Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently

A well-known e ect in speech production is that more predictable linguistic constructions tend to be reduced. Recent work has interpreted this e ect in an information-theoretic framework, proposing that such predictability e ects reflect a tendency towards communicative e ciency. However, others have argued that these e ects are, in the terminology of Gould and Lewontin (1979), spandrels: incidental by-products of other processes (such as a talker-oriented tendency for low production e ort). This article develops the information-theoretic framing more fully, showing that information-theoretic e ciency involves di erent kinds of coding operations (predictability e ects), not all of which are consistent with the spandrel account. Using mixed e ects regressions, we analyze word durations in several spontaneous speech corpora, comparing predictability e ects between infant-directed and adult-directed speech and between speech to visible and invisible listeners. We find that talkers adjust the extent to which production varies with predictability measures according to listener characteristics, and exploit an additional visual channel to eliminate phonetic redundancy. This pattern would demand multiple independent spandrel accounts, but is unified by an adaptive account. Our results broaden the scope of existing work on predictability e ects and provide further evidence that these e ects are tied to communicative e ciency.

[1]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Knowledge of Grammar, Knowledge of Usage: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation Variation , 2004 .

[2]  A. Fernald,et al.  Expanded Intonation Contours in Mothers' Speech to Newborns. , 1984 .

[3]  J. Elman,et al.  Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences , 2006, Cognition.

[4]  Keith Johnson,et al.  Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech , 2012 .

[5]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  That Sounds Unlikely: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation , 2006 .

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

[7]  Uriel Cohen Priva Using Information Content to PredictPhone Deletion , 2008 .

[8]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[9]  Roger P. G. van Gompel,et al.  Producing Pronouns and Definite Noun Phrases: Do Speakers Use the Addressee's Discourse Model? , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Matthew P. Aylett,et al.  Referential form, word duration, and modelling the listener in spoken dialogue , 2004 .

[11]  R. Ferrer i Cancho,et al.  Zipf's law from a communicative phase transition , 2005 .

[12]  M. Brent,et al.  The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development , 2001, Cognition.

[13]  Maria Uther,et al.  Do you speak E-NG-L-I-SH? A comparison of foreigner- and infant-directed speech , 2007, Speech Commun..

[14]  Roger Levy,et al.  Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction , 2006, NIPS.

[15]  Moreno I. Coco,et al.  Scan pattern in visual scenes predict Sentence production , 2010 .

[16]  Núria Esteve-Gibert,et al.  Prosodic structure shapes the temporal realization of intonation and manual gesture movements. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  Melissa Baese-Berk,et al.  Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Production: An fMRI Study , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  Seeking predictions from a predictive framework , 2013, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[20]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[21]  A. Anderson,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Dialogue and Performance in a Cooperative Problem Solving Task , 1994 .

[22]  E. Bard,et al.  Controlling the Intelligibility of Referring Expressions in Dialogue , 2000 .

[23]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[24]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[25]  J. M. Pickett,et al.  Effects of Vocal Force on the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1956 .

[26]  Valter Ciocca,et al.  Perceptual correlates of Cantonese tones , 2007, J. Phonetics.

[27]  B. Hommel,et al.  How Task Goals Mediate the Interplay between Perception and Action , 2013, Front. Psychol..

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

[29]  S. Gould,et al.  The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[30]  M. Papoušek,et al.  Tone and intonation in Mandarin babytalk to presyllabic infants: Comparison with registers of adult conversation and foreign language instruction , 1991, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[31]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[32]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  To Name or to Describe: Shared Knowledge Affects Referential Form , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2013 .

[34]  Steven T Piantadosi,et al.  Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[36]  Sunil J Rao,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2003 .

[37]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[38]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Mechanisms of interaction in speech production , 2009, Language and cognitive processes.

[39]  S. Brennan,et al.  Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  R. Gerrig,et al.  Speakers’ experiences and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees☆ , 2002 .

[41]  Benjamin Van Durme,et al.  Biases in Predicting the Human Language Model , 2014, ACL.

[42]  Chigusa Kurumada,et al.  Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese , 2015 .

[43]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , 2008 .

[44]  T. Vance,et al.  Tonal Distinctions in Cantonese , 1977, Phonetica.

[45]  Dmitrii Manin,et al.  Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language , 2006, ArXiv.

[46]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Mechanisms for Listener-Adaptation in Language Production: Limiting the Role of the "Model of the Listener" , 2013 .

[47]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[48]  Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho,et al.  Constant conditional entropy and related hypotheses , 2013, ArXiv.

[49]  J. Bresnan,et al.  Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech , 2009, Language and Cognition.

[50]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[51]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all , 2003 .

[52]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Producing Less Preferred Structures: More Gestures, Less Fluency , 2009 .

[53]  Christo Kirov,et al.  The Specificity of Online Variation in Speech Production , 2012, CogSci.

[54]  Jennifer M. Roche,et al.  The resolution of ambiguity during conversation: More than mere mimicry? , 2010 .

[55]  William D. Raymond,et al.  The Buckeye corpus of conversational speech: labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability , 2005, Speech Commun..

[56]  B. Keysar,et al.  When do speakers take into account common ground? , 1996, Cognition.

[57]  Jason M. Brenier,et al.  Predictability Effects on Durations of Content and Function Words in Conversational English , 2009 .

[58]  G. Dell,et al.  Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[59]  Yuan Zhao,et al.  The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation , 2009, J. Phonetics.

[60]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  From Minor Mishap to Major Catastrophe: Lexical Choice in Miscommunication , 2013, CogSci.

[61]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Hearers and speech acts , 1982 .

[62]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[63]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Predicting the dative alternation , 2007 .

[64]  Volker Strom,et al.  Visual prosody: facial movements accompanying speech , 2002, Proceedings of Fifth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face Gesture Recognition.

[65]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[66]  Ciocca,et al.  Acoustic analysis of lexical tone contrasts in dysarthria , 2000 .

[67]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. , 1996 .

[68]  Jean-Claude Junqua,et al.  The influence of acoustics on speech production: A noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex , 1996, Speech Commun..

[69]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation , 2014, CogSci.

[70]  C. Anton Rytting,et al.  Segmenting words from natural speech: subsegmental variation in segmental cues. , 2010, Journal of child language.

[71]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The NXT-format Switchboard Corpus: a rich resource for investigating the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and prosody of dialogue , 2010, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[72]  V. Ferreira Ambiguity, Accessibility, and a Division of Labor for Communicative Success. , 2008, Learning and motivation.

[73]  Kiwako Ito,et al.  Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[74]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Evolution, brain, and the nature of language , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[75]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework , 2003 .

[76]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Lexical Variation in Relativizer Frequency , 2009 .

[77]  Scott Seyfarth,et al.  Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation , 2014, Cognition.

[78]  R. Catrambone,et al.  Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2010 .

[79]  Reiko Mazuka,et al.  The multidimensional nature of hyperspeech: Evidence from Japanese vowel devoicing , 2014, Cognition.

[80]  Chigusa Kurumada,et al.  Communicatively efficient language production and case-marker omission in Japanese , 2013, CogSci.

[81]  Victor Kuperman,et al.  of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production , 2012 .

[82]  R. H. Bernacki,et al.  Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[83]  Janet F. Werker,et al.  A cross-language investigation of infant preference for infant-directed communication☆ , 1994 .

[84]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[85]  S. Brennan,et al.  Attenuating Information in Spoken Communication: For the Speaker, or for the Addressee?. , 2010 .