How Speakers Refer: The Role of Accessibility

One of the core components of language is referring, which requires the speaker to choose between expressions that are highly explicit (e.g., the UNC professor ,o rPeter), and reduced lexical forms (e.g., he). This paper reviews claims that this process is largely driven by the accessibility or salience of the referent, and the psychological processes that underlie these effects. Two classes of constraint are examined: (1) Discourse status, which has traditionally been identified as the determinant of referential choices and (2) Non-linguistic processing constraints that increase the use of explicit forms. These effects together support a modified version of the traditional claim that speakers choose referential explicitness so that the listener can identify the referent, and underscore the need for accessibility to be mediated by a non-linguistic representation.

[1]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  The psychological causality implicit in language , 1983, Cognition.

[2]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Evidence of Perspective-Taking Constraints in Children's On-Line Reference Resolution , 2002, Psychological science.

[3]  M. Walker,et al.  Centering in Naturally-Occurring Discourse: An Overview , 2007 .

[4]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[5]  Mira Ariel Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[6]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[7]  Jean E. Fox Tree,et al.  Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking , 1997, Cognition.

[8]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: the on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering , 2015 .

[10]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning , 2006 .

[11]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of given-new information , 1981 .

[12]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Japanese Discourse and the Process of Centering , 1994, Comput. Linguistics.

[13]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding by addressees and overhearers , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Disfluencies Signal Theee, Um, New Information , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[15]  Amit Almor,et al.  The Form of Referential Expressions in Discourse , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[16]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Little houses and casas pequeñas: Message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish , 2008, Cognition.

[17]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article WHAT THE EYES SAY ABOUT SPEAKING , 2022 .

[18]  Andrew Kehler,et al.  Discourse topics, sentence topics, and coherence , 2004 .

[19]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Grammatical and Coherence-Based Factors in Pronoun Interpretation , 2006 .

[20]  J. Elman,et al.  Pronoun Interpretation as a Side Effect of Discourse Coherence , 2007 .

[21]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Unheralded Pronouns and Management by Common Ground , 1994 .

[22]  T. Givón Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction , 1983 .

[23]  Rosemary J. Stevenson,et al.  Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events , 1994 .

[24]  Andrew Kehler,et al.  Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[25]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[26]  Carl Pollard,et al.  A Centering Approach to Pronouns , 1987, ACL.

[27]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  S. Thompson,et al.  Discourse description : diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text , 1992 .

[29]  Cynthia L Fisher,et al.  Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: Input for a syntax-aided verb learning procedure , 1994 .

[30]  T. Givon Topic Continuity in Discourse , 1983 .

[31]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Disfluency effects in comprehension: How new information can become accessible , 2011 .

[32]  H. H. Clark,et al.  References in Conversation Between Experts and Novices , 1987 .

[33]  William D. Raymond,et al.  Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production , 2008 .

[34]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Reference production in young speakers with and without autism: Effects of discourse status and processing constraints , 2009, Cognition.

[35]  Brandon R. Schrand Works Cited , 1991, Bach's Cycle, Mozart's Arrow.

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

[37]  S. Brennan,et al.  Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role, and Gender , 2001, Language and speech.

[38]  Jennifer E. Arnold RUNNING HEAD : AVOIDING ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITIES Avoiding Attachment Ambiguities : the Role of Constituent Ordering , 2004 .

[39]  D. Crystal,et al.  Intonation and Grammar in British English , 1967 .

[40]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[41]  J. Bransford,et al.  Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach ☆ ☆☆ , 1972 .

[42]  S. Brennan Centering Attention in Discourse. , 1995 .

[43]  Geoffrey Nunberg,et al.  The Pragmatics of Deferred Interpretation , 2008 .

[44]  William D. Raymond,et al.  Reduction of English function words in switchboard , 1998, ICSLP.

[45]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[46]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The Old and Thee, uh, New , 2004, Psychological science.

[47]  Stanley Feldstein,et al.  Of speech and time : temporal speech patterns in interpersonal contexts , 1981 .

[48]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  Investigating the Interpretation of Pronouns and Demonstratives in Finnish , 2011 .

[49]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Why Do Alzheimer Patients Have Difficulty with Pronouns? Working Memory, Semantics, and Reference in Comprehension and Production in Alzheimer's Disease , 1999, Brain and Language.

[50]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[51]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  S. Brennan,et al.  Processes of Interactive Spoken Discourse: The Role of the Partner , 2003 .

[53]  H. Cowles,et al.  Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, contrastive focus and pronouns , 2007 .

[54]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  The Time Course of the Influence of Implicit Causality Information: Focusing versus Integration Accounts , 2000 .

[55]  G. Bower,et al.  Mental models in narrative comprehension. , 1990, Science.

[56]  Barbara J. Grosz,et al.  Pronouns, Names, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[57]  Gregory Ward Equatives and Deferred Reference , 2004 .

[58]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Approaches to studying world-situated language use : bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions , 2005 .

[59]  D R Olson,et al.  Language and thought: aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. , 1970, Psychological review.

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

[61]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The Effect of Thematic Roles on Pronoun Use and Frequency of Reference Continuation , 2001 .

[62]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[63]  V. Ferreira,et al.  Don't Talk About Pink Elephants! , 2006, Psychological science.

[64]  Stephani Foraker,et al.  The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations , 2007 .

[65]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes , 2008 .

[66]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? , 2005, Cognition.

[67]  Scott Weinstein,et al.  Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse , 1995, CL.

[68]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993 .

[69]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Information status and noncanonical word order in English , 1998 .

[70]  Gregory Ward,et al.  Information Structure and Syntactic Structure , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[71]  W. Chafe Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view , 1976 .

[72]  T. Reinhart Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of Sentence Topics , 1981, Philosophica.

[73]  E. Prince The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status , 1992 .

[74]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[75]  Jennifer E. Arnold Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun , 2003 .

[76]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Pitch Accent in Context: Predicting Intonational Prominence from Text , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[77]  G. Nunberg The pragmatics of reference , 1978 .

[78]  G. Beattie Planning units in spontaneous speech: some evidence from hesitation in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation , 1979 .

[79]  Ellen Francik Referential choice and focus of attention in narratives , 1985 .

[80]  A. Almor,et al.  Noun-phrase anaphors and focus: the informational load hypothesis. , 1999, Psychological review.

[81]  Elizabeth Shriberg,et al.  Phonetic Consequences of Speech Disfluency , 1999 .

[82]  A. Christodoulou Thinking prosody: How speakers indicate production difficulty through prosody , 2009 .

[83]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Language Comprehension As Structure Building , 1990 .

[84]  C. Chambers,et al.  Structural Parallelism and Discourse Coherence: A Test of Centering Theory , 1998 .

[85]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Deaccentuation of Words Representing ‘Given’ Information: Effects of Persistence of Grammatical Function and Surface Position , 1994 .

[86]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Children's use of gender and order-of-mention during pronoun comprehension , 2007 .

[87]  Juhani Järvikivi,et al.  Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution , 2005, Psychological science.

[88]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production , 1980 .

[89]  Jennifer E. Arnold Reference form and discourse patterns , 1998 .

[90]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking , 2000, Cognition.

[91]  Gillian R Brown,et al.  Prosodic Structure and the Given/New Distinction , 1983 .

[92]  Jean C. Krause,et al.  Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: the effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[93]  Frieda Goldman Eisler Psycholinguistics : experiments in spontaneous speech , 1968 .

[94]  Donald Broadbent,et al.  In defence of empirical psychology , 1973 .

[95]  Zenzi M. Griffin,et al.  A reversed word length effect in coordinating the preparation and articulation of words in speaking , 2004 .

[96]  C. Fowler,et al.  Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction , 1987 .

[97]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[98]  W. Levelt Models of word production , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.