additions

main.bib

@@ -9038,6 +9038,168 @@
   keywords     = {psycholing, semantics},
 }
 
+@InBook{Zeevat2002,
+  author       = {Zeevat, Henk},
+  booktitle    = {Information sharing},
+  date         = {2002},
+  title        = {Explaining presupposition triggers},
+  booksubtitle = {Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation},
+  editor       = {{van Deemter}, Kees and Kibble, Rodger},
+  pages        = {61--87},
+  publisher    = {Center for the Study of Language and Information},
+  keywords     = {semantics},
+}
+
+@Article{BaeseBerk2009,
+  author       = {Melissa Baese-Berk and Matthew Goldrick},
+  date         = {2009},
+  journaltitle = {Language and Cognitive Processes},
+  title        = {Mechanisms of interaction in speech production},
+  doi          = {10.1080/01690960802299378},
+  eprint       = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802299378},
+  note         = {PMID: 19946622},
+  number       = {4},
+  pages        = {527-554},
+  url          = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802299378},
+  volume       = {24},
+  abstract     = {Many theories predict the presence of interactive effects involving information represented by distinct cognitive processes in speech production. There is considerably less agreement regarding the precise cognitive mechanisms that underlie these interactive effects. For example, are they driven by purely production-internal mechanisms (e.g., Dell, 1986) or do they reflect the influence of perceptual monitoring mechanisms on production processes (e.g., Roelofs, 2004)? Acoustic analyses reveal the phonetic realisation of words is influenced by their word-specific properties – supporting the presence of interaction between lexical-level and phonetic information in speech production. A second experiment examines what mechanisms are responsible for this interactive effect. The results suggest the effect occurs on-line and is not purely driven by listener modelling. These findings are consistent with the presence of an interactive mechanism that is online and internal to the production system.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+  publisher    = {Routledge},
+}
+
+@Article{Galati2010,
+  author       = {Galati, Alexia and Brennan, Susan E.},
+  date         = {2010},
+  journaltitle = {Journal of Memory and Language},
+  title        = {Attenuating information in spoken communication},
+  pages        = {35-51},
+  subtitle     = {For the speaker, or for the addressee?},
+  volume       = {62},
+  abstract     = {Speakers tend to attenuate information that is predictable or repeated. To what extent is this done automatically and egocentrically, because it is easiest for speakers themselves, and to what extent is it driven by the informational needs of addressees? In 20 triads of naive subjects, speakers told the same Road Runner cartoon story twice to one addressee and once to another addressee, counterbalanced for order (Addressee1/Addressee1/Addressee2 or Addressee1/Addressee2/Addressee1). Stories retold to the same (old)
+addressees were attenuated compared to those retold to new addressees; this was true for events mentioned, number of words, and amount of detail. Moreover, lexically identical expressions by the same speaker were more intelligible to another group of listeners when the expressions had been addressed to new addressees than when they had been addressed to old addressees. We conclude that speakers’ attenuating of information in spontaneous discourse is driven at least in part by addressees. Such audience design is computationally feasible when it can be guided by a ‘‘one-bit” model (my audience has heard this before, or not).},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@InProceedings{Bard2004,
+  author       = {Bard, Ellen Gurman and Aylett, Matthew},
+  booktitle    = {Approaches to studying world-situated language use},
+  date         = {2004},
+  title        = {Referential Form Word Duration and Modeling the Listener in Spoken Dialogue},
+  booksubtitle = {Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions},
+  pages        = {173-191},
+  abstract     = {Abstract Referring expressions are thought to be tailored to the needs of the listener, even when those needs might be costly to assess, but tests of this claim seldom manipulate listener’s and, speaker’s knowledge independently. The design of the HCRC Map Task enables us to do so. We examine two ‘tailoring’ changes in repeated mentions of landmark names: faster articulation and simplified referring expressions. Articulation results replicate Bard et al. (2000) depending only on what the speaker has heard. Change between mentions was no greater when it could be inferred that the listener could see the named item (Expt 1) and no less when the listener explicitly denied ability to do so (Expt 2). Word duration fell for speaker-given listener-new items (Expt 3). Reduction was unaffected by the repeater’s ability to see the mentioned landmark (Expt 4). In contrast, referential form was more sensitive to both listener- (Expt 3) and speaker-knowledge (Expt 4). The results conform most closely to a Dual Process model: fast, automatic, processes let the speaker-knowledge prime word articulation, while costly assessments of listener-knowledge influence only referential form.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@Article{Brennan1996,
+  author          = {Brennan, Susan E. and Clark, Herbert H.},
+  date            = {1996},
+  journaltitle    = {Journal of experimental psychology},
+  title           = {Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation},
+  doi             = {10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1482},
+  journalsubtitle = {Learning, memory, and cognition},
+  number          = {6},
+  pages           = {1482-1493},
+  volume          = {22},
+  abstract        = {When people in conversation refer repeatedly to the same object, they come to use the same terms. This phenomenon, called lexical entrainment, has several possible explanations. Ahistorical accounts appeal only to the informativeness and availability of terms and to the current salience of the object's features. Historical accounts appeal in addition to the recency and frequency of past references and to partner-specific conceptualizations of the object that people achieve interactively. Evidence from 3 experiments favors a historical account and suggests that when speakers refer to an object, they are proposing a conceptualization of it, a proposal their addresses may or may not agree to. Once they do establish a shared conceptualization, a conceptual pact, they appeal to it in later references even when they could use simpler references. Over time, speakers simplify conceptual pacts and, when necessary, abandon them for new conceptualizations.},
+  keywords        = {psycholing},
+  publisher       = {American Psychological Association},
+}
+
+@Article{Engelhardt2014,
+  author       = {Paul E. Engelhardt and Fernanda Ferreira},
+  date         = {2014},
+  journaltitle = {Language, Cognition and Neuroscience},
+  title        = {Do speakers articulate over-described modifiers differently from modifiers that are required by context?},
+  doi          = {10.1080/01690965.2013.853816},
+  eprint       = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.853816},
+  number       = {8},
+  pages        = {975-985},
+  subtitle     = {Implications for models of reference production},
+  url          = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.853816},
+  volume       = {29},
+  abstract     = {Studies have shown that speakers often include unnecessary modifiers when producing referential expressions, which is contrary to the Maxim of Quantity. In this study, we examined the production of referring expressions (e.g. the red triangle) that contained an over-described (or redundant) pre-nominal adjective modifier. These expressions were compared to similar expressions that were uttered in a context that made the modifier necessary for unique referent identification. Our hypothesis was that speakers articulate over-described modifiers differently from those used to distinguish contrasting objects. Results showed that over-described modifiers were significantly shorter in duration than modifiers used to distinguish two objects. Conclusions focus on how these acoustic differences can be modelled by Natural Language Generation algorithms, such as the Incremental Algorithm, in combination with probabilistic prosodic reduction.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+  publisher    = {Routledge},
+}
+
+@Article{Horton1996,
+  author       = {Horton, William S. and Keysar, Boaz},
+  date         = {1996},
+  journaltitle = {Cognition},
+  title        = {When do speakers take into account common ground?},
+  doi          = {10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1},
+  number       = {1},
+  volume       = {59},
+  abstract     = {What role does common ground play in the production of utterances? We outline and test two models. One model assumes that common ground is involved in initial utterance planning, while the other model assumes that it only plays a role in monitoring. To compare these models, we focus on common ground as evidenced in physical co-presence. We had speakers describe objects for listeners in a modified version of the referential communication task. While descriptions under no time constraints appeared to incorporate common ground with the listener, common ground was not used when the speakers were under time pressure. These results suggest that speakers do not engage in audience design in the initial planning of utterances; instead, they monitor those plans for violations of common ground.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@Article{Jaeger2013,
+  author       = {Jaeger, T. Florian},
+  date         = {2013},
+  journaltitle = {Frontiers in Psychology},
+  title        = {Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication},
+  doi          = {10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00230},
+  volume       = {4},
+  abstract     = {MacDonald (2013) proposes that comprehenders are sensitive to statistical patterns in their language input (Claim 1). These patterns are hypothesized to result from speakers' preferences in production, aggregated over the population (Claim 2). Production preferences are taken to be primarily determined by biases that serve production ease, thereby improving fluency (Claim 3). These three claims, together constituting the core of the PDC, are an ambitious endeavor to tie together several lines of research in psycholinguistics and linguistics. Here, I focus on the second and third claim, that it is predominantly “production ease,” rather than communicative pressures, that drives production preferences and hence language form (M, p. 13; cf. Bard et al., 2000; Ferreira and Dell, 2000; Arnold, 2008; Ferreira, 2008; Lam and Watson, 2010).
+
+In contrast, I argue that production preferences and language form are unlikely to be understood without reference to communication. Specifically, production preferences are the result of at least two competing type of biases: biases toward production ease and biases toward ease, or at least success, of comprehension (Zipf, 1949). I refer to a weak version of the second type of bias as robust information transfer.1 Two hypotheses about how robust information transfer might affect production preferences are often conflated in the literature. First, speakers might continuously “estimate” their interlocutors' beliefs and structure their utterances based on these estimates. This claim, often referred to as audience design, is what production researchers (incl. M) tend to have in mind when they reject the idea that production preferences are affected by communicative biases. Many consider this claim implausible because production seems too demanding to allow additional computations (Ferreira, 2008). I share Tanenhaus's position that such intuitions are often misleading (Tanenhaus, 2013). Here, however, I pursue an alternative hypothesis, that communicative biases affect production preferences through learning and generalization across previous experiences (building on Jaeger and Ferreira, in press).},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@Article{Keysar2000,
+  author       = {Keysar, Boaz and Barr, Dale J. and Balin, Jennifer A.},
+  date         = {2000},
+  journaltitle = {Psychological Science},
+  title        = {Taking perspective in conversation},
+  doi          = {10.1111/1467-9280.00211},
+  number       = {1},
+  pages        = {32-38},
+  subtitle     = {The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension},
+  volume       = {11},
+  abstract     = {When people interpret language, they can reduce the ambiguity of linguistic expressions by using information about perspective: the speaker's, their own, or a shared perspective. In order to investigate the mental processes that underlie such perspective taking, we tracked people's eye movements while they were following instructions to manipulate objects. The eye fixation data in two experiments demonstrate that people do not restrict the search for referents to mutually known objects. Eye movements indicated that addressees considered objects as potential referents even when the speaker could not see those objects, requiring addressees to use mutual knowledge to correct their interpretation. Thus, people occasionally use an egocentric heuristic when they comprehend. We argue that this egocentric heuristic is successful in reducing ambiguity, though it could lead to a systematic error.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@Article{Turnbull2019,
+  author       = {Turnbull, Rory},
+  date         = {2019},
+  journaltitle = {Language, Cognition and Neuroscience},
+  title        = {Listener-oriented phonetic reduction and theory of mind},
+  doi          = {10.1080/23273798.2019.1579349},
+  number       = {6},
+  pages        = {747-768},
+  volume       = {34},
+  abstract     = {Predictable words tend to be phonetically reduced relative to unpredictable words. Under “listener-oriented” accounts of this phenomenon, the talker has tacit knowledge of their interlocutor’s
+mental state. These theories consequently predict that individual variation in theory of mind is related to magnitude of probabilistic phonetic reduction. The current study tests this prediction for three acoustic variables (word duration, vowel duration, and vowel dispersion) in two definitions of predictability (contextual predictability and discourse mention). A relationship between individual variation in theory of mind and phonetic reduction was observed only for semantic predictability, and in the direction opposite to that predicted by listener-oriented theories. Taken together, these results are not consistent with the predictions of a strong interpretation of listener-orientation in speech production.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@InProceedings{Pate2011,
+  author    = {Pate, John K. and Goldwater, Sharon},
+  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society},
+  date      = {2011},
+  title     = {Predictability effects in adult-directed and infant-directed speech},
+  subtitle  = {Does the listener matter?},
+  url       = {https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/predictability-effects-in-adult-directed-and-infant-directed-spee},
+  abstract  = {A well-known effect in speech production is that more predictable words tend to be phonetically reduced. Recent work has suggested that predictability effects result from hardwired properties of the language production system, rather than active modulation by the talker to accommodate the listener. However, these studies investigated only minor manipulations of listener characteristics. Here, we examine predictability effects with two very different listener populations: adults and preverbal infants. Using mixed effects regressions on spontaneous speech corpora, we compare the effect of word frequency, probability in context, and previous mention on word duration in adult-directed and infant-directed speech. We find that the effects of preceding context and word frequency differ according to listener. Contrary to previous work, these results suggest that talkers do modulate the phonetic effects of predictability based on listener characteristics. To our knowledge, this study is also the first published analysis of predictability effects in infant-directed speech.},
+  keywords  = {psycholing},
+}
+
+@Article{Schober1993,
+  author       = {Schober, Mecheal F.},
+  date         = {1993},
+  journaltitle = {Cognition},
+  title        = {Spatial perspective-taking in conversation},
+  doi          = {10.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-9},
+  number       = {1},
+  pages        = {1-24},
+  volume       = {47},
+  abstract     = {Speakers can describe the locations of objects from their own perspective ("on my left" or "on the left"), their addressee's ("on your right" or "on the right"), or some perspective that avoids choosing one or the other person ("closer to both of us"). This study shows that speakers set spatial perspectives differently with actual conversational partners than with the usually studied imaginary addressees. Speakers with partners tended to use more egocentric perspectives than solo speakers. Pairs varied idiosyncratically in the perspective-setting strategies they picked, but all engaged in the same collaborative process: talking until both were sure they had understood each other. When conversational roles switched, the new speakers allocated spatial perspectives with remarkable precision, taking their partners' perspectives just as often as the partner had taken theirs. Speakers were more explicit about whose perspective they were taking when they held the floor for only one description than when they gave many descriptions in a row.},
+  keywords     = {psycholing},
+}
+
 @Comment{jabref-meta: databaseType:biblatex;}
 
 @Comment{jabref-meta: grouping: