1. Language Use and Understanding BCS 261 LIN 241 PSY 261

2. Understanding by Addressees and Overhearers Schober and Clark (1989)

3. Announcements Class will be held in Meliora 366 starting NEXT CLASS (Wed. Jan. 28) Class will be held in Meliora 366 starting NEXT CLASS (Wed. Jan. 28) Supplemental readings on language to come soon… Supplemental readings on language to come soon… Sign up for article presentation at end of class today or next time (or by email) Sign up for article presentation at end of class today or next time (or by email)

4. Last class Psycholinguistics -- studied as a part of human cognition Psycholinguistics -- studied as a part of human cognition Miller - language as a part of cognitive psychology Miller - language as a part of cognitive psychology Lenneberg - a biological approach to the study of language Lenneberg - a biological approach to the study of language Our approach: information processing Our approach: information processing What is the input like? What is the input like? What is the architecture of the knowledge system like? What is the architecture of the knowledge system like? What *is* the output like? What *is* the output like?

5. Example How do speakers choose an expression? How do speakers choose an expression? Input Input Language Knowledge (lexicon, syntax, phonology, etc.) Language Knowledge (lexicon, syntax, 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 for turning input into output? What is the mechanism for turning input into output?

6. Two approaches to psycholinguistics (H. Clark) Two approaches to psycholinguistics (H. Clark) Language-as-action Language-as-action How do people interactively communicate? How do people interactively communicate? Focus on naturally-occuring language Focus on naturally-occuring language Role of interaction in processes of production and comprehension Role of interaction in processes of production and comprehension

7. Two approaches to psycholinguistics (H. Clark) Two approaches to psycholinguistics (H. Clark) Language-as-product Language-as-product What are cognitive processes of understanding and producing linguistic forms? What are cognitive processes of understanding and producing linguistic forms? Emphasis on using on-line methods Emphasis on using on-line methods Focus on the time-course of activation of different kinds of information Focus on the time-course of activation of different kinds of information Our approach: merge these traditions Our approach: merge these traditions

8. Clark and Schober: Discourse as a Collaborative Process How do people understand each other in conversations? How do people understand each other in conversations? Autonomous View Autonomous View - listen, decode, interpret based on perceived common ground Collaborative View Collaborative View - ongoing collaboration to ensure understanding

9. Terms Common Ground – mutual knowledge, assumptions, shared experience, culture, etc. Common Ground – mutual knowledge, assumptions, shared experience, culture, etc. Grounding – establishment of mutual belief that what has been said is understood (not available to Overhearers) Grounding – establishment of mutual belief that what has been said is understood (not available to Overhearers)

10. Four Time Points in the Understanding of a Speech Act Initiation Point – when speaker begins to speak Initiation Point – when speaker begins to speak Completion Point – when both speaker and addressee decide grounding is complete Completion Point – when both speaker and addressee decide grounding is complete Recognition Point – addressee believes s/he knows what speaker means Recognition Point – addressee believes s/he knows what speaker means Conjecture Point – Overhearer believes s/he knows what speaker means Conjecture Point – Overhearer believes s/he knows what speaker means Note: Completion and Recognition points are probably simultaneous. Conjecture point may never happen at all.

11. Research Question What is the role of collaborative grounding in communication? What is the role of collaborative grounding in communication? Test: Do overhearers suffer in comprehension, compared with addressees? Test: Do overhearers suffer in comprehension, compared with addressees?

12. Why might overhearers suffer? Both autonomous and collaborative views: Both autonomous and collaborative views: Less input (e.g. if they came in on the conversation in the middle) Less input (e.g. if they came in on the conversation in the middle) If they share less culture with the speaker, referring expressions may not be adequately designed for them to understand If they share less culture with the speaker, referring expressions may not be adequately designed for them to understand

13. Why might overhearers suffer? Collaborative view: Collaborative view: ALSO: ALSO: There is variation how long an individual might need to understand the speaker’s reference. If the addressee has partial control over the timing of the completion point, it is likely ot not come before the addresee has understood, but may come before the overhearer has understood. There is variation how long an individual might need to understand the speaker’s reference. If the addressee has partial control over the timing of the completion point, it is likely ot not come before the addresee has understood, but may come before the overhearer has understood.

14. Predictions Collaborative View Only: Collaborative View Only: When O and A are same in background knowledge, O should understand less. When O and A are same in background knowledge, O should understand less. O’s misunderstandings should increase when conjecture point comes after completion point. O’s misunderstandings should increase when conjecture point comes after completion point. Both Collaborative and Autonomous views: Both Collaborative and Autonomous views: O should have most difficulties when they do not share all the background knowledge of the participants. O should have most difficulties when they do not share all the background knowledge of the participants. If O controls pace it should help. If O controls pace it should help.

15. Experiment 1 Matching task: put cards in same order Matching task: put cards in same order Director and Matcher, Overhearer Director and Matcher, Overhearer Method from Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs

16. Experiment 1 - Methods Director gave instructions to Matcher Director gave instructions to Matcher 6 trials 6 trials Overhearer Overhearer - early overhearers (entered Trial 1) - later overhearers (entered Trial 3) - half from each group could use “pause” Measure of understanding: Measure of understanding: - accuracy - time of placement of correct figure

17. Experiment 1 - Results As trials progressed: As trials progressed: - Described figures first, then referred to them with shorter and shorter descriptions (Figure p. 183) - Used fewer words to come to agreement about reference - Amount of time spent per figure dropped

18. Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs Sample utterances referring to on Trials 1 through 6 Sample utterances referring to on Trials 1 through 6 All right, the next one looks like a person who’s skating, except they’re sticking two arms out in front. All right, the next one looks like a person who’s skating, except they’re sticking two arms out in front. Um, the next one’s the person ice skating that has two arms? Um, the next one’s the person ice skating that has two 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 skater The next one’s the ice skater The fourth one’s the ice skater The fourth one’s the ice skater The ice skater. The ice skater.

19. Referring expressions got shorter over time (Clark and Wilkes- Gibbs)

20. OVERHEARERS VS. MATCHERS Everyone got better over time Everyone got better over time M consistently better than O M consistently better than O Early more accurate than Late Overhearers Early more accurate than Late Overhearers Every Overhearer given the opportunity to pause, did. Performance did not improve. Every Overhearer given the opportunity to pause, did. Performance did not improve. Overhearers placed cards after Director had begun next description 31% of time (Matchers: 1%) Late placements more likely to be incorrect. Overhearers placed cards after Director had begun next description 31% of time (Matchers: 1%) Late placements more likely to be incorrect. Overhearers changed the cards they put down more often than Matchers Overhearers changed the cards they put down more often than Matchers

21. Why do Experiment 2? Listening to tape-recorded conversation isn’t as engaging as listening live Listening to tape-recorded conversation isn’t as engaging as listening live Need for more accurate timing comparisons Need for more accurate timing comparisons So… Overhearers listen to live conversations Videotape Matcher and Overhearer Timed initiation points, completion points, and card placements to nearest tenth of a second

22. Experiment 2 - Results No added benefit from listening to conversation live. Overhearers still didn’t do as well as Matchers. No added benefit from listening to conversation live. Overhearers still didn’t do as well as Matchers. No significant difference in placement times for Overhearers and Matchers No significant difference in placement times for Overhearers and Matchers Matchers tended to put cards down at same time as they finished establishing reference with Directors. Overhearers didn’t follow their completion points so closely. Matchers tended to put cards down at same time as they finished establishing reference with Directors. Overhearers didn’t follow their completion points so closely. Overhearers were more often incorrect on card placements that followed the completion point than those the preceded it Overhearers were more often incorrect on card placements that followed the completion point than those the preceded it

23. Conclusions The social process of interacting in conversation plays a central role in the cognitive process of understanding The social process of interacting in conversation plays a central role in the cognitive process of understanding Listeners who interact in a conversation go about understanding very differently from those who are excluded from it Listeners who interact in a conversation go about understanding very differently from those who are excluded from it Addressees understand faster and more accurately than Overhearers Addressees understand faster and more accurately than Overhearers

24. Why? Understanding differs between M and O Understanding differs between M and O Collaboration between speaker and M: B can ask for collaboration Collaboration between speaker and M: B can ask for collaboration So speaker may provide less information at first, expecting M to ask if it isn’t enough So speaker may provide less information at first, expecting M to ask if it isn’t enough Criterion for understanding: M makes sure he has understood Criterion for understanding: M makes sure he has understood Perspective: speaker and M make sure they share a common perspective (I.e., B’’s perspective contributes to final perspective) Perspective: speaker and M make sure they share a common perspective (I.e., B’’s perspective contributes to final perspective)

25. Why? Speakers accommodate to their interlocutors Speakers accommodate to their interlocutors Loundness Loundness Speed Speed Dialect Dialect Pronunciation Pronunciation Expertise Expertise Clark and Schober: these won’t account for differences, which come from GROUNDING Clark and Schober: these won’t account for differences, which come from GROUNDING

26. Conclusions The social process of interacting in conversation is central to the cognitive process of understanding The social process of interacting in conversation is central to the cognitive process of understanding Grounding is central to referring and communication Grounding is central to referring and communication

27. Clarification 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)

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

29. Discussion Questions Autonomous vs. Collaborative Views How does the autonomous view account for the existence of varying contexts? (Nicole Dobrolowski) How does the autonomous view account for the existence of varying contexts? (Nicole Dobrolowski) Related question: what aspects of the context are relevant? How do autonomous and collaborative views differ on this? Related question: what aspects of the context are relevant? How do autonomous and collaborative views differ on this? Is the autonomous view considered to be more of a passive process, compared to the collaborative view, because it does not involve checking in with the director in order to clarify your thoughts? (Jesse Blake) Is the autonomous view considered to be more of a passive process, compared to the collaborative view, because it does not involve checking in with the director in order to clarify your thoughts? (Jesse Blake)

30. Does anybody see the possibility of varying language comprehension processes when overhears are subjected to the other forms of overhearing, as Schober mentions, i.e. cases in which dialogue is disguised or masked by other input, say, a conversation in a crowded room? It doesn’t really seem that the same precise rules can be applied when you consider these other situations. (cf articulatory loop) (Anthony Shook) Does anybody see the possibility of varying language comprehension processes when overhears are subjected to the other forms of overhearing, as Schober mentions, i.e. cases in which dialogue is disguised or masked by other input, say, a conversation in a crowded room? It doesn’t really seem that the same precise rules can be applied when you consider these other situations. (cf articulatory loop) (Anthony Shook) Does it make a difference in the performance of the overhearer if they can see the director; or does seeing the director make them an addressee? (Jessee Blake) Does it make a difference in the performance of the overhearer if they can see the director; or does seeing the director make them an addressee? (Jessee Blake) What else affects understanding?

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

32. 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)

33. How natural is the experimental situation? Does anybody feel these experiments simply weren’t natural enough to warrant as much faith as was put into the results? It seems to me that in natural language, we’re very rarely playing such a stringent matching game, and that similar experiments involving more natural settings, if they yield similar results, would carry more weight in terms of strength of conclusion. (Anthony Shook) Does anybody feel these experiments simply weren’t natural enough to warrant as much faith as was put into the results? It seems to me that in natural language, we’re very rarely playing such a stringent matching game, and that similar experiments involving more natural settings, if they yield similar results, would carry more weight in terms of strength of conclusion. (Anthony Shook) Do you feel that the collabortive model is how we process language? Have you ever had experiences with overhearing and being confused? (Jessica DeSisto) Do you feel that the collabortive model is how we process language? Have you ever had experiences with overhearing and being confused? (Jessica DeSisto)

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