventimiglia, Liz Wagner for help with experiments The PLUG group at UNC for valuable critical commentary, as well as Scott Fraundorf, Florian Jaeger, Tuan Lam, and Joseph Tyler

Introduction Body Conclusion Teacher: “Today we’re learning about the structure of a paper. What do these elements do?” Zzz… Students (in unison!): “The introduction lays out the problem, the body presents evidence, and the conclusion gives the take home message.” Scenario 1

Introduction Body Conclusion Teacher: “Today we’re talking about the introduction, the body, and the conclusion – what do they do?” Zzz… Students (in unison!): “The introduction lays out the problem, the body presents evidence, and the conclusion gives the take home message.” Scenario 2

Repeated Mentions Get Reduced (e.g. Bard et al., 2000; Fowler & Housum, 1987) Teacher: “Structure… elements…” Linguistically Given Discourse Status +givenness+predictability Teacher: “introduction … body … conclusion …” Students: “introduction … body … conclusion…” Linguistically New Discourse Status -givenness-predictability Students: “introduction … body … conclusion…” Arnold (1998)

General Questions What mechanism drives speakers to reduce words in certain contexts? – Facilitation of multiple levels of processing (either the representations themselves or the algorithms that operate on them) Does reduction occur with the listener in mind, or with respect to only the speaker’s internal state? – Probably a mix of both, but I’ll provide evidence of the latter

Two Classes of Explanation Discourse status – Discourse Status – defined as the relative accessibility or givenness of a referent (Ariel, 1990; Gundel et al., 1993) – Typically conceived as shared information (Clark & Haviland, 1977) Speakers reduce when they can rely on common discourse status Facilitated Processing – Hearing or reading words activates representations associated with language processing (e.g. lemmas, phonemes) Speakers reduce for themselves OR Speakers reduce for their listener

Joint Discourse Status CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE DISCOURSE STATUS (given vs. new) (what speaker and listener both know) FORMULATION STAGE ARTICULATION STAGE Adapted from Levelt (1989), Schmitt, Meyer & Levelt (1999), and van der Meulen, Meyer, & Levelt (2001)

CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE DISCOURSE STATUS (given vs. new) (what speaker and listener both know) “introduction” Fowler & Housum, 1987; Prince 1992 Joint Discourse Status Introduction Body Conclusion Reduction!

CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE ARTICULATION STAGE Facilitation-based Adapted from Levelt, 1989; c.f. Balota, Boland & Shields, 1989; Bard et al., 2000; Bell et al., 2009

CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE “introduction” Introduction Body Conclusion Reduction!More Reduction! Facilitation-based

Linguistic vs. Non-linguistic Givenness “The accordion…” Bard & Anderson, 1990; Clark & Marshall, 1981; Prince, 1992 CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE DISCOURSE STATUS (given vs. new) (what speaker and listener both know) FORMULATION STAGE Joint DiscourseFacilitation-based

Instruction-giving Task Speaker Approximately 12 feet Listener

Experimental Paradigm Speaker: “The accordion rotates right” Speaker: “The toothbrush shrinks” Speaker: “The belt expands”

Experiment 1: Priming Information “The toothbrush; The belt; The accordion” ControlNon-linguisticLinguistic

Joint Discourse Status predicts…. Facilitation-based predicts… Predictions

Reduced Duration of the Object Word Linguistic < Non-linguistic < Control * *

Facilitation-based Account Explains the Results Naturally Non-linguistic information led to reduction Linguistic information led to more reduction This task gave the priming information to both the speaker and the listener simultaneously…

Will Speakers Reduce For Their Listener? Discourse status says yes – but only when they share information Facilitate-for-the-listener says yes – whenever the listener has relevant information Facilitate-for-the-speaker says no – speakers will reduce whenever they have information

Instruction-giving Task Speaker Listener 1)Blocked trials 2)Icon at the top of the screen 3)Headphones vvvv

Reduced Object Word Duration (Both, Speaker) < (Listener, None) * X X

Facilitation Once Again Provides a Natural Explanation Speakers reduced words when, and only when, they had relevant information This is contrary to a strong audience design account For evidence of listener attention on speaker’s acoustic decisions, see Elise Rosa’s talk tomorrow For evidence of listener-driven speaker attention on speaker’s acoustic decisions, see Jennifer Arnold’s talk tomorrow

Facilitation at Multiple Levels Experiments 1 and 2 provide support for a facilitation-based account, where facilitated levels lead to reduction It could be that facilitation might matter only at early stages of production, or it could be that facilitation at any level creates reduction Experiment 3 will try to prime a different level of representation – the articulatory level

c c Name these objects aloud c Name these objects silently to yourself Or… c Then… c c Or… Spoken Aloud Cond.Silent Naming Cond. Congruent Cond.Incongruent Cond.

Spoken AloudSpoken Internally Congruent PrimeFacilitated articulationUnfacilitated articulation Incongruent PrimeFacilitated articulators?Unfacilitated representations CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE ARTICULATION STAGE

Spoken AloudSpoken Internally Congruent PrimeFacilitated articulationUnfacilitated articulation Incongruent PrimeFacilitated articulators?Unfacilitated representations CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE ARTICULATION STAGE

* * * Interaction Reduced Object Word Duration Congruent+Aloud < (Congruent, Aloud) < Incongruent + Internal

Facilitation of Articulation Creates Reduction Speakers reduced after speaking the target aloud, relative to saying it internally Speakers also reduced after simply speaking aloud (even to incongruent targets)

Speaker-internal Facilitation Explains It All Speakers reduce more for linguistic than non-linguistic givenness Speakers reduce when, and only when, they have priming information Speakers reduce more after saying the word aloud than saying it to themselves This implies that we don’t need a discourse representation to account for these results It also implies that at least some acoustic reduction is entirely speaker-driven This speaker-driven reduction is plausibly explained by a multiple- levels-of-facilitation account