slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Thanks PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Thanks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Thanks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 145 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Thanks' - ardara


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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!

thanks
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
slide3

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…

slide4

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…

repeated mentions get reduced e g bard et al 2000 fowler housum 1987
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)

general questions
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
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
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)

slide9

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

slide10

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

slide11

Facilitation-based

Introduction

Body

Conclusion

“introduction”

CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE

FORMULATION STAGE

Reduction!

More Reduction!

linguistic vs non linguistic givenness
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

instruction giving task
Instruction-giving Task

Listener

Approximately 12 feet

Speaker

experimental paradigm
Experimental Paradigm

Speaker: “The accordion rotates right”

Speaker: “The toothbrush shrinks”

Speaker: “The belt expands”

experiment 1 priming information
Experiment 1: Priming Information

Control

Non-linguistic

Linguistic

“The toothbrush;

The belt;

The accordion”

slide16

Predictions

Joint Discourse Status predicts….

Facilitation-based predicts…

reduced duration of the object word
Reduced Duration of the Object Word

Linguistic < Non-linguistic < Control

*

*

facilitation based account explains the results naturally
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
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 task1
Instruction-giving Task

v

v

v

v

Blocked trials

Icon at the top of the screen

Headphones

Listener

Speaker

slide21

Reduced Object Word Duration

(Both, Speaker) < (Listener, None)

X

*

X

facilitation once again provides a natural explanation
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
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
slide24

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

slide25

CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE

FORMULATION STAGE

ARTICULATION STAGE

slide26

CONCEPTUALIZATION STAGE

FORMULATION STAGE

ARTICULATION STAGE

slide27

Reduced Object Word Duration

Congruent+Aloud < (Congruent, Aloud) < Incongruent + Internal

*

*

*Interaction

facilitation of articulation creates reduction
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
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