WK8 L15: Readings

• What do speakers tend to do with predictable or repeated information?

  They tend to attenuate it.
• What is the main question investigated in the study?

  What drives attenuation in spoken communication?
• How were the stories told in the study structured?

  Twice to one addressee and once to another.
• What was found about stories retold to the same addressees?

  They were attenuated compared to new addressees.
• What does attenuation refer to in this context?

  Reduction of detail in repeated information.
• What happens to lexically identical expressions addressed to new addressees?

  They are more intelligible than to old addressees.
• What is the conclusion about speakers’ attenuation of information?

  It is driven partly by addressees' needs.
• What are the two hypotheses tested regarding attenuation?

  • For-the-speaker hypothesis: Attenuation is easier for speakers.
  • For-the-addressee hypothesis: Attenuation is tailored to addressees' needs.
• What does the for-the-speaker hypothesis predict?

  Speakers will attenuate even if material is new.
• What does the for-the-addressee hypothesis suggest?

  Speakers can tailor stories to addressees' needs.
• What did Bard et al. (2000) aim to investigate?

  Intelligibility and duration of referring expressions.
• What was the finding regarding intelligibility of referring expressions?

  It decreased for second addressees despite being new.
• What was missing in Bard et al.'s study that made it less conclusive?

  A condition with the same speaker and addressee.
• What did Gregory et al.'s unpublished study find?

  More shortening occurred for knowledgeable addressees.
• Why is it difficult to judge the implications of contrasting conclusions from Bard et al. and Gregory et al.?

  They had different tasks and contexts.
• What are the implications of the study for speech planning architecture?

  • Social context influences utterance planning.
  • Planning may differ based on constituent type.
  • Both egocentric processing and audience design may occur.
• What is the cooperative principle in communication?

  Speakers should avoid telling what is already known.
• How does attenuation serve communication?

  It provides cues for utterance interpretation.
• What is the effect of attenuation on repeated references?

  It depends on the ability of partners to interact.
• What happens to attenuation when addressing a silent listener?

  It occurs less than with interactive partners.
• What is the main focus of the study by Keysar et al.?

  The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension
• What is the significance of the study's findings?

  They highlight the role of audience design in communication.
• How do people reduce ambiguity in language interpretation?

  By using information about perspective
• What method did the researchers use to investigate perspective taking?

  Tracking eye movements during instructions
• What did the eye fixation data reveal about addressees' behavior?

  Addressees considered objects beyond mutual knowledge
• What is an egocentric heuristic in comprehension?

  A tendency to consider personal perspective
• What did Gregory et al. find about repeated discourses?

  More shortening when information was known
• What is the potential downside of using an egocentric heuristic?

  It could lead to systematic errors
• Why is it difficult to judge the implications of Gregory et al.'s and Bard et al.'s studies?

  There are significant differences between the studies
• What is the role of mutual knowledge in resolving ambiguity?

  It helps correct interpretation errors
• What was the nature of Gregory et al.'s task?

  Studying and repeating short discourses
• What are the key components of ambiguity resolution in language comprehension?

  • Perception of phonemes
  • Syntactic parsing
  • Identification of speaker's intention
  • Use of visual context
  • Knowledge of who knows what
• How did Bard et al.'s corpus differ from Gregory et al.'s study?

  Bard's task was spontaneous and interactive
• What characterizes the speech planning system?

  Incremental processing and cascading architecture
• Who are the authors of the study on perspective in conversation?

  Boaz Keysar, Dale J. Barr, Jennifer A. Balin, Jason S. Brauner
• In what ways can utterances be tailored?

  Articulation, planning, and encoding
• What is the significance of the co-presence heuristic in conversation?

  It helps identify intended referents based on visibility
• What does the dual process model suggest about articulation?

  It is encapsulated from partner-specific knowledge
• How does the egocentric strategy affect the identification of referents?

  It can lead to considering inaccessible objects
• What did Bard et al. find regarding repeated words?

  No effect on duration of repeated words