Advertisement

Exploring the Lexical and Acoustic Consequences of Referential Predictability

  • Elsi Kaiser
  • David Cheng-Huan Li
  • Edward Holsinger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7099)

Abstract

Findings from various domains suggest that predictability is an important component of language processing. We report psycholinguistic research suggesting that predictability also influences referential processing, in the form of reduced acoustic durations for predictable referents. However, we do not find evidence that predictability directly influences likelihood of pronominalization, contrary to some prior claims. Instead, our data indicate that the use and interpretation of pronouns is influenced by thematic role, independently of which referent is most predictable, i.e., most likely to be mentioned next. We suggest that likelihood-of-mention is influenced by the mapping between syntactic and thematic roles. Our results highlight the benefits of exploring both lexical and acoustic aspects of referential production.

Keywords

psycholinguistics reference resolution anaphora predictability acoustic reduction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold, J.: Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23, 495–527 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold, J.: The Effect of Thematic Roles on Pronoun Use and Frequency of Reference Continuation. Discourse Processes 31(2), 137–162 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, A., et al.: Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. J. Acoustic Society of America. 113, 1001–1024 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R.: Choosing anaphoric expressions: Do people take into account likelihood of reference? J. Memory and Language 62, 52–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Givón, T.: Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Lawrence Erlbaum (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grimshaw, J.: Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hale, J.: A Probabilistic early parser as a Psycholinguistic Model. In: NACCL, vol. 2, pp. 159–166 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hume, E., Mailhot, F.: The role of entropy and surprisal in phonologization and language change. In: Yu, A. (ed.) Origins of Sound Patterns, University Press (to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., Raymond, W.: Probabilistic relations between words. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, pp. 229–254. John Benjamins (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaiser, E.: Investigating the Consequences of Focus on the Production and Comprehension of Referring Expressions. J. International Review of Pragmatics 2, 266–297 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiser, E., Holsinger, E., Li, D.: Who next? Consequences of syntax-semantics mismatches for likelihood of mention. In: Human Sentence, Stanford (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kehler, A.: Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., Elman, J.: Coherence and coreference revisited. J. Semantics 25, 1–44 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kertz, L., Kehler, A., Elman, J.: Evaluating a Coherence-Based Model of Pronoun Interpretation. In: Workshop on Ambiguity in Anaphora, Malaga, Spain (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy, R.: Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106, 1126–1177 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rohde, H.: Coherence-Driven Effects in Sentence and Discourse Processing. Ph.D., UC San Diego (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stevenson, R., Crawley, R., Kleinman, D.: Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 519–548 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elsi Kaiser
    • 1
  • David Cheng-Huan Li
    • 1
  • Edward Holsinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations