Cracking Codenames : Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of A Reference Game

Maika Isogawa (misogawa@stanford.edu)LINGUIST 130A Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics - Christopher Potts (cgpotts@stanford.edu)

Stanford University

Abstract

The intricate happenings that underlie language has remained difficult to model. Codenames, a popular group game involving words and teamwork, incorporate many of the nuances of human language. After a research study to record real game play data

from Codenames, we attempt to apply the Rational Speech Acts model and its extension to metaphor to model aspects of Codenames. From the analysis, new themes and ideas emerged. We discuss these high-level themes and the implications of the

findings to our current models of understanding human language.

Introduction

One does not typically think about all of the assumptions and agreements that two parties make before they begin a conversation. History, background, prior experience, and expectations of each of the individuals are just a few of the things that shape how we speak, and what we understand when we listen. These linguistic nuances are consciously considered in unusual situations such miscommunication, metaphor, and in some instances of humor. It is only natural that researchers would study language, as it may give us insight into the workings of the human mind. The complicated nature of language has also been leveraged to create games that spark intellect, analysis, and (mostly) friendly competition.

“Codenames” is one of these games. First introduced to the game in the fall of 2017, I thought little of it. The following winter, I enrolled in the course, “Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics,” taught by Professor Christopher Potts at Stanford University. After studying pragmatics, conversational implicature, and the Rational Speech Acts (RSA) model, I began to see the layers of sophistication that underlie the game Codenames. In this paper, I will discuss a study that was conducted on Codenames, and an analysis of semantic and pragmatic interpretation in comparison with the RSA model.

To reasonably limit the scope of the paper, the data is limited to small snippets of Codenames gameplay. In addition, the RSA model was applied to a restricted set of the Codenames data in order to illuminate both the successes and shortcomings of the RSA model as a theory of communication. Finally, I will summarize some of the overarching themes of the reference games that were studied.

The Game : Codenames

Codenames is a board game that was created in 2015 by Czech Games. Two teams compete to see who can guess all of their team’s secret words first. The rules are many, but relatively straightforward:

A group of four to eight players split into two teams; red and blue. One player on each team is designated as the ‘spymaster.’ There are 25 words per game, laid in a 5 by 5 grid for all to see, which constructs the game board. The spymasters are the only players who are able to see the ‘map’ to the game board, a small card that reflects the 5 by 5 game board, with various red, blue, yellow, and a single black

Isogawa 2

square, each corresponding to the various words on the board. The colored cards belong to each individual team, while the yellow cards are neutral. If the single black card is guessed by a team, the game immediately ends and the team that chose that card loses. On each turn the spymaster is allowed to give there team a single word as a hint about their team’s cards. They may also give a number, which indicates how many words on the board their word is referring to. The maximum amount of words that the team can guess during that turn is the hint number plus one. Teams take turns making guesses and giving hints until either all of one team’s cards are guessed, or the black card is guessed.

An image of the various pieces of the game can be found below.

Image 1: The physical components of Codenames

The RSA Model and Reference Games

The Rational Speech Acts model implements a social cognition approach to utterance understanding [2]. Speakers are assumed to be cooperative and helpful with their utterances, and listernes should be able to infer what the speaker meant, based on what was said. A brief explanation of the speaker and listener agents, as well as how they interact, will be described with an example.

To explain the example, I will introduce a simple reference game. In this reference game, there are a set of possible states, a set of messages, a semantic interpretation function, a prior probability, and a cost of the messages. For the technical equations and models used to calculate the RSA model, please refer to Goodman & Frank [2] listed in the references.

Isogawa 3

Simple reference game scenario [3]:

Scenario semantic interpretation prior cost function

In the RSA model, the pragmatic listener interprets the state of the world given the speaker’s utterance. The listener must assume that the speaker is a rational agent. Using Bayes’ rule, and following the equations described in Goodman & Frank [2], one can construct matrices that describe the literal listener, speaker, and lister roles that occur in this reference game.

Literal listener Speaker Listener

With human participants, the speaker and listener share a world of two faces, one that wears glasses and another that wears both glasses and a hat. When the speaker says “glasses,” humans tend to intuitively know that, given the only other option is “hat,” the speaker is referring to the face wearing only glasses. The real world is less restricted in possible utterances, but this illustrates the dynamics of pragmatic reasoning, and the assumptions and deductions we make in everyday conversation.

In this example of the RSA model, a listener reasons about a speaker who in turn reasons about a listener. The listener changes their internal reasoning about the model based on the knowledge that both faces wear glasses, but only one of the faces wears a hat. Knowing this, the speaker chooses which utterance to say which would make it more likely for the listener to guess the correct reference. Finally, upon hearing ‘glasses’ or ‘hat’ the listener can make a guess based on the probabilities found using the RSA calculations.

This simple reference game is a sufficient starting point to applying the RSA model. However, there are many more parts to the human language then true and false statements and limited referents. There is a lot of work being done to apply the RSA model to different types of communication such as metaphor.

One central pillar to understanding metaphor is to assume that listeners interpret utterances with the assumption that they were produced because they were maximally relevant. So when there are utterances that are blatantly false yet still need to be considered, a listener may be able to deduce that the phrase may not contain a literal meaning, but instead refer to qualities or aspects of the utterance. For

Isogawa 4

example, when a speaker says “the lawyer is a shark,” a rational listener knows that the speaker does not intend to say that the lawyer is literally a shark. Thus, the listener may interpret that the speaker may be referring to qualities of a shark that would refer to humans such as “vicious” [4].

For the metaphor model, the listener expects that the speaker is choosing utterances that are the most informative, relative, and consistent with what the speaker is trying to convey. This model is important to consider, as most of everyday conversation is not direct reference, the way it was in the simple reference game. The RSA extension to metaphor is described in great detail in the paper, “Formalizing the Pragmatics of Metaphor Understanding,” by Kao, Bergen, and Goodman [4]. For the purpose of applying this model to Codenames, there are two key takeaways to consider.

First, possible referents can belong to categories, rather than individual values. For the lawyer shark example, the two categories could be ‘animal’ and ‘human.’ Second, the speaker’s goal is to communicate a particular feature of their utterance, not just the literal utterance itself. Again in the lawyer shark case, the two features could be ‘scariness’ and ‘can swim.’ The calculations themselves have minor adaptations. With this changes, the extension of the RSA model applied to metaphor may be a better approach to model a complicated linguistic game like Codenames.

The Study

The purpose of the study was to gather real player data on Codenames. The participants were members of Superfly, Stanford’s Women’s Ultimate team. Within the group, the players had a variety of levels of experience with the game, from complete novices to those who had played for multiple years. There were eight participants total, four on each team. A timer was not used to dictate the length of a turn.

Photographs were taken of each of the game boards and the game map. The games were sound-recorded, and the utterances were transcribed so that they could be analyzed. Three games were encoded in total. The full collection of data gathered from the study can be found in the appendix.

Images of the game board and map from the study.

Dynamics of Codenames

Isogawa 5

Before analyzing an RSA application of a snippet of Codenames gameplay, there are a few aspects to consider. First, the vocabulary available to the speaker in Codenames is all of the vocabulary that the speaker has access to in the English language. The only restriction to this is the vocabulary that the listener(s) have access to. Unlike in the simple reference game, the list of possible words cannot be known to the lister(s).

A second difference is the number restriction offered by the speaker of the number of words their utterance is referring to. Given that there are a maximum of twenty-five words on the game board at once, It would be reasonable to assume that the listener(s) would pick the top N items by RSA-modeled probability, where N is the number given by the speaker. This will be considered in an application of the RSA model.

A third difference is that in Codenames, there are multiple rounds. Every time a word is guessed, it changes the options of words for the speaker to refer to, and changes the domain that the listeners) are extracting from. In addition, if one team is unable to correctly guess all of their words for a round, they may be able to bring that information with them to the next round. The opposing team may also be able to use that information to avoid certain words that may be associated with the other team. Thus in a real analysis of this game, both speakers’ utterances must be considered for all listeners, and each round adds a new complexity to the rationalization of choices. For the purpose of a clear analysis, these aspects will be stripped to a smaller subset of gameplay.

An Application of RSA

For the purpose of the analysis, an artificially restricted set of message options from the study will be used. The metaphor extension of the RSA model will be considered. The situation is a portion of gameplay in which there was a switch from certainty to uncertainty between rounds when a referent was removed (incorrectly guessed).

The portion of gameplay will be from game one, word two. All of the components and utterances of the game can be referenced in the appendix.

The utterance was ‘snake.’ and the number given was ‘three.’ The listeners initially identified seven possible referents on the game board: spine, yard, boots, Africa, cotton, log, and train. As in the metaphor model of the RSA, the listeners created two categories for the words. ‘Spine,’ ‘log,’ and ‘train’ belonged to the category based on the form of ‘snake,’ as in ‘snake-like,’ or physical attributes ‘like a snake.’ The second category included ‘yard,’ ‘boots,’ and ‘Africa,’ and were the ‘places you could find a snake.’ ‘Cotton,’ was excluded from the groups as not a viable option, since there was a number restriction of three given to the categories, and cotton did not fit well in either.

If the categories and metaphorical interpretation of ‘snake’ are split in this way, we use the RSA model. The potential categories are restricted to location and shape. The possible features of ‘snake’ are restricted to form, and place found.

Isogawa 6

location shape

form 0 1

Place found 1 0

It should be easy for the listeners to guess which category the speaker was referring to, if only they knew which feature of ‘snake,’ was intended. This uncertainty made it extremely difficult for the listeners to decide which to pick, and ended up having a 50/50 probability of choosing the correct answer (which they did not).

One thing not yet mentioned is the role of priors and costs. In Codenames, the dynamics of teammates and personal relationships can potentially change the game. For example, if a speaker and listener have a special shared story about holding a snake in Africa, it may be easier for that listener to choose the ‘location’ category. This nuance is discussed in the ‘High Level Themes’ portion of the paper.

When the word ‘log’ was guessed incorrectly by the listeners, the aspect of uncertainty no longer played a role in this particular portion of the game. This can be seen in the model by eliminating the ‘form’ feature of ‘snake’ as the intention of the speaker. This in turn removed the referents that were in the ‘shape’ category. The updated model:

location shape

form 0 1

Place found 1 0

As modeled, in the following rounds the team was able to confidently choose the words ‘yard,’ ‘boots,’ and ‘Africa.’ As mentioned before, these N words had the highest probability, where N was the number given by the speaker (in this case, three).

Considering metaphor is a powerful extension of the RSA model when applying it to Codenames.

RSA-Related High-Level Themes

A number of pragmatic and semantic themes were illuminated through the application of the RSA model to Codenames.

First, listeners reason about the speaker’s chosen word in terms of relevance and descriptiveness. When comparing different combinations of referents, the listeners tried to consider more accurate or descriptive utterances the speaker could have chosen. For example in game one word three, the speaker gave the word ‘treasure’ and the number two. Consider this snippet of utterances transcribed from the gameplay:

Isogawa 7

Game 1 - Word 3: Treasure - two

● Pyramid. 100%.● banks seem good● Treasure, guys. ● What about boot? Like booty.● No, that’s too far, too much of a jump, I think it’s bank and pyramid● Why not like ‘gold’ or something? ● Treasure hunters are the people who go in the pyramids, like National Treasure ● And you bury someone in a pyramid with treasure● Ok, let's do pyramid first. [touches pyramid]● And bank, do we feel good about bank? [touches bank]

‘Bank’ and ‘pyramid’ were possible referents chosen by the listeners. However, before making a decision, the listeners reasoned about the choice of the speaker’s utterance, considering that the word ‘gold’ may have been a more relevant and descriptive hint.

Because there is not a restricted set of utterances agreed upon between the speaker and listener(s), there is a high chance that the speaker simply did not think of that ‘better’ hint, not that they specifically chose not to use it. This highlights an interesting happening when it comes to pragmatics and speech patterns, as sometimes, words are chosen based on mindset, environment, and recent events, as that may be at the forefront of a speaker’s mind. A listener cannot know all of the priors to a speaker’s utterance, so even in the best possible case, a literener’s understanding of a speaker’s intended reference is based heavily on assumption and personal opinion. These aspects are not represented by the current RSA models.

Second, Codenames is a competition with two teams, each trying to guess all of their team’s words before the other team. This rush adds a pressure on the speaker to get their listener(s) to guess the most number of words per turn. With this extra goal in mind, the speaker may be more likely to give a slightly more creative or ambiguous word in an attempt to connect multiple referrents.

For example, in game one word seven, the hint ‘patriotic’ is given. This hint was given during the final turns of the game, by the speaker whose team was likely to lose on the next round if all of their words were not guessed. Thus, in an attempt to connect all of the team’s words, the speaker gave an utterance that was too abstract to be understood, and the team ended up losing when the listeners chose the black card. This sheds light on another aspect of pragmatics, that people may use unclear or indirect language like metaphor to portray some extra bit of information beyond what is encoded in the syntax of their utterance.

This deduction happens every day in daily conversation. Every interaction with the world and people around us creates scripts for which our language and options grow and adapt. New information we receive changes our opinions and point of view, which in turn affects the language we use and the way we interact with the world. One must also consider all kinds of social and environmental pressures on the speaker which may change the utterances they choose. This aspect of communication may be partially

Isogawa 8

represented in the ‘cost’ portion of the RSA model, but it may be impossible to encode all pressures of an intricate human’s life and environment.

Summary

What does all of this mean for our current models of understanding human language?

In controlled, restricted reference games, the RSA model is fairly successful in assessing and modeling conversation. When aspects of inference, subtlety, metaphor, and other linguistic nuances are thrown into the mix, the current models struggle to accurately model the happenings.

Perhaps understanding human language will also require understanding how language is affected by the environment, history, and relationship between the listener and speaker. Creating models to depict these layers of human conversation is an intimidating task, but Codenames is a genuine step between simple reference games and natural conversation.

By utilizing advanced and increasingly complicated situations to study human language, we can expand current models of human language. As natural language processing tools improve, and as we gain insight into how the human mind processes language and social situations, we may someday have a more complete model of understanding human language.

As for Codenames, one could view it as a creation that brilliantly eoncompasses the subtleties of human communication. For most, it will remain a simple and fun group game enjoyed at sleepovers and family barbecues.

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codenames_(board_game)

[2] https://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist130a/restricted/readings/goodman2016.pdf

[3] Christopher Potts, LINGUIST 130A “Introduction to the Rational Speech Acts model” handout

[4] Justine T. Kao1, Leon Bergen, Noah D. Goodman. Department of Psychology, Stanford University. Department of Brain and Cognitive Science, MIT. “Formalizing the Pragmatics of Metaphor Understanding” https://cocolab.stanford.edu/papers/KaoEtAl2014-Cogsci.pdf

Appendix

Game 1:

Log Shakespeare Europe Bank Boot

play teacher cotton plastic pyramid

Isogawa 9

Superhero Eagle Cook foot lion

spine wave grace calf yard

degree ketchup train snowman africa

Map

yellow red red blue red

yellow blue yellow yellow blue

black blue yellow red yellow

red red blue blue red

blue blue blue yellow red

Blue team start

Word 1: Professor - two

● teacher looks great. Why did you say professor. Something about college. ● Shakespeare?● Degree. ● A teacher with a degree? A professor● Definitely do teacher. [touches teacher and degree].

Word 2: Snake - three

● Oh man, snake? That brings up so many memories right now (I quit!) ● Spine? Yard? ● Africa? - that’s where my mind goes to● Snakes have a spine● Boots? Yard? You could have a snake in the yard● Cotton-mouths are a type of snake● So far, Cotton, africa, and yard, beater said boot● Isn’t ‘snake in my boot’ like a phrase? I feel like that could be it● There’s also objects are similar to snakes: log and spine, but I don’t know if it’s too far● Is there a third one of those type of things? ● Trains are snake-like● Oh yeah! They snake around curves. ● Everything is like a snake● So we have three that kind of look like snakes and then are there three that are places snakes

could be? Africa, yard, and then boot? No snakes in Europe at all

Isogawa 10

● Eagles also hunt snakes ● I feel like that one’s too far off, it might be a little…● I actually like the log, spine, train one● The cotton one kind of makes sense● You know what we can do? We can try one, and see if that’s totally the wrong train of thought -

that’s a good idea● What if one of them is like the black thing? ● We have to try something - just go for one and see what happens.● Should i do log? ● Yeah do log [touches log]

Incorrect (yellow card) - ● Keep in mind though● Spine would be in the same vein as log● I don’t know what Perrie is thinking● Maybe that one would’ve accidentally been ours● Keep Africa and yard in mind maybe?

Word 3: Treasure - two

● Pyramid. 100%.● banks seem good● Treasure, guys. ● What about boot? Like booty.● No, that’s too far, too much of a jump, I think it’s bank and pyramid● Why not like ‘gold’ or something? ● Treasure hunters are the people who go in the pyramids, like National Treasure ● And you bury someone in a pyramid with treasure● Ok, let's do pyramid first. [touches pyramid]● And bank, do we feel good about bank? [touches bank]

Word 4: ● We’ll keep in mind the previous clues just give us a new one● Maybe we should guess Africa

Cruise - three● Oh man● Well wave, Europe, cruise around europe, also Africa, ● Not so much ● People will cook for you on cruises?● It’s likely for 3 new cards [was actually for 2, gave then an extra number in hopes they would

guess an extra as well and get the ones from last clue]● Is Perrie’s intention to help us? Because if she’s trying to help us it would be countries, wave, ● But that only gets 2, we gotta catch up● Wave definitely [touches wave] ● Should we do Europe? - there’s supposed to be 3

Isogawa 11

● Let’s do Europe [touches Europe]● Do you wanna do Africa? [touches Africa]● Do we want to guess yard for snake or play for cruise? ● Maybe we should do yard, it’s a little safer than play. [touches yard]

Word 5: Hamburger - two

● Ok cook● Ketchup● It’s over● Wait - no. ● What else could it be?● Hamburger, the only thing I would say is calf. It’s beef● But why did she say two? One of them isn’t - i don’t think she thought of that I think cook and

ketchup are obviously. Let’s definitely do ketchup [touches ketchup]● Cook, just do it● Ketchup and calf though? ● It’s weird, do cook. [touches cook] - incorrect● It’s ok we know exactly what it is now

Word 6: Shoe - two

● How about foot and boot● Or calf? Not calf, probably foot● Are you ok with foot and boot? Cool, lets do it. Do we think this is double on snake somehow?

[touches foot] [touches boot]● Should we guess play? ● Is there anything else? Not really● Let's do play [touches play] - incorrect

Word 7: Patriotic - three

● Eagle● Calf● Train, the trains they built all across america and they celebrated when they met because one was

going east to west the other one was going west to east ● Wanna just hit eagle then calf?● Why calf, if it was that she would have said animal● Because of calf last time● I think we’re the most sure of those● [touches Eagle] [touches calf]● So we need two patriotic things● I’m thinking superhero and grace● I like superhero - like Captain america

Isogawa 12

● Grace? ● But if it was grace and superhero she would’ve said amazing● But she also had eagle - superhero● Ok superhero is great● Maybe this is social commentary and it’s like plastic● The cotton industry - picking cotton● Grace is legit - it’s a vibey thing● Because patriotism and grace are fake things● I could do cotton● I like superhero● I could do Shakespeare? No● Yeah Shakespeare that was really, he’s all over the public education curriculum ● Let’s hit superhero [touches superhero BLACK CARD}

End of gameSays word and sees if they can get it:Tragedy - two

● Shakespeare definitely [touches Shakespeare]● There have been a lot of amtrak crashes ● It could be lion though ● Think about the other cruise ● Lion king is based off hamlet which is a tragedy ● Train or lion● Touch train [touches train]

Game 2

Scuba diver Helicopter field witch bow

chest air olive car press

police New york revolution genius oil

opera dwarf fish pumpkin tooth

ghost boom soul engine Loch ness

Map

blue blue yellow red blue

yellow red blue blue yellow

blue yellow black red blue

red blue yellow red red

Isogawa 13

yellow red yellow blue red

Blue team start

Word 1: Vehicle - five

● Oil, engine, car, helicopter● Police? Boom? ● Get the one’s we’re sure of. Engine?● I feel good about car● They’re both obvious, it’s fine, just touch them [touch engine]● Car is fine that’s a vehicle yes? [touches car]● Oil maybe? ● Helicopter. Then oil. [touches oil] [touches helicopter]● I think police is the best. But air is also ● That’s an abstract way of thinking of a vehicle● Vehicle is like a very common phrase● Boom is also in there● Chest● Scuba diver is kind of a vehicle, it’s a person (in what language?)● Soul? Like soulcycle● Closest is police and air? Between those what do you do● Boom because vehicles make noise? ● When you think of police you think of the police car● Try police, you’ve swayed me [touches police]

Word 2: Breath - three

● Air● Ghost● Chest● Breath or breadth? - breath● Definitely air and chest, what about soul? ● Scuba-diver. You take a breath underwater● Can we start with air? ● Ghosts don’t breathe● Do you wanna go with air and chest? Start with air [touches air]● What about fishes breathe underwater (do scuba diver and fish because both of them are

breathing underwater)● I would say chest and then either scuba diver or..● Let’s definitely do chest [touches chest]● I think scuba diver is pretty good, better than ghost● You should just do fish [touches scuba diver]

Isogawa 14

Word 3: Aquatic - two

● Fish● Loch ness● [touches fish] [touches loch ness]

Word 4: Pressure - two

● Press, literally a subset of the word pressure● And boom, something that happens when something is under too much pressure● Do we feel good about boom and press? [touches boom] [touches press]

Word 5: Seven - one

● Witch? ● A lucky number● Oh dwarves, seven dwarves. [touches dwarf] Snow White

Word 6: October - two

● Ghost, pumpkin, witch● Probably witch and pumpkin● Not ghost? She would’ve just said Halloween if it was witch and ghost, shouldn’t pumpkin be

one of them?● It’s certainly pumpkin● Start with pumpkin [touches pumpkin]● It’s one of those, and should we just guess the third one?● We’ve talked about ghost, and breath before● It makes me think she knew ghost was on the board pretty well...● It’s like she missed witch ● [touches ghost] BLACK CARD

That’s why witch was so hard because i wanted to connect ghost and dwarf but ghost was on there so i couldn’t say like mythical or anything, it had to be very specific

I thought about saying holiday, I banked on not screwing up

The reason I freaked out was because I have Dozer, and like, oh no, October revolution, and that was going to be… and that’s why October, then recoiled. Well i knew ghost was on the board so they had a 50/50 shot of saying ghost.

Game 3

Isogawa 15

mouse part cloak thief crash

cross port comic charge fork

lap fair robin piano strike

washington ham back lock tube

hole fence card pistol root

Map

red blue blue blue yellow

red yellow red red yellow

red red blue yellow red

blue yellow yellow blue red

blue blue red yellow black

Red team start

Word 1: Butt - two

● Hole!● Butt.● Can we just touch hole?● It’s definitely hole [touches hole] - incorrect (why would you think sprout would say that??)

Word 2:Mugging - two

● Not cloak● thief● Pistol● What about stripe● Oh charge? ● It could be cloak● Why didn’t she say steal?● I feel like there’s a certain violence to it that we’re missing● Crash? Strike?● Are there any other ones that are related? ● What about charge like charging someone● Which ones are the most obvious? ● I’m down for strike [touches strike] Incorrect

Isogawa 16

Word 3: ● We are thinking part, back, and ham● But so many things have butts not just ham● But you eat pork butt

Chord - two● If it was just cord i would say charge and piano, but it’s specifically chord● It might be part also, your part in a duet● Maybe we should do piano and back?● What would be the other thing for chord.● Root? ● Can we touch piano? [touches piano]● What do you guys think about root? - i don’t think so, not common● Part kind of makes sense, it also kind of goes with butt● [touches part] - incorrect● What about the butt of a pistol?

Word 4: Gun - one

● Are you serious?● Pistol● No no no, we can’t just believe that. ● I’m touching it [touches pistol]

Word 5: ● So it wasn’t the butt of a pistol then● I have no idea what butt was● I think we should try back

Shirt - three● Back?● Yeah definitely like the shirt on my back● cloak ? yeah● Start with back [touches back]● I feel like cloak is pretty safe [touches cloak]● Maybe we should guess tube, like tube top● I’m not seeing anything stronger, so let’s do it [touches tube]● We can guess one more for chord.● There’s that saying “it struck a cord?” but that isn’t…● Maybe fork? Like a tuning fork?● Yeah but not on a piano● But you can have chords on other instruments● Tuning fork!● I think we should do that because Sprout is very musical● What if we lose, it’s ok we’ll risk it [touches fork] - incorrect, was other team’s card

Isogawa 17

● If she hadn’t spelled it i would so say charge

Word 6:Stanford - two

● Is farm on there?● Robin!● Ham● Card, cardinal.● Yeah that makes sense [touches card]● I think it has to be robin● Trash, roots?● Fair?● I think it’s robin or ham● Ham? ● Hydra says ham all the time● Why wouldn’t it be washington● She would’ve thought about it, and they would think about robin relating to stanford● Unless she’s thinking about robin as a bird and not as a bird● I mentioned robin as a person earlier● Go for robin [touches robin]

Word 7: Tree - two

● Root, fence?● Root, definitely [touches root]● It might be fence because it’s outside● It could also be cross (it was cross)● Washington and tree? Like chopping down the cherry tree● What if it’s like crash, like a falling tree● Then she might have said timber● I think Washington is the best● I would’ve said something like yard if it was fence● Root and fence she would’ve said wood● Maybe Washington? ● Let’s try [touches Washington] INCORRECT

Word 8: Entrance - two

● Port, definitely port● And lock, no,● Fence? Oh lock is good though like a lock on the door● Sometimes you get charged for an entrance fee ● Entrance a fence. Definitely port and fence● Fence as an entrance?

Isogawa 18

● If the words were port and fence what would she use to describe them? ● Entrance● I don’t think entrance,● But I definitely think port. Port is an entrance.● Comic doesn’t make sense● Charge? Is an option, lock is an option● Ohhh fair could be…● NO● So we have 3 options, lock, fence, charge● Their clue was tree, so tree is one of these things● Lock?● I like lock because it would be on a door● Wait wait no no● I think if it was lock and port she should’ve said key because a port key and keys go in locks● I don’t think she would’ve thought of that● Go with lock● I don’t like lock● I’m going to touch lock● Because you lock an entrance? It seems like the opposite to me● [touches lock] INCORRECT

Word 9: Roadrace - two

● Lap?● It’s crash● That make sense with the tree● And maybe charge - maybe that was the chord● Does roadracing have something to do with mice?● That’s ratrace● Comic● I think lap and crash● Because lapping, like a race● Crash and lap [touches crash] INCORRECT

Word 10: Gate - one

● Fence was your entrance?● Fence is the opposite of entrance● [touches fence]

END OF GAME: Explanation● Cross like you cross the street● Butt - two , back and lap because they’re close to your butt● Then chord - two, Finny you mentioned it but I meant root, the root of the chord, and piano● Shirt - three, tubetop, back, cloak. You got all of those

Isogawa 19

● Tree - two, root and cross, like the wood of a cross● Roadrace - two, ham and cross. Because you said you would guess ham anyways