1932

Abstract

Audience design refers to the situation in which speakers fashion their utterances so as to cater to the needs of their addressees. In this article, a range of audience design effects are reviewed, organized by a novel cognitive framework for understanding audience design effects. Within this framework, feedforward (or one-shot) production is responsible for feedforward audience design effects, or effects based on already known properties of the addressee (e.g., child versus adult status) or the message (e.g., that it includes meanings that might be confusable). Then, a forward modeling approach is described, whereby speakers independently generate communicatively relevant features to predict potential communicative effects. This can explain recurrent processing audience design effects, or effects based on features of the produced utterance itself or on idiosyncratic features of the addressee or communicative situation. Predictions from the framework are delineated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653
2019-01-04
2024-04-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/70/1/annurev-psych-122216-011653.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Arnold J, Griffin ZM 2007. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. J. Mem. Lang. 56:4521–36
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold JE, Wasow T, Asudeh A, Alrenga P 2004. Avoiding attachment ambiguities: the role of constituent ordering. J. Mem. Lang. 51:55–70
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein Ratner N 2013. Why talk with children matters: clinical implications of infant- and child-directed speech research. Semin. Speech Lang. 34:203–14
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bock JK 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychol. Rev. 89:1–47
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bock JK 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cogn. Psychol. 18:355–87
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bock JK, Levelt WJM 1994. Language production: grammatical encoding. Handbook of Psycholinguistics MA Gernsbacher 945–84 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Branigan HP, Pickering MJ, Cleland AA 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75:2B13–25
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brennan SE, Clark HH 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22:61482–93
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brennan SE, Galati A, Kuhlen AK 2010. Two minds, one dialog: coordinating speaking and understanding. Psychol. Learn. Motiv 53:301–44
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Buz E, Tanenhaus MK, Jaeger TF 2016. Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: feedback from interlocutors affects speakers' subsequent pronunciations. J. Mem. Lang. 89:68–86
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang F, Dell GS, Bock K 2006. Becoming syntactic. Psychol. Rev. 113:2234–72
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark HH 1996. Using Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  13. Dell GS 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 93:283–321
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dell GS, Brown PM 1991. Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: limiting the role of the “model of the listener”. Bridges Between Psychology and Linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman DJ Napoli, JA Kegl 105–29 New York: Psychol. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dell GS, Chang F 2014. The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369:163420120394
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Elsness J 1984. That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. Engl. Stud. 65:519–33
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fedzechkina M, Jaeger TF, Newport EL 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. PNAS 109:4417897–902
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fedzechkina M, Newport EL, Jaeger TF 2017. Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: evidence from word order and case marking. Cogn. Sci. 41:2416–46
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferreira F 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cogn. Psychol. 47:2164–203
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferreira F, Clifton C 1986. The independence of syntactic processing. J. Mem. Lang. 25:348–68
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferreira VS 2008. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. Adv. Res. Theory 49:209–46
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferreira VS, Dell GS 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cogn. Psychol. 40:296–340
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferreira VS, Hudson M 2011. Saying “that” in dialogue: the influence of accessibility and social factors on syntactic production. Lang. Cogn. Process. 26:1736–62
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferreira VS, Schotter ER 2013. Do verb bias effects on sentence production reflect sensitivity to comprehension or production factors?. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 66:81548–71
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferreira VS, Slevc LR 2007. Grammatical encoding. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics MG Gaskell 453–69 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferreira VS, Slevc LR, Rogers ES 2005. How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions. Cognition 96:263–84
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fine AB, Jaeger TF 2013. Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension. Cogn. Sci. 37:3578–91
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fine AB, Jaeger TF 2016. The role of verb repetition in cumulative structural priming in comprehension. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 42:91362–76
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fine AB, Jaeger TF, Farmer TA, Qian T 2013. Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PLOS ONE 8:10e77661
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Francik E 1985. Referential choice and focus of attention in narrative PhD Diss., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
  31. Frank MC 2017. Rational speech act models of pragmatic reasoning in reference games. PsyArXiv http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F9Y6B
    [Crossref]
  32. Fukumura K 2018. Ordering adjectives in referential communication. J. Mem. Lang. 101:37–50
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Galati A, Brennan SE 2010. Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee. J. Mem. Lang. 62:135–51
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Garrett MF 1975. The analysis of sentence production. Psychol. Learn. Motiv 9:133–77
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gennari SP, Mirković J, Macdonald MC 2012. Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cogn. Psychol. 65:2141–76
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gorman KS, Gegg-Harrison W, Marsh CR, Tanenhaus MK 2013. What's learned together stays together: Speakers' choice of referring expression reflects shared experience. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39:3843–53
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Grush R 2004. The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behav. Brain Sci. 27:3377–96
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hartsuiker RJ, Kolk HHJ 2001. Error monitoring in speech production: a computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cogn. Psychol. 42:2113–57
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Heller D, Gorman KS, Tanenhaus MK 2012. To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics Cogn. Sci. 4:2290–305
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Heller D, Parisien C, Stevenson S 2016. Perspective-taking behavior as the probabilistic weighing of multiple domains. Cognition 149:104–20
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Horton WS, Gerrig RJ 2005. The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition 96:127–42
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Horton WS, Gerrig RJ 2016. Revisiting the memory-based processing approach to common ground. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8:4780–95
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Horton WS, Keysar B 1996. When do speakers take into account common ground. Cognition 59:191–117
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Jaeger TF 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. PhD Diss., Stanford Univ Stanford, CA:
  45. Jaeger TF 2010. Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cogn. Psychol. 61:23–62
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jaeger TF 2011. Corpus-based research on language production: information density and reducible subject relatives. Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar, Usage, and Processing. Studies in Honor of Tom Wasow EM Bender, JE Arnold 161–97 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Jaeger TF, Ferreira V 2013. Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behav. Brain Sci. 36:4359–60
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Jaeger TF, Snider NE 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127:157–83
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Karmiloff-Smith A 1985. Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Lang. Cogn. Process. 1:61–85
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kaschak MP, Kutta TJ, Schatschneider C 2011. Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Mem. Cogn. 39:381–88
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Koolen R, Gatt A, Goudbeek M, Krahmer E 2011. Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions. J. Pragmat. 43:133231–50
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuhlen AK, Brennan SE 2013. Language in dialogue: when confederates might be hazardous to your data. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20:154–72
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kurumada C, Jaeger TF 2015. Communicative efficiency in language production: optional case-marking in Japanese. J. Mem. Lang. 83:152–78
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee H 2006. Parallel optimization in case systems: evidence from case ellipsis in Korean. J. East Asian Linguist. 15:169–96
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Levelt WJM 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  56. Levelt WJM, Kelter S 1982. Surface form and memory in question answering. Cogn. Psychol. 14:78–106
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Levelt WJM, Roelofs A, Meyer AS 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22:11–75
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Levelt WJM, Schriefers H, Vorberg D, Meyer AS, Pechmann T, Havinga J 1991. The time course of lexical access in speech production: a study of picture naming. Psychol. Rev. 98:122–42
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lockridge CB, Brennan SE 2002. Addressees’ needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9:3550–57
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lombard E 1911. Le signe de l'elevation de la voix. Ann. Mal. Oreille Larynx Nez Pharynx 37:101–19
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Macdonald MC 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Front. Psychol. 4:226
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Mahowald K, James A, Futrell R, Gibson E 2016. A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 91:5–27
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Myslin M, Levy R 2016. Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: evidence from syntactic processing. Cognition 147:29–56
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pickering MJ, Branigan HP 1998. The representation of verbs: evidence from syntactic priming in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 39:4633–51
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pickering MJ, Ferreira VS 2008. Structural priming: a critical review. Psychol. Bull. 134:427–59
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pickering MJ, Garrod S 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav. Brain Sci. 27:2169–226
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pickering MJ, Garrod S 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behav. Brain Sci. 36:4329–47
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Postma A 2000. Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 77:97–131
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Potash LM 1972. Noise-induced changes in calls of Japanese-quail. Psychon. Sci. 26:5252–54
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosch E 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J. Exp. Psychol. 104:192–233
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Seyfarth S, Buz E, Jaeger TF 2016. Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139:2EL31–37
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Snow CE 1972. Mothers' speech to children learning language. Child Dev 43:549–65
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Temperley D 2003. Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language 79:464–84
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Tourville JA, Peeva MG, Guenther FH 2014. Perception-production interactions and their neural bases. Oxford Handbook of Language Production M Goldrick, VS Ferreira, M Miozzo 460–77 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, Kello C 1993. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 19:528–53
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Wardlow Lane L, Ferreira VS 2008. Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34:1466–81
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Wolpert DM, Doya K, Kawato M 2003. A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 358:1431593–602
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Yoon SO, Brown-Schmidt S 2013. Lexical differentiation in language production and comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 69:3397–416
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Zwaan RA, Radvansky GA 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychol. Bull. 123:162–85
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011653
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error