Age Differences in Adults’ Use of Referring Expressions

The aim of this article is to investigate whether choosing the appropriate referring expression requires taking into account the hearer’s perspective, as is predicted under some versions of bidirectional Optimality Theory but is unexpected under other versions. We did this by comparing the results of 25 young and 25 elderly adults on an elicitation task based on eight different picture stories, and a comprehension task based on eight similar written stories. With respect to the elicitation task, we found that elderly adults produce pronouns significantly more often than young adults when referring to the old topic in the presence of a new topic. With respect to the comprehension task, no significant differences were found between elderly and young adults. These results support the hypothesis that speakers optimize bidirectionally and take into account hearers when selecting a referring expression. If the use of a pronoun will lead to an unintended interpretation by the hearer, the speaker will use an unambiguous definite noun phrase instead. Because elderly adults are more limited in their processing capacities, as is indicated by their smaller working memory capacity, as speakers they will not always be able to reason about the hearer’s choices. As a result, they frequently produce non-recoverable pronouns.

[1]  S Kemper,et al.  Aging and resolution of quantifier scope effects. , 1999, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[2]  Mira Ariel Referring and accessibility , 1988, Journal of Linguistics.

[3]  Jennifer Spenader,et al.  Proceedings of the ESSLLI\'04 Workshop on Semantic Approaches to Binding Theory , 2004 .

[4]  Gerlof Bouma,et al.  Starting a sentence in Dutch : a corpus study of subject- and object-fronting , 2008 .

[5]  Annette Karmiloff-Smith,et al.  Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective , 1985 .

[6]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction , 2004 .

[7]  D. Barr,et al.  The Egocentric Basis of Language Use , 1998 .

[8]  Colin Wilson,et al.  Bidirectional optimization and the theory of anaphora , 2001 .

[9]  P. Hendriks,et al.  When Production Precedes Comprehension: An Optimization Approach to the Acquisition of Pronouns , 2006 .

[10]  B. Keysar Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes , 2007 .

[11]  Reinhard Blutner,et al.  Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation , 2000, J. Semant..

[12]  J. Stevens,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1993 .

[13]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[14]  Chien Yu-Chin,et al.  Children's Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics , 1990 .

[15]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

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

[17]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  Editors’ Introduction: Pragmatics in Optimality Theory , 2004 .

[18]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Learning to reason about speakers' alternatives in sentence comprehension: A computational account , 2007 .

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

[20]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  The Asymmetry of Optimality Theoretic Syntax and Semantics , 2000, J. Semant..

[21]  A Wingfield,et al.  Does the capacity of working memory change with age? , 1988, Experimental aging research.

[22]  R. Gonzalez Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 2003 .

[23]  S. Morris,et al.  OPTIMAL COMMUNICATION , 2005 .

[24]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Processing or Pragmatics? - Explaining the Coreference Delay. , 2006 .

[25]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[26]  T. Givón,et al.  English grammar : a function-based introduction , 1995 .

[27]  Helen de Hoop,et al.  Children's Optimal Interpretations of Indefinite Subjects and Objects , 2006 .

[28]  Luigi Burzio,et al.  Anaphora and Soft Constraints , 1999 .

[29]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  Learning Constraint Subhierarchies: The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm , 2004 .

[30]  R. Thornton,et al.  Principle B, VP Ellipsis, and Interpretation in Child Grammar , 1999 .

[31]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  The Processing Cost of Reference Set Computation: Acquisition of Stress Shift and Focus , 2004 .

[32]  Optimal communication (paperback edition) , 2006 .

[33]  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.

[34]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Optimality-Theoretic Syntax , 2008 .

[35]  Pilar Barbosa,et al.  Is the best good enough? : optimality and competition in syntax , 1998 .

[36]  Sten Vikner,et al.  Optimality-theoretic syntax , 2001 .

[37]  P. Hendriks,et al.  A bidirectional explanation of the pronoun interpretation problem , 2004 .

[38]  K. R. Blutner,et al.  Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics and the Explicature/Implicature Distinction , 2007 .

[39]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  Optimality Theory and Pragmatics , 2003 .

[40]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding , 2004 .

[41]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Young children's sensitivity to listener knowledge and perceptual context in choosing referring expressions , 2005, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[42]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

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