Quiz #4 Flashcards
(44 cards)
What’s in common ground?
- Sometimes assumed (world knowledge)
- Sometimes context-dependent
If something’s not in common ground, how do we get it there?
Negotiation and back-channeling in dialogue
How do we study use of common ground in dialogue? (2)
- Study naturalistic dialogue in a constrained context
- Referential games
Conceptual pact
Interlocutors develop a “conceptual pact” to reference weird objects
Brennan & Clark on conceptual pacts
Conceptual pacts last even if they’re no longer needed to distinguish between objects (ex: stays high heel instead of shoe)
Ibarra & Tanenhaus on conceptual pacts
Referring expression more likely to change trial-to-trial in Build Phase than Item Phase
Do people tend to break pact or keep pact when a new competitor arrises?
Break pact- more words to refer to blocky turtle after real turtle is revealed, breaks conceptual pact
Brown-Schmidt et al. in Barnyard Oscars game
- Listeners can quickly figure out what speaker is asking about by using common ground
- Occurs immediately, before disambiguating info
Heller, Grodner, & Tanenhaus on whether listeners are able to quickly use common ground to infer referential meaning (duck, box, soap)
- 2 contrast condition: have to wait until noun
- 1 contrast condition: “big” should refer to duck, participants look at duck early
Production Ease
Just produce whatever is easiest, disregarding your interlocutor
Audience Design
Make things as easy to understand for your interlocutor as possible (even if it’s harder to produce)
Pros & cons of production ease
- Easier in moment
- Risk of listener not understanding you
Pros & cons of audience design
- Your listener will have better comprehension
- Taxing for attention/memory
- Utterances might take longer/more effort to produce
Brown & Dell on whether speakers mention items important to a story at a higher rate when their listener doesn’t have knowledge of them
- Typical vs atypical instrument
- Within clause: “The robber stabbed a man with a knife”
- Separate clause: “The robber stabbed the man. He used a knife”
- Subsequent mention: “The robber stabbed the man. He wiped blood off the knife”
Brown & Dell conclusions
Production ease first, only repair later, audience design as an afterthought
Lockbridge & Brennan- redo of Brown and Dell experiment
- No visual co-presence
- Full co-presence
- Vastly different results when design is more naturalistic
- Big audience design effect when speaker knows what the listener does and doesn’t know
Wu & Keysar about how speakers refer to novel objects when their listeners know or don’t know their names
- Perfect audience design requires remembering which objects were learned together or separately
- Too costly for memory
- Applied a general audience design strategy
Ibarra (2018) on how we use this kind of audience design in day-to-day life?
- Investigate common vs rare everyday objects (ex: mandoline vs tongs)
- After, rate how well other seems to know category
- We tailor terms we use based on what we think our listener probably does/doesn’t know
Nature
Biologically determined (nativism)
Nuture
Fill in the “blank slate” (empiricism)
Critical period hypothesis (CPH)
Acquisition in a critical time frame. After this period, acquisition is difficult
Chomsky’s view of acquisition
Poverty of stimulus:
- quantity: insufficient input from the environment for rule learning
- quality of input not good enough
- Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
- Universal grammar
- Principles and parameters, parameters can be language-specific
Constraint-based approach
Optimality Theory (OT)
- Set of constraints
- Output is generated by constraint rankings
