Language Use Language Use and and

UnderstandingUnderstandingBCS 261BCS 261

LIN 241LIN 241

PSY 261PSY 261

Understanding by Understanding by Addressees and OverhearersAddressees and Overhearers

Schober and Clark (1989)Schober and Clark (1989)

AnnouncementsAnnouncements

Class will be held in Meliora 366 Class will be held in Meliora 366 starting NEXT CLASS (Wed. Jan. 28)starting NEXT CLASS (Wed. Jan. 28)

Supplemental readings on language Supplemental readings on language to come soon…to come soon…

Sign up for article presentation at Sign up for article presentation at end of class today or next time (or by end of class today or next time (or by email)email)

Last classLast class

Psycholinguistics -- studied as a part of Psycholinguistics -- studied as a part of human cognitionhuman cognition Miller - language as a part of cognitive Miller - language as a part of cognitive

psychologypsychology Lenneberg - a biological approach to the study Lenneberg - a biological approach to the study

of languageof language Our approach: information processingOur approach: information processing

What is the input like?What is the input like? What is the architecture of the knowledge What is the architecture of the knowledge

system like?system like? What *is* the output like?What *is* the output like?

ExampleExample

How do speakers choose an expression?How do speakers choose an expression? InputInput Language Knowledge (lexicon, syntax, Language Knowledge (lexicon, syntax,

phonology, etc.)phonology, etc.) Output: “the dancer with the big fat leg”Output: “the dancer with the big fat leg”

What information is relevant?What information is relevant? What is the mechanism forWhat is the mechanism for

turning input into output?turning input into output?

Two approaches to Two approaches to psycholinguistics (H. psycholinguistics (H.

Clark)Clark) Language-as-actionLanguage-as-action

How do people interactively How do people interactively communicate? communicate?

Focus on naturally-occuring languageFocus on naturally-occuring language Role of interaction in processes of Role of interaction in processes of

production and comprehensionproduction and comprehension

Two approaches to Two approaches to psycholinguistics (H. psycholinguistics (H.

Clark)Clark) Language-as-productLanguage-as-product

What are cognitive processes of What are cognitive processes of understanding and producing linguistic understanding and producing linguistic forms?forms?

Emphasis on using on-line methodsEmphasis on using on-line methods Focus on the time-course of activation of Focus on the time-course of activation of

different kinds of informationdifferent kinds of information

Our approach: merge these traditionsOur approach: merge these traditions

Clark and Schober: Clark and Schober: Discourse as a Discourse as a

Collaborative ProcessCollaborative Process How do people understand each other in How do people understand each other in

conversations?conversations?

Autonomous ViewAutonomous View

- listen, decode, interpret based on - listen, decode, interpret based on perceived common groundperceived common ground

Collaborative ViewCollaborative View

- ongoing collaboration to ensure - ongoing collaboration to ensure understandingunderstanding

TermsTerms

Common GroundCommon Ground – mutual – mutual knowledge, knowledge, assumptions, shared assumptions, shared experience, experience, culture, etc.culture, etc.

GroundingGrounding – establishment of mutual – establishment of mutual belief that what has been said is belief that what has been said is understood (not available to understood (not available to

Overhearers)Overhearers)

Four Time Points in the Four Time Points in the Understanding of a Speech ActUnderstanding of a Speech Act

Initiation Point – Initiation Point – when speaker begins when speaker begins to speakto speak

Completion Point – Completion Point – when both speaker when both speaker and addressee decide grounding is and addressee decide grounding is completecomplete

Recognition Point – Recognition Point – addressee believes addressee believes s/he knows what speaker meanss/he knows what speaker means

Conjecture Point – Conjecture Point – Overhearer believes Overhearer believes s/he knows what speaker meanss/he knows what speaker means

Note: Completion and Recognition points are probably simultaneous. Conjecture point may never happen at all.

Research QuestionResearch Question

What is the role of collaborative What is the role of collaborative grounding in communication?grounding in communication? Test: Do overhearers suffer in Test: Do overhearers suffer in

comprehension, compared with comprehension, compared with addressees?addressees?

Why might overhearers Why might overhearers suffer?suffer?

Both autonomous and collaborative Both autonomous and collaborative views:views: Less input (e.g. if they came in on the Less input (e.g. if they came in on the

conversation in the middle)conversation in the middle) If they share less culture with the If they share less culture with the

speaker, referring expressions may not speaker, referring expressions may not be adequately designed for them to be adequately designed for them to understandunderstand

Why might overhearers Why might overhearers suffer?suffer?

Collaborative view: Collaborative view: ALSO:ALSO: There is variation how long an There is variation how long an

individual might need to understand the individual might need to understand the speaker’s reference. If the addressee speaker’s reference. If the addressee has partial control over the timing of has partial control over the timing of the completion point, it is likely ot not the completion point, it is likely ot not come before the addresee has come before the addresee has understood, but may come before the understood, but may come before the overhearer has understood.overhearer has understood.

PredictionsPredictions

Collaborative View Only:Collaborative View Only: When O and A are same in background When O and A are same in background

knowledge, O should understand less.knowledge, O should understand less. O’s misunderstandings should increase when O’s misunderstandings should increase when

conjecture point comes after completion point.conjecture point comes after completion point. Both Collaborative and Autonomous views:Both Collaborative and Autonomous views:

O should have most difficulties when they do O should have most difficulties when they do not share all the background knowledge of the not share all the background knowledge of the participants.participants.

If O controls pace it should help.If O controls pace it should help.

Experiment 1Experiment 1

Matching task: put cards in same Matching task: put cards in same orderorder

Director and Matcher, OverhearerDirector and Matcher, Overhearer

Method from Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs

Experiment 1 - MethodsExperiment 1 - Methods

Director gave instructions to MatcherDirector gave instructions to Matcher 6 trials6 trials OverhearerOverhearer

- early overhearers (entered Trial 1)- early overhearers (entered Trial 1)

- later overhearers (entered Trial 3)- later overhearers (entered Trial 3)

- half from each group could use “pause”- half from each group could use “pause”

Measure of understanding:Measure of understanding:

- accuracy- accuracy

- time of placement of correct figure- time of placement of correct figure

Experiment 1 - ResultsExperiment 1 - Results

As trials progressed:As trials progressed:

- Described figures first, then referred to - Described figures first, then referred to them with shorter and shorter them with shorter and shorter descriptions (Figure p. 183)descriptions (Figure p. 183)

- Used fewer words to come to agreement - Used fewer words to come to agreement about referenceabout reference

- Amount of time spent per figure dropped- Amount of time spent per figure dropped

Clark and Wilkes-GibbsClark and Wilkes-Gibbs Sample utterances referring to Sample utterances referring to

on Trials 1 through 6on Trials 1 through 6

All right, the next one looks like a person who’s skating, All right, the next one looks like a person who’s skating, except they’re sticking two arms out in front.except they’re sticking two arms out in front.

Um, the next one’s the person ice skating that has two Um, the next one’s the person ice skating that has two arms?arms?

The fourth one is the person ice skating, with two arms.The fourth one is the person ice skating, with two arms. The next one’s the ice skaterThe next one’s the ice skater The fourth one’s the ice skaterThe fourth one’s the ice skater The ice skater.The ice skater.

Referring expressions got Referring expressions got shorter over time shorter over time (Clark and (Clark and

Wilkes-Gibbs)Wilkes-Gibbs)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6

Trials

OVERHEARERS VS. MATCHERSOVERHEARERS VS. MATCHERS

Everyone got better over timeEveryone got better over time M consistently better than OM consistently better than O Early more accurate than Late Early more accurate than Late

OverhearersOverhearers Every Overhearer given the opportunity to Every Overhearer given the opportunity to

pause, did. Performance did not improve.pause, did. Performance did not improve. Overhearers placed cards after Director Overhearers placed cards after Director

had begun next description 31% of time had begun next description 31% of time (Matchers: 1%) Late placements more (Matchers: 1%) Late placements more likely to be incorrect.likely to be incorrect.

Overhearers changed the cards they put Overhearers changed the cards they put down more often than Matchersdown more often than Matchers

Why do Experiment 2?Why do Experiment 2?

Listening to tape-recorded conversation Listening to tape-recorded conversation isn’t as engaging as listening liveisn’t as engaging as listening live

Need for more accurate timing Need for more accurate timing comparisonscomparisons

So…So…Overhearers listen to live conversationsOverhearers listen to live conversations

Videotape Matcher and OverhearerVideotape Matcher and Overhearer

Timed initiation points, completion points, and Timed initiation points, completion points, and card placements to nearest tenth of a secondcard placements to nearest tenth of a second

Experiment 2 - ResultsExperiment 2 - Results No added benefit from listening to conversation No added benefit from listening to conversation

live. Overhearers still didn’t do as well as live. Overhearers still didn’t do as well as Matchers.Matchers.

No significant difference in placement times for No significant difference in placement times for Overhearers and MatchersOverhearers and Matchers

Matchers tended to put cards down at same time Matchers tended to put cards down at same time as they finished establishing reference with as they finished establishing reference with Directors. Overhearers didn’t follow their Directors. Overhearers didn’t follow their completion points so closely. completion points so closely.

Overhearers were more often incorrect on card Overhearers were more often incorrect on card placements that followed the completion point placements that followed the completion point than those the preceded itthan those the preceded it

ConclusionsConclusions The social process of interacting in The social process of interacting in

conversation plays a central role in the conversation plays a central role in the cognitive process of understandingcognitive process of understanding

Listeners who interact in a conversation Listeners who interact in a conversation go about understanding very differently go about understanding very differently from those who are excluded from itfrom those who are excluded from it

Addressees understand faster and more Addressees understand faster and more accurately than Overhearersaccurately than Overhearers

Why?Why?

Understanding differs between M and OUnderstanding differs between M and O Collaboration between speaker and M: B Collaboration between speaker and M: B

can ask for collaborationcan ask for collaboration So speaker may provide less information at first, So speaker may provide less information at first,

expecting M to ask if it isn’t enoughexpecting M to ask if it isn’t enough Criterion for understanding: M makes sure Criterion for understanding: M makes sure

he has understoodhe has understood Perspective: speaker and M make sure they Perspective: speaker and M make sure they

share a common perspective (I.e., B’’s share a common perspective (I.e., B’’s perspective contributes to final perspective)perspective contributes to final perspective)

Why?Why?

Speakers accommodate to their Speakers accommodate to their interlocutorsinterlocutors LoundnessLoundness SpeedSpeed DialectDialect PronunciationPronunciation ExpertiseExpertise

Clark and Schober: these won’t account Clark and Schober: these won’t account for differences, which come from for differences, which come from GROUNDINGGROUNDING

ConclusionsConclusions

The social process of interacting in The social process of interacting in conversation is central to the conversation is central to the cognitive process of understandingcognitive process of understanding

Grounding is central to referring and Grounding is central to referring and communicationcommunication

Clarification QuestionsClarification Questions

would you briefly explain (found on page 186) what a t (47) = 7.38, p<.001 is? (Maryrita Maier)

t(47) = 7.38, p<.001 F(1,45)=179.15, p<.001 The smaller the better.

p < .05 is significant.

Degrees of freedom (roughly # subjects -

1)

What kind of statistical test (t or F)

Are speech events and speech acts the same? Are speech events and speech acts the same? Hymes (1972) defines speech events as Hymes (1972) defines speech events as activities where speech plays a crucial role in activities where speech plays a crucial role in the definition of what is going on – that is, if the definition of what is going on – that is, if we eliminate speech, the particular activity we eliminate speech, the particular activity will not occur (Maryrita Maier)will not occur (Maryrita Maier)

Clarification QuestionsClarification Questions

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion QuestionsAutonomous vs. Collaborative Autonomous vs. Collaborative

ViewsViews

How does the autonomous view account for the How does the autonomous view account for the existence of varying contextsexistence of varying contexts? ? (Nicole Dobrolowski)(Nicole Dobrolowski) Related question: what aspects of the context are Related question: what aspects of the context are

relevant? How do autonomous and collaborative views relevant? How do autonomous and collaborative views differ on this?differ on this?

Is the autonomous view considered to be more of a Is the autonomous view considered to be more of a passive process, compared to the collaborative view, passive process, compared to the collaborative view, because it does not involve checking in with the because it does not involve checking in with the director in order to clarify your thoughts? (Jesse director in order to clarify your thoughts? (Jesse Blake)Blake)

Does anybody see the possibility of varying language Does anybody see the possibility of varying language comprehension processes when overhears are subjected comprehension processes when overhears are subjected to the other forms of overhearing, as Schober mentions, to the other forms of overhearing, as Schober mentions, i.e. cases in which dialogue is disguised or masked by i.e. cases in which dialogue is disguised or masked by other input, say, a conversation in a crowded room? It other input, say, a conversation in a crowded room? It doesn’t really seem that the same precise rules can be doesn’t really seem that the same precise rules can be applied when you consider these other situations. (cf applied when you consider these other situations. (cf articulatory loop) (Anthony Shook)articulatory loop) (Anthony Shook)

Does it make a difference in the performance of the Does it make a difference in the performance of the overhearer if they can see the director; or does seeing the overhearer if they can see the director; or does seeing the director make them an addressee? (Jessee Blake)director make them an addressee? (Jessee Blake)

What else affects What else affects understanding?understanding?

The common culture aspect is not addressed in the The common culture aspect is not addressed in the experiment writeup. Although it could be said that experiment writeup. Although it could be said that they were all part of the Stanford culture, is it not they were all part of the Stanford culture, is it not possible that the speaker and the addressee shared possible that the speaker and the addressee shared more culture than the speaker and the overhearer or more culture than the speaker and the overhearer or the overhearer and the addressee? In the example the overhearer and the addressee? In the example where the overhearer complained about the Hoover where the overhearer complained about the Hoover Tower, one would have to know what the Hoover Tower, one would have to know what the Hoover Tower looks like and share that culture or background Tower looks like and share that culture or background knowledge with the other person. Why was this not knowledge with the other person. Why was this not thought relevant to the experiment? (Nicole thought relevant to the experiment? (Nicole Dobrolowski)Dobrolowski)

How did exp. situation How did exp. situation affect results?affect results?

Michael Schober designed his research methods regarding addressees and overhearers with college students. Would his research results have been different with younger subjects, who may have less of a command of language? Would his results be different if the subjects knew each other? (Maryrita Maier)

How natural is the How natural is the experimental situation?experimental situation?

Does anybody feel these experiments simply weren’t Does anybody feel these experiments simply weren’t natural enough to warrant as much faith as was put into natural enough to warrant as much faith as was put into the results? It seems to me that in natural language, the results? It seems to me that in natural language, we’re very rarely playing such a stringent matching we’re very rarely playing such a stringent matching game, and that similar experiments involving more game, and that similar experiments involving more natural settings, if they yield similar results, would carry natural settings, if they yield similar results, would carry more weight in terms of strength of conclusion. more weight in terms of strength of conclusion. (Anthony Shook)(Anthony Shook)

Do you feel that the collabortive model is how we Do you feel that the collabortive model is how we process language? Have you ever had experiences with process language? Have you ever had experiences with overhearing and being confused? (Jessica DeSisto)overhearing and being confused? (Jessica DeSisto)

What might be some possible reasons for the faster rate of improvement in later overhears than in early overhearers? (Elizabeth Riina)