I know what you're probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions

Pragmatic theories of utterance interpretation share the assumption that listeners reason about alternative utterances that a speaker could have produced, but didn't. For such reasoning to be successful, listeners must have precise expectations about a speaker's production choices. This is at odds with the considerable variability across speakers that exists at all levels of linguistic representation. This tension can be reconciled by listeners adapting to the statistics of individual speakers. While linguistic adaptation is increasingly widely attested, semantic/pragmatic adaptation is underexplored. Moreover, what kind of representations listeners update during semantic/pragmatic adaptation - estimates of the speaker's lexicon, or estimates of the speaker's utterance preferences - remains poorly understood. In this work, we investigate semantic/pragmatic adaptation in the domain of uncertainty expressions like might and probably. In a series of web-based experiments, we find 1) that listeners vary in their expectations about a generic speaker's use of uncertainty expressions; 2) that listeners rapidly update their expectations about the use of uncertainty expressions after brief exposure to a speaker with a specific usage of uncertainty expressions; and 3) that listeners' interpretations of uncertainty expressions change after being exposed to a specific speaker. We present a novel computational model of semantic/pragmatic adaptation based on Bayesian belief updating and show, through a series of model comparisons, that semantic/pragmatic adaptation is best captured by listeners updating their beliefs both about the speaker's lexicon and their utterance preferences. This work has implications for both semantic theories of uncertainty expressions and psycholinguistic theories of adaptation: it highlights the need for dynamic semantic representations and suggests that listeners integrate their general linguistic knowledge with speaker-specific experiences to arrive at more precise interpretations.

[1]  Judith Degen,et al.  Talker-specificity and adaptation in quantifier interpretation. , 2016, Journal of memory and language.

[2]  Ting Qian,et al.  Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension , 2018, Memory & Cognition.

[4]  I. Lipkus Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[5]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition , 2012, CogSci.

[6]  Roger Levy,et al.  Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference , 2016, Semantics and Pragmatics.

[7]  David J. C. MacKay,et al.  Bayesian Interpolation , 1992, Neural Computation.

[8]  M. Pickering,et al.  An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[9]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[10]  S. Pepper,et al.  Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions ☆ , 1974 .

[11]  Judith Degen,et al.  Speaker-specific adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions , 2019, CogSci.

[12]  M. Franke,et al.  Gradable adjectives, vagueness, and optimal language use: A speaker-oriented model , 2014 .

[13]  G. Jäger,et al.  Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics , 2016 .

[14]  Roger Levy,et al.  Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: Evidence from syntactic processing , 2016, Cognition.

[15]  David Lewis Convention: A Philosophical Study , 1986 .

[16]  David DeSteno,et al.  Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Jean‐François Bonnefon,et al.  Facework and uncertain reasoning in health communication. , 2011, Patient education and counseling.

[18]  R. Gerrig,et al.  The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production , 2005, Cognition.

[19]  Thomas C. Gunter,et al.  Communicative predictions can overrule linguistic priors , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[20]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  "I won't lie, it wasn't amazing": Modeling polite indirect speech , 2017, CogSci.

[22]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Talking with tact : Polite language as a balance between kindness and informativity , 2016 .

[23]  David V. Budescu,et al.  Timed magnitude comparisons of numerical and nonnumerical expressions of uncertainty , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Measuring the Vague Meanings of Probability Terms , 1986 .

[25]  Christopher Potts,et al.  The Pragmatic Values of Evidential Sentences , 2007 .

[26]  Alex B. Fine,et al.  A belief-updating model of adaptation and cue combination in syntactic comprehension , 2012, CogSci.

[27]  Ciyang Qing Quantiative Social-Cognitive Experimental Pragmatics , 2014 .

[28]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Talker-Specific Generalization of Pragmatic Inferences based on Under- and Over-Informative Prenominal Adjective Use , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[29]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks , 1995 .

[30]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues , 2008, Cognition.

[31]  Christopher Kennedy Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives , 2007 .

[32]  Molly Babel,et al.  Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation , 2012, J. Phonetics.

[33]  F. Mosteller,et al.  Quantifying Probabilistic Expressions , 1990 .

[34]  Chigusa Kurumada,et al.  Pragmatic interpretation of contrastive prosody: It looks like speech adaptation , 2012, CogSci.

[35]  Eric H. Swanson Modality in Language , 2008 .

[36]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding old words with new meanings , 1983 .

[37]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Availability of Alternatives and the Processing of Scalar Implicatures: A Visual World Eye-Tracking Study , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[38]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[39]  Susan Brennan,et al.  Partner-Specific Adaptation in Dialog , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[40]  H. Thomas,et al.  Subjective Probability and its Measurement , 1973 .

[41]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation , 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[42]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[43]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers , 2007 .

[44]  Timothy S. Doupnik,et al.  Interpretation of uncertainty expressions: a cross-national study , 2003 .

[45]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[46]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  Neural evidence for Bayesian trial-by-trial adaptation on the N400 during semantic priming , 2019, Cognition.

[47]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Learning from uncertainty: exploring and manipulating the role of uncertainty on expression production and interpretation , 2018, CogSci.

[48]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[49]  Richard J. Gerrig,et al.  Revisiting the Memory-Based Processing Approach to Common Ground , 2016, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[50]  Jonah Gabry,et al.  R-squared for Bayesian Regression Models , 2019, The American Statistician.

[51]  Clinton I. Chase,et al.  Often is where you find it. , 1969 .

[52]  Seth Yalcin,et al.  Probability Operators: Probability Operators , 2010 .

[53]  S. Goldinger Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[54]  Michael Franke,et al.  of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Title Typical use of quantifiers : A probabilistic speaker model Permalink , 2014 .

[55]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Predicting Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Games , 2012, Science.

[56]  M. Franke,et al.  Complex probability expressions & higher-order uncertainty: Compositional semantics, probabilistic pragmatics & experimental data , 2019, Cognition.

[57]  S. Brennan,et al.  When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions , 2003 .

[58]  J. Harrington,et al.  Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: an acoustic analysis of the Queen's Christmas broadcasts , 2000, Journal of the International Phonetic Association.

[59]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[60]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Review Pragmatic Language Interpretation as Probabilistic Inference , 2022 .

[61]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Style and Sociolinguistic Variation: Register variation and social dialect variation: the Register Axiom , 2002 .

[62]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[63]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  The Language of Generalization , 2016, Psychological review.

[64]  M Hammerton,et al.  How much is a large part? , 1976, Applied ergonomics.

[65]  Daniel F. Pontillo,et al.  Is it or isn’t it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings , 2014, Cognition.

[66]  Christopher Potts Conversational Implicatures Via General Pragmatic Pressures , 2006, JSAI.

[67]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[68]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Risk, Communication and Health Psychology , 2004 .

[69]  Marie Juanchich,et al.  Do people really say it is “likely” when they believe it is only “possible”? Effect of politeness on risk communication , 2013, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[70]  Dave F. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. , 2015, Psychological review.

[71]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[72]  D. Lewis Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities , 1976 .

[73]  Michael Franke,et al.  Evidential Strength of Intonational Cues and Rational Adaptation to (Un-)Reliable Intonation , 2019, Cogn. Sci..

[74]  Alex B. Fine,et al.  The role of verb repetition in cumulative structural priming in comprehension. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[75]  John R. Anderson The Adaptive Character of Thought , 1990 .

[76]  W. Labov,et al.  Constraints on the agentless passive , 1983, Journal of Linguistics.

[77]  Mike Frank,et al.  Convention-formation in iterated reference games , 2017, CogSci.

[78]  A M Liberman,et al.  Perception of the speech code. , 1967, Psychological review.

[79]  A. Clark Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[80]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[81]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Failure to replicate talker-specific syntactic adaptation , 2017, CogSci.

[82]  D. Norris,et al.  Perceptual learning in speech , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[83]  T. Holtgraves,et al.  Politeness and the communication of uncertainty , 2016, Cognition.

[84]  Karl J. Friston The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[85]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences , 2011 .

[86]  Mike Frank,et al.  Determining the alternatives for scalar implicature , 2016, CogSci.

[87]  Eric H. Swanson,et al.  Interactions with context , 2006 .

[88]  Paul K J Han,et al.  Communicating the Uncertainty of Harms and Benefits of Medical Interventions , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[89]  B. Cornillie Modality , 2019, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Human Communication Sciences and Disorders.

[90]  Mark Davies The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990―2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights , 2009 .

[91]  Yuki Kamide Learning individual talkers’ structural preferences , 2012, Cognition.