How speakers adapt object descriptions to listeners under load

References

• Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495–527. doi: 10.1080/01690960801920099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4), 521–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Kahn, J. M., & Pancani, G. C. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 505–512. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L. G. M., & Jansen, C. (2011). Overspecification in written instruction. Linguistics, 49(3), 555–574. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. P. (2005). Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1506.04967.
   Google Scholar
• Becic, E., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., Garnsey, S. M., Kubose, T., & Kramer, A. F. (2010). Driving impairs talking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 15–21. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 274–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). A Tutorial on fitting Cumulative Link Mixed Models with clmm2 from the ordinal Package. The Comprehensive R Archive Network.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S., & Brown, P. M. (1991). Mechanisms for listener-adaptation in language production: Limiting the role of the “model of the listener”. In D. Napoli, & J. A. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (pp. 105–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109(2), 193–210. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demberg, V., Sayeed, A., Mahr, A., & Müller, C. (2013). Measuring linguistically-induced cognitive load during driving using the ConTRe task. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (pp. 176–183). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2516540.2516546
   Google Scholar
• Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 392–400. doi: 10.1037/a0013119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity? Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 554–573. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. E., & Ferreira, F. (2014). Do speakers articulate over-described modifiers differently from modifiers that are required by context? Implications for models of reference production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(8), 975–985. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.853816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engonopoulos, N., Sayeed, A., & Demberg, V. (2013). Language and cognitive load in a dual task environment. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2249–2254). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., McLennan, D. B., De Ochoa, E., & Kutas, M. (2002). The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 39(2), 133–146. doi: 10.1017.S004857720139203X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language Games. Science, 336(6084), 998–998. doi: 10.1126/science.1218633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukumura, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee’s discourse model? Cognitive Science, 36(7), 1289–1311. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 35–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gann, T. M., & Barr, D. J. (2014). Speaking from experience: Audience design as expert performance. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(6), 744–760. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.641388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatt, A., Krahmer, E., Van Deemter, K., & van Gompel, R. P. (2017). Reference production as search: The impact of domain size on the production of distinguishing descriptions. Cognitive Science, 41, 1457–1492. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatt, A., Van Der Sluis, I., & Van Deemter, K. (2007). Evaluating algorithms for the generation of referring expressions using a balanced corpus. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, 49–56. Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–829. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2011). Referring under load: Disentangling preference-based and alignment-based content selection processes in referring expression generation. In K. van Deemter, A. Gatt, R. P. G. van Gompel, & E. Krahmer (Eds.), Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol III: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, P. (2016). Cognitive modeling of individual variation in reference production and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 506. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition, 96(2), 127–142. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howcroft, D., Vogels, J., & Demberg, V. (2017). G-TUNA: A corpus of referring expressions in German, including duration information. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, 149–153. doi:10.18653/v1/W17-3522
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F., & Tily, H. (2011). On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323–335. doi: 10.1002/wcs.126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jucks, R., Becker, B.-M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Lexical entrainment in written discourse: Is experts’ word Use adapted to the addressee? Discourse Processes, 45(6), 497–518. doi: 10.1080/01638530802356547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koolen, R., Gatt, A., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2011). Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3231–3250. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koolen, R., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2013). The effect of scene variation on the redundant use of color in definite reference. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 395–411. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koolen, R., & Krahmer, E. (2010). The D-TUNA Corpus: A Dutch dataset for the evaluation of referring expression generation algorithms. LREC. Retrieved from http://tst-centrale.org/images/stories/producten/documentatie/dtuna_documentatie_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9(1), 2–24. doi: 10.1521/soco.1991.9.1.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlen, A. K., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Anticipating distracted addressees: How speakers’ expectations and addressees’ feedback influence storytelling. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 567–587. doi: 10.1080/01638530903441339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. P., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. C. Platt, & T Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 849–856).
   Google Scholar
• Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313–318. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahr, A., Feld, M., Moniri, M. M., & Math, R. (2012). The contre (continuous tracking and reaction) task: A flexible approach for assessing driver cognitive workload with high sensitivity. Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 88–91.
   Google Scholar
• Math, R., Mahr, A., Moniri, M. M., & Müller, C. (2012). OpenDS: A new open-source driving simulator for research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Adjunct Proceedings, 7–8.
   Google Scholar
• Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification. Linguistics, 27(1), 89–110. doi: 10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa, E. C., Finch, K. H., Bergeson, M., & Arnold, J. E. (2015). The effects of addressee attention on prosodic prominence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1–2), 48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossnagel, C. (2000). Cognitive load and perspective-taking: Applying the automatic-controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 429–445. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200005/06)30:3≤429::AID-EJSP3≥3.0.CO;2-V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71(2), 109–147. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00025-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourtouri, E. N., Delogu, F., & Crocker, M. W. (2017). Specificity and entropy reduction in situated referential processing. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 3356–3361). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b3e/88f697b2850fa9019ea17f15c2675cb306f8.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. (2008). Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 376–380. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00609.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., & Maes, A. (2015). How cognitive load influences speakers’ choice of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 39(6), 1396–1418. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardlow Lane, L., Groisman, M., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Don’t talk about pink elephants!: speakers’ control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science, 17(4), 273–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01697.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106(3), 1548–1557. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–672. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.995679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least-effort. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar