1 / 29

Thanks

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.

ardara
Download Presentation

Thanks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Processing-based Account of Acoustic Reduction(or: Reduction Comes From Facilitation of Levels of Language Production)Jason M. Kahn & Jennifer E. ArnoldUNC-CHETAP Montreal!

  2. Thanks • Molly Bergeson, Andrés Buxó, Kellen Carpenter, Sam Handel, LeighanneMcgill, 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

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

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

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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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)

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

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

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

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

  13. Instruction-giving Task Listener Approximately 12 feet Speaker

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

  15. Experiment 1: Priming Information Control Non-linguistic Linguistic “The toothbrush; The belt; The accordion”

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

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

  18. 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…

  19. 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

  20. Instruction-giving Task v v v v Blocked trials Icon at the top of the screen Headphones Listener Speaker

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

  22. 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

  23. 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

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

  25. CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE ARTICULATION STAGE

  26. CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE FORMULATION STAGE ARTICULATION STAGE

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

  28. 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)

  29. 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

More Related