Announcements Next week: Seminar Next week: Seminar Read all 4 papers, but you are responsible for presenting certain ones. Read all 4 papers, but you are responsible for presenting certain ones. – –Paper 1 - Hauser, Fitch, & Chomsky (2002) – –Paper 2 - Pinker & Jackendoff (2005) Yaling & Liz – –Paper 3 - Fitch, Hauser, & Chomsky (2005) Courtney & Richie – –Paper 4 - Jackendoff & Pinker (2005) David & Karol You and your randomly assigned partner: You and your randomly assigned partner: –Summarize main arguments of the paper –Come up with 5 discussion Qs per paper

Psy1302 Psychology of Language Pragmatics and Language Use

There are meanings and there are meanings. Semantics  Pragmatics Semantics  Pragmatics In our initial discussion of meaning we concentrated on two types of semantics: In our initial discussion of meaning we concentrated on two types of semantics: –Lexical semantics: what individual words mean –Compositional semantics: how the meanings of larger objects are constructed out of the meaning of the parts

Pragmatics Pragmatics is the study of the aspects of meaning and language use that are dependent on the speaker, the addressee and other features of the context of utterance. Pragmatics is the study of the aspects of meaning and language use that are dependent on the speaker, the addressee and other features of the context of utterance.

Semantics LOVELY (ADJECTIVE): [love-li-er, love-li-est]. 1.Full of love; loving. 2.Inspiring love or affection. 3.Having pleasing or attractive qualities. 4.Enjoyable; delightful.

Lovely!

Semantics LOVELY (ADJECTIVE): [love-li-er, love-li-est]. 1.Full of love; loving. 2.Inspiring love or affection. 3.Having pleasing or attractive qualities. 4.Enjoyable; delightful. Literal meaning of “lovely” is not equivalent to actual meaning conveyed.

Another Example Waitress: “The ham sandwich wants his check.” Waitress: “The ham sandwich wants his check.” Where is my check?

Further Considerations Consider: Consider: I gave the book to John. This sentence is true in situations that involve a transfer of possession of a book from the speaker to John. This sentence is true in situations that involve a transfer of possession of a book from the speaker to John.

Variants with same truth conditions I gave the book to John. I gave the book to John. Same truth condition as above, but differ syntactically: Same truth condition as above, but differ syntactically: –It was John I gave the book to. –The book is what I gave to John. –John was given the book by me. Why would you choose one structure over the other? Why would you choose one structure over the other?

Variants with same truth conditions Importantly, the sentences also differ in appropriateness of use: Importantly, the sentences also differ in appropriateness of use: –These sentences are appropriate in different circumstances –Part of this appropriateness or felicity involves which aspect of the situation the speaker chooses to focus upon Pragmatics & Syntactic Structure: Pragmatics & Syntactic Structure: The study of pragmatics specifies the conditions under which these variants can be used felicitously.

How to do things with words Language is not always about statements of fact that could be true or false. Language is not always about statements of fact that could be true or false. Language is a form of action. Language is a form of action. We perform acts with words. We perform acts with words.

How to do things with words We use language to accomplish acts (i.e. speech acts) We use language to accomplish acts (i.e. speech acts) Physical Act: e.g. Getting a glass of water Physical Act: e.g. Getting a glass of water Mental Act: e.g. Thinking about getting a glass of water Mental Act: e.g. Thinking about getting a glass of water Speech Act: e.g. “Get a glass of water.” Speech Act: e.g. “Get a glass of water.”

How to do things with words Terminologies Locutionary acts Locutionary acts Illocutionary acts Illocutionary acts Perlocutionary acts Perlocutionary acts Speech Act

Terminologies Locutionary act: saying something (the locution) with a certain meaning in traditional sense. Locutionary act: saying something (the locution) with a certain meaning in traditional sense. Illocutionary act: the performance of an act in saying something The illocutionary force is the speaker's intent. A true “speech act”. Illocutionary act: the performance of an act in saying something The illocutionary force is the speaker's intent. A true “speech act”. e.g. informing, ordering, warning, etc… Perlocutionary acts: Speech acts that have an effect on the feelings, thoughts or actions of either the speaker or the listener. In other words, they seek to change minds! Perlocutionary acts: Speech acts that have an effect on the feelings, thoughts or actions of either the speaker or the listener. In other words, they seek to change minds! –Unlike locutionary acts, perlocutionary acts are external to the performance. e.g., inspiring, persuading or deterring. –Special kind: performatives – Illocutionary = Perlocutionary act. I (hereby) pronounce you husband and wife. I (hereby) pronounce you husband and wife. You are (hereby) under arrest. You are (hereby) under arrest.

Speech Acts Examples of different (social) things speech acts can do: Examples of different (social) things speech acts can do: –Order someone to do something –Ask for something –Offering something –Promise something –Threaten someone into doing something –Greeting someone –Congratulating someone

Types of Speech Acts in More Technical Terms (Searle) Assertives: act of expressing a belief Assertives: act of expressing a belief “My father was born in Japan.” “My father was born in Japan.” Directives: act of trying to get the addressee to do something Directives: act of trying to get the addressee to do something “Go home.” “Go home.” Commissives: act of committing oneself to something Commissives: act of committing oneself to something “I promise to be on time.” “I promise to be on time.” Expressives: act of expressing certain psychological feelings Expressives: act of expressing certain psychological feelings “Congratulations.” “Congratulations.” Effectives: act that changes institutional state of affairs Effectives: act that changes institutional state of affairs “You are fired. “You are fired. Verdictives: act determines institutionally what is to be the case Verdictives: act determines institutionally what is to be the case “Strike three!” “Strike three!”

Direct vs. Indirect (more terminologies!) A basic distinction: A basic distinction: –Direct Speech Acts: The meaning is more or less encoded in the literal meaning of the utterance –Indirect Speech Acts: The meaning that is relevant is the speech act meaning, not simply the literal meaning

Direct Speech Acts Examples Examples TypeFunction Sentence Assertionconvey meaningdeclarative John got an A on the test. Directiveelicit informationinterrogative Did John get an A on the test? Directiveaffect others’ actions imperative Get an A on the test! (question) (order) (inform)

Indirect Speech Acts Direct Speech Act: Direct Speech Act: Did John get an A on the midterm? –Addressee can respond “Yes” But consider Indirect Speech Act: But consider Indirect Speech Act: Do you know if John got an A on the midterm? –Addressee can respond “Yes” w/o supplying more information. But this might annoy the speaker if the intent of the speaker (illocutionary force) was to elicit whether John got an A.

Indirect Speech Acts Example 2 Courtney: Can you tell me the time? Courtney: Can you tell me the time? Yaling: Yes. Yaling: Yes. (Yaling does nothing more.) Example 3 Liz: Would you mind posting your question on the class discussion forum? Liz: Would you mind posting your question on the class discussion forum? David: No. David: No. (David does nothing more.)

Indirect Speech Acts Example 2 Courtney: Can you tell me the time? Courtney: Can you tell me the time? Yaling: Four-thirty. Yaling: Four-thirty. Example 3 Liz: Would you mind posting your question on the class discussion forum? Liz: Would you mind posting your question on the class discussion forum? David pulls out his laptop and goes to the class website and posts the question. David pulls out his laptop and goes to the class website and posts the question.

Indirect Speech Acts (speaker & addressee) There are many ways of asking an indirect question There are many ways of asking an indirect question –“Do you know…” is often an indirect question The felicitous answer is not an answer to the literal meaning, but to answer the speech act meaning The felicitous answer is not an answer to the literal meaning, but to answer the speech act meaning

Indirect Speech Acts (speaker & addressee) Part of what we compute as the addressee is the likely intentions of the speaker in situational contexts Part of what we compute as the addressee is the likely intentions of the speaker in situational contexts These are inferences that we addressees (typically) compute without explicit awareness These are inferences that we addressees (typically) compute without explicit awareness

Indirect Speech Acts (speaker & addressee) Speakers can vary the degree of obviousness of indirect speech acts involving commands (or requests): Speakers can vary the degree of obviousness of indirect speech acts involving commands (or requests): –Close the window –I would like you to close the window. –It would be nice if someone would close the window. –Brrrrr. Addressees also vary in their abilities to infer the intentions behind an indirect speech act Addressees also vary in their abilities to infer the intentions behind an indirect speech act direct EXTREMELY indirect Close the window!

Experiment (Treat Qs as Y/N or Requests) Experimenter Participant Do you take credit cards?

Experiment (Treat Qs as Y/N or Requests) Response Type 1 Experimenter: Do you take credit cards? Experimenter: Do you take credit cards? Store: Yes. Store: Yes. Experimenter: Which ones? Experimenter: Which ones? Store: Visa and MasterCard. Store: Visa and MasterCard. Response Type 2 Experimenter: Do you take credit cards? Experimenter: Do you take credit cards? Store: Visa and MasterCard. Store: Visa and MasterCard. Response Type 3 Experimenter: Do you take credit cards? Experimenter: Do you take credit cards? Store: Yes. Visa and MasterCard. Store: Yes. Visa and MasterCard. (44% of the time) (16% of the time) (38% of the time)

The Important Point Communication is a cooperative process, a joint activity that requires coordination. Communication is a cooperative process, a joint activity that requires coordination.

Grice & His Cooperative Principle Grice was a philosopher whose research program involves understanding basic principles that get conversations going Grice was a philosopher whose research program involves understanding basic principles that get conversations going Cooperative principle: Make your contribution to the conversation such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the exchange in which you are engaged. Cooperative principle: Make your contribution to the conversation such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the exchange in which you are engaged. Herbert Paul Grice

Grice & His Cooperative Principle Explain Implicatures: how speaker’s meaning (what someone uses an utterance to mean) arises from sentence meaning (the literal form and meaning of an utterance). Explain Implicatures: how speaker’s meaning (what someone uses an utterance to mean) arises from sentence meaning (the literal form and meaning of an utterance).

Grice’s 4 Maxims Grice proposed 4 maxims that speakers follow in respecting the Cooperative Principle Grice proposed 4 maxims that speakers follow in respecting the Cooperative Principle Idea: If the addressee assume the maxims to be operative, then s/he can: from what was literally said infer the speaker’s intended meaning Idea: If the addressee assume the maxims to be operative, then s/he can: from what was literally said infer the speaker’s intended meaning

 Maxim of quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true. Try to make your contribution one that is true. Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.  Maxim of quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required, for the current purposes of the exchange. Make your contribution as informative as is required, for the current purposes of the exchange. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.  Maxim of relevance: Be relevant. Be relevant.  Maxim of manner: Be perspicuous (clearly expressed; easy to understand). Be perspicuous (clearly expressed; easy to understand). Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief. Be orderly. Be brief. Be orderly. Grice’s 4 Maxims

 Maxim of quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true.  Maxim of quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required.  Maxim of relevance: Be relevant.  Maxim of manner: Be clear and orderly. Grice’s 4 Maxims joint act of Fixing/Building a House – If you are a helpful partner… No different than the joint act of Fixing/Building a House – If you are a helpful partner… Hand the right tools to your partner and not intentionally the wrong ones. If partner needs 3 nails, hand the right number – 3 (i.e., not 1 or 300). Hand the appropriate tools (i.e., not tennis racket) Help quickly and efficiently.

Implicatures where no maxim is violated: A: I am out of petrol. B: There is a garage around the corner. A: Smith doesn’t seem to have a girlfriend these days. B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately.

Implicatures due to violating one maxim to preserve another. A: I'd like to visit Vincent when I go to Paris. Where does he live? B: Somewhere in France. Implicature: Implicature: B doesn’t know any more than this. Which maxim is violated? And in order to preserve which maxim?

Implicatures due to flouting The applicant has beautiful handwriting, and demonstrates excellent taste in shoes.. What is being flouted here? What is being flouted here? What is being implicated? What is being implicated?

Implicatures due to flouting A: Did Anne cook dinner last night? B: Well, she placed a number of edible substances into a pot and then heated them until various chemical reactions took place. What is being flouted here? What is being flouted here? What is being implicated? What is being implicated?

Implicatures due to flouting A: Who was that man I saw you at dinner with? B: I really love your new scarf! What is being flouted here? What is being flouted here? What is being implicated? What is being implicated?

Implicature Calculability Theoretical Definition: Speaker (S) conversationally implicates p iff S implicates p when: Speaker (S) conversationally implicates p iff S implicates p when: S is presumed to be observing the Cooperative Principle (cooperative presumption); (i) S is presumed to be observing the Cooperative Principle (cooperative presumption); (ii) The supposition that S believes p is required to make S 's utterance consistent with the Cooperative Principle (determinacy); and (iii) S believes (or knows), and expects HearerH) to believe that S believes, that H is able to determine that (ii) is true (mutual knowledge). (iii) S believes (or knows), and expects Hearer (H) to believe that S believes, that H is able to determine that (ii) is true (mutual knowledge). From

Two Traditions of Psycholinguistics (Herbert Clark) Language as “product” tradition Language as “product” tradition –How do people produce and understand the sentences of their language? –What is the link between language use and the grammar of the language? Language as “action” tradition Language as “action” tradition –What do people do with language? –What are their goals and intentions and how do they achieve the goals?

Language as Action Tradition (sample syllabus) 1. Intro to Language Use Arenas of language use 2. Discourse as a Joint Activity Minimal/Extended Joint Projects (e.g. Adjacency Pairs) 3. Utterances and its Use Utterances as Basic unit of Speech Speech Acts 4. Contributing to Discourse Common ground Presentation and Acceptance 5. Creating Conversation Turn taking Opportunistic/Emergent Properties Structure: Entry, Body, Exit psych.stanford.edu/~ herb/2000s/Clark.ies bs.Conv.pdf

Studying Language in Use (how?) Director Matcher Barrier More recently – Fusing the product tradition with the action tradition. Corpus

Director-Matcher

Two people in search of a perspective A:ah boy this one ah boy alright it looks kinda like, on the right top there's a square that looks diagonal B:uh huh A:and you have sort of another like rectangle shape, the like a triangle, angled, and on the bottom it's ah I don't know what that is, glass shaped B: alright I think I got it A:it's almost like a person kind of in a weird way B:yeah like like a monk praying or something A: right yeah good great B:alright I got it

(Later, same card) Trial 2 (~ 11 cards later) B:9 is that monk praying A:yup Trial 3 (~ 11 cards later) A:number 3 is the monk B:ok

Result (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs 1986) Referring expressions become much shorter and more efficient upon re-use Referring expressions become much shorter and more efficient upon re-use This does not happen when people speak into a tape recorder! (where there is no feedback from an addressee) This does not happen when people speak into a tape recorder! (where there is no feedback from an addressee) This happens because people acquire common ground. This happens because people acquire common ground.

Common Ground Linguistic referents are established w/in a “domain of interpretation”, which includes context. Linguistic referents are established w/in a “domain of interpretation”, which includes context. One component of context = Common Ground One component of context = Common Ground –Mutual knowledge, beliefs, & assumptions among participants in conversation –Comes from community co-membership, physical co- presence, linguistic co-presence, …

Conversation & Common Ground Clark (1996) Clark (1996) –Language = Joint action by people cooperating to achieve particular goals –Optimal communication requires keeping track of what’s in Common Ground and using that in both producing and understanding language As usual, what’s at issue is timing As usual, what’s at issue is timing –How quickly do/can language users make use of knowledge about Common Ground when speaking & listening?

Keysar et al (1998; 2000) Director Matcher Display

Director’s View (Partial Occlusion) Subject’s View (Complete) cc Keysar et al (1998; 2000)

Hanna, Tanenhaus, Trueswell (2003) Experiment 1 Participants Participants –12 Participants (M) +Confederate Director (D) pairs –Participant told that Director was lab assistant but naïve about purpose of study (false) Task Task –Place shapes on grids as directed by the Director (confederate). Apparatus = Head-mounted eyetracker Apparatus = Head-mounted eyetracker

Hanna, Tanenhaus, Trueswell (2003) Experiment 1 Materials (more on next slide) Materials (more on next slide) –For each trial, 7 objects each for D & M 5 are to be placed in the grid by M according to D’s instructions 5 are to be placed in the grid by M according to D’s instructions –D and M don’t see each other’s grids or objects Instructions Instructions –On each trial, get envelope with 7 objects + printed instructions –D’s instructions show layout of objects for trial + script of instructions to give Matcher –M’s instructions include which of the objects is “secret” (= Privileged Ground) & where to put it in grid (= Privileged Ground) & where to put it in grid M knows D doesn’t know what shape is secret or where it is M knows D doesn’t know what shape is secret or where it is

Visual Display for Participant at Critical Test Trial Competitor in Common Ground Competitor in Privileged Ground Competitor Same Color Competitor Different Color Now put the blue triangle on the red one. Command: = target = competitor S = Secret Shape When competitor is S, it is in privileged ground

Same color competitor in Common Ground Same color competitor in Common Ground - M has to ask for clarification in this condition Same color competitor in Privileged Ground Same color competitor in Privileged Ground Fewer looks to Competitor by 400 msec after onset of Adj Fewer looks to Competitor by 400 msec after onset of Adj Similar to diff color conds Similar to diff color conds

Hanna, Tanenhaus, Trueswell (2003) Experiment 2 Possible criticism Possible criticism –By design, Confederate doesn’t know about Privileged Ground objects & so never mentions them –Maybe Participants (Listener-Matcher) move their eyes to objects that are more likely to be mentioned by Speaker Rather than taking Speaker’s perspective into account while interpreting referring expressions? Rather than taking Speaker’s perspective into account while interpreting referring expressions? Experiment 2: Give Speaker & Listener different information about the state of some objects Experiment 2: Give Speaker & Listener different information about the state of some objects

Hanna, Tanenhaus, Trueswell (2003) Experiment 2 Listener (Matcher) given 2 pairs of objects Listener (Matcher) given 2 pairs of objects –2 jars, 2 martini glasses –Objects described aloud by Experimenter from left to right Sometimes objects described inaccurately by Experimenter Sometimes objects described inaccurately by Experimenter –Participants told not to talk with the Speaker to correct mistakes and that there would be another condition to make corrections –Participants had to repeat back the list

Instructions & Displays Display properties disambiguate instruction Early or Late Display properties disambiguate instruction Early or Late –“Pick up the empty martini glass” –Late: 1 empty version of both types of objects –Early: 1 empty version of 1 type of object & 2 empty versions of other type of object

Definite vs Indefinite Displays & Instructions “Pick up the empty martini glass.” vs “Pick up one of the empty martini glasses.” Late Early Late Early Mismatch Speaker told this But Listener sees this

Design Logic Listeners told to remember how objects were described to Speaker & to do what they think the Speaker intends them to do Listeners told to remember how objects were described to Speaker & to do what they think the Speaker intends them to do In Mismatch conditions, which type of object is the referent is disambiguated Early In Mismatch conditions, which type of object is the referent is disambiguated Early –But it’s a different object type for Speaker & Listener –Instruction: “Pick up the empty martini glass” Speaker believes: Only 1 empty martini glass & 2 empty jars Speaker believes: Only 1 empty martini glass & 2 empty jars Listener sees: 2 empty martini glasses & only 1 empty jar Listener sees: 2 empty martini glasses & only 1 empty jar Questions Questions –Will Listener look at glass she knows Speaker thinks empty? –If yes, how soon, compared to Early & Late Match conditions?

Results Late Early Mismatch

Listeners look at target faster when instructions pick out a unique referent earlier Listeners look at target faster when instructions pick out a unique referent earlier –“the empty” when only 1 pair of objects has only 1 empty version Listeners can quickly take Speaker’s perspective into account Listeners can quickly take Speaker’s perspective into account –Look at target faster in Mismatch than in Late conditions From Speaker’s perspective, instruction picks out a unique referent early From Speaker’s perspective, instruction picks out a unique referent early From Listener’s perspective, picks out other object type From Listener’s perspective, picks out other object type –But not as fast as in Early conditions So there’s some effort in taking Speaker’s perspective So there’s some effort in taking Speaker’s perspective No evidence for an initial egocentric stage No evidence for an initial egocentric stage Hanna, Tanenhaus, Trueswell (2003) Experiment 2