WK8 L16: Readings

• What is the main focus of the research article by Keysar and Henly?

  Speakers' overestimation of their communication effectiveness
• Why is anticipating miscommunication important in successful communication?

  It helps ensure the intended message is conveyed
• What consistent tendency did speakers show regarding their effectiveness?

  They overestimated their effectiveness
• How did overhearers differ from speakers in their assessment of communication effectiveness?

  Overhearers did not overestimate effectiveness
• What do the findings suggest about speakers monitoring their own utterances?

  They act as biased observers
• What is an example of ambiguity mentioned in the article?

  The daughter of the man and the woman arrived
• What role does prosody play in communication?

  It indicates pragmatic intent
• What did Allbritton et al. (1996) find about speakers' disambiguation of utterances?

  Speakers do not spontaneously disambiguate
• What are the three possible outcomes when speakers gauge addressees' understanding?

  Well calibrated, overestimate, underestimate
• What was the purpose of Experiment 1 in the study?

  To evaluate speakers' assessment of effectiveness
• What did speakers in Experiment 1 tend to believe about their addressees' understanding?

  They believed addressees understood 72% of the time
• What does a significant difference between speakers' predictions and listeners' actual accuracy indicate?

  Speakers overestimate their communication effectiveness

  
• What are the methods used in the study to investigate speakers' effectiveness?

  • Participants say ambiguous sentences
  • Assess addressees' understanding
  • Compare predictions with actual understanding
• What are the implications of the study's findings for theories of language production?

  • Miscommunication is inherent in speaking
  • Speakers' biases must be considered
  • The need for clearer communication strategies
• What types of sentences were used in the experiments?

  • Syntactically ambiguous sentences
  • Lexically ambiguous sentences
• How did the researchers ensure that overhearers received the same information as speakers?

  • Overhearers listened to recordings of speakers
  • They read the same scenarios and questions
• What was the mean accuracy of listeners in the study?

  • 61% accuracy overall
  • More accurate with syntactic than lexical ambiguity
• What correlation was found between meaning dominance and listeners' accuracy?

  • Higher dominance correlated with higher accuracy
  • No correlation with listeners' confidence
• What was the role of the experimenter in the study?

  • Projected meanings on the wall
  • Facilitated the assessment of understanding
• What was the significance of the results in Experiment 1?

  • Speakers overestimated effectiveness significantly
  • Difference between predictions and actual accuracy was significant
• What was the outcome of the study regarding speakers' communication?

  • Speakers often misjudge their effectiveness
  • Miscommunication is a common issue
• What did the study suggest about the cognitive resources required for speaking?

  • Speaking may limit monitoring for ambiguities
  • Cognitive load affects communication effectiveness
• What was the mean confidence level when listeners were correct?

  1. 8
• What was the mean confidence level when listeners were incorrect?

  1. 7
• How did listeners' identification of lexically ambiguous sentences compare to syntactically ambiguous sentences?

  Lexically ambiguous was at chance, syntactically better
• What was the mean confidence level for listeners' identifications of both sentence types?

  Both had a mean of 3.8
• What percentage of the time did speakers believe their addressees understood their intended meaning?

  72%
• What was the significant difference between speakers' predictions and listeners' actual accuracy?

  Speakers predicted 72%, actual was 61%

  
• What was the t-value indicating the difference between predictions and actual accuracy?

  1. 36
• What does the diagonal in Figure 1 represent?

  A calibrated correspondence between predictions and performance
• How is overestimation defined in the study?

  Predicting understanding when there is none
• How is underestimation defined in the study?

  Predicting misunderstanding when there is understanding
• What percentage of cases did speakers overestimate when addressees did not understand?

  46%
• What percentage of cases did speakers underestimate when addressees did understand?

  12%
• What percentage of speakers showed a tendency to systematically overestimate?

  80%
• What was the correlation between speakers' bias and dominance?

  r = 0.5
• What was the mean overestimation measure compared to the underestimation measure?

  Significantly larger
• How did overhearers' expectations of understanding compare to speakers'?

  Overhearers expected 56%, speakers 72%
• What was the t-value for the difference in overestimation between speakers and overhearers?

  0.016
• What was the mean overestimation for syntactically ambiguous sentences?

  55%