1. Jason Kahn & Jennifer E. Arnold UNC – Chapel Hill Amlap
Talking about Objects
Jason Kahn & Jennifer E. Arnold
UNC – Chapel Hill
Amlap

2. Did you get the reading group organized for this semester yet?

3. Did you get the reading group organized for this semester yet?
You wanted a reading group this semester, too?

4. Did you get the reading group organized for this semester yet?
You wanted a reading group this semester, too?

5. Why does “reading group” get reduced?
Givenness Explanations
Probability Explanations

6. Why does “reading group” get reduced?
Givenness Explanations
Uttered words become given in a discourse (Prince 1992)
Given information has a different discourse status/representation (Halliday 1967)
Given discourse information gets reduced on subsequent mention (Fowler & Housum, 1987)
Probability Explanations

7. Why does “reading group” get reduced?
Givenness Explanations
Uttered words become given in a discourse (Prince 1992)
Given information has a different discourse status/representation (Halliday 1967)
Given discourse information gets reduced on subsequent mention (Fowler & Housum, 1987)
Probability Explanations
Context increases the probability of mentioning a word
Highly probable words get reduced (Bell et al., 2009)
Words that convey little information also get reduced (Levy & Jaeger 2007)

8. Well, what kind of reading group did you want?
We’re not going to focus on this, but we’ll come back to it at the end of the talk, because we do think our results have implications for it
[Reading group]
Bard & Aylett 2004; Brown-Schmidt 2009

9. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Adapted from Levelt 1989

10. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Our view contrasts with traditional views of givenness, which say that givenness may change the discourse status, which is typically manipulated in the text; by contrast, we’re interested in how givenness and probability have an impact on these processes and representations

11. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Facilitation
Pre-planning

12. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Probability
Facilitation
Pre-planning
we are going to focus on the effect of predictability on the cognitive mechanism

13. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Probability
Facilitation
Pre-planning
Associative facilitation
Pre-planning

14. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Probability
(Arnold, 1998; Givón, 1983; Tily & Piantodosi, 2009)

15. Facilitation-Based Reduction
Any stimulus that activates representations that are used for language production should lead to some measurable amount of reduction. This includes probability, givenness, and their combination.

16. Novel Predictions
Referential events should “count” for reduction

17. Novel Predictions Referential events should “count” for reduction
We should observe reduction from non-linguistic information

18. Novel Predictions Referential events should “count” for reduction
We should observe reduction from non-linguistic information
We should observe a difference between linguistic and non-linguistic information

19. Experimental Layout (Exp 1)
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X

20. Non-linguistic Stimuli Should Elicit Reduction
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X

21. Linguistic Stimuli Should Elicit More Reduction
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X

22. We Will Return to Predictability
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X

23. Instruction-giving Task
Speaker
Listener

24. Move
Speaker
Listener

25. “The accordion rotates right”
Move
“The accordion rotates right”
Speaker
Listener

26. “The accordion rotates right”
x 3
Move
“The accordion rotates right”
Speaker
Listener

27. “The toothbrush. The belt. The accordion.”
Move
“The toothbrush The belt The accordion.”
Speaker
Listener

28. “The toothbrush. The belt. The accordion.”
Move
“The toothbrush The belt The accordion.”
“The accordion rotates right”
Speaker
Listener

29. “The accordion rotates right”
x 3
Move
“The accordion rotates right”
Speaker
Listener

30. Move
Speaker
Listener

31. “The accordion rotates right”
Move
“The accordion rotates right”
Speaker
Listener

32. “The accordion rotates right”
x 3
Move
“The accordion rotates right”
Speaker
Listener

33. 1)
Or… Or…

34. 1) 2)
Or… Or…

35. “[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”1) 2) 3)
Or… Or…
“[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”

36. “[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”1) 2) 3) 4)
Or… Or…
“[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”

37. “[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
Or… Or…
“[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”
“[Onset] The belt expands.”

38. “[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
Or… Or…
“[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”
“[Onset] The belt expands.”

39. “[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
Or… Or…
“[Onset] The toothbrush shrinks.”
“[Onset] The belt expands.”
“[Onset] The accordion rotates right.”

40. Analysis Multi-level Modeled
Information condition (ling, non-ling, control)
Control variables (syllables, imageability, etc.)
Random intercept for subject and item (cross-classified)

41. Reduced Onset Duration
Linguistic = Non-linguistic < Control *
Repeat: third instruction
Third Instruction: “[Onset] the accordion rotates right”

42. Reduced Object Duration
Linguistic < Non-linguistic < Control * *
Third instruction: “[Onset] the accordion shrinks”

43. Non-linguistic Stimuli Elicited Reduction
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X

44. Linguistic Stimuli Elicited More Reduction
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X

45. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Predictability

46. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Givenness
Predictability

47. Predictability May (partly) Produce This Effect
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X
ASK whether predictability carries this effect X X X
See also Lam & Watson 2009

48. Experimental Layout (Exp 2)
Linguistically Given
Non-linguistically (conceptually) Given
Predictable
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Control X X X X X X

49. Experiment 2: Is Predictability Necessary?
Reduce the number of instructions per trial to one
Vastly reduce the validity of the prime – the object that gets primed is the object that moves only 12.5% (1/8th) of the time
Changed the relationship between the experimental and control condition
1/8:
7/8:

50. Experimental Layout (Exp 2)
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Primed
Unprimed

51. Experimental Layout (Exp 2)
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Primed
Unprimed

52. Reduced Object Duration (Ling. Only)
Given < Not Given
“The accordion” *
“The heart”
Emphasize the fact that the onset duration here doesn’t differ.
“[Onset] the accordion shrinks”

53. (Numerically) Reduced Object Duration
Given < Not Given
“[Onset] the accordion shrinks”

54. Experimental Layout (Exp 2)
Linguistic
Non-linguistic
Primed
Unprimed * ?

55. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Non-linguistic
predictability
may be necessary
Givenness
Predictability

56. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Non-linguistic
predictability
may be necessary
Givenness
Predictability
Linguistic
predictability
Is not necessary

57. Cognitive Mechanisms for Reduction
Non-linguistic
predictability
may be necessary
Givenness
Predictability
…but it may help planning
Linguistic
predictability
Is not necessary

58. Facilitation-Based Reduction
Referential event information can affect reduction (linguistic or not)
Non-linguistic information can elicit reduction
Linguistic information elicits more reduction (suggesting a facilitation effect)
Predictability does not appear to be necessary for reduction in all cases
Experimental complement corpus studies; experimental work CAN include information about referential events and non-linguistic information and what’s going on in the speaker’s head

59. Facilitation-Based Reduction
Referential event information can affect reduction (linguistic or not)
Non-linguistic information can elicit reduction
Linguistic information elicits more reduction (suggesting a facilitation effect)
Predictability does not appear to be necessary for reduction in all cases
Experimental complement corpus studies; experimental work CAN include information about referential events and non-linguistic information and what’s going on in the speaker’s head

60. Facilitation-Based Reduction
Referential event information can affect reduction (linguistic or not)
Non-linguistic information can elicit reduction
Linguistic information elicits more reduction (suggesting a facilitation effect)
Predictability does not appear to be necessary for reduction in all cases
A couple final points - Experimental complement corpus studies; experimental work CAN include information about referential events and non-linguistic information and what’s going on in the speaker’s head

61. Well, what kind of reading group did you want?
What does /this/ pair of experiments say about audience design? Even though we could explain it this way, it seems most natural to explain these results in terms of internal facilitation
[Reading group]

62. Acknowledgements
Kellen Carpenter and Giulia Pancani (our lab managers), Jennifer Tait, Alyssa Ventimiglia, Leighanne McGill (our RA’s)
The Cognitive Department at UNC, whose comments have sharpened our focus here
NSF BCS to Jennifer E. Arnold