Literature DB >> 19710948

Ambiguity, Accessibility, and a Division of Labor for Communicative Success.

Victor S Ferreira1.   

Abstract

People talk to be understood, and so they should produce utterances that are easy for their listeners to understand. I begin this chapter by describing evidence showing that speakers rarely avoid sentences that are ambiguous, even though ambiguity is a factor that is well known to cause difficulty for listeners. Instead, speakers seem to choose utterances that are especially easy for them to say, specifically by producing more accessible, easy-to-think-of material sooner, and less accessible, harder-to-think-of material later. If speakers produce utterances that are easy to say but not utterances that are easy to understand, how is it that we understand each other? A third line of evidence shows that even when sentences are structurally ambiguous, they're likely to include enough information for comprehenders to figure out what they mean. This suggests that speakers produce ambiguous utterances simply because they can -- because the grammar of their language will only let them produce utterances that are unambiguous enough to be understood most of the time anyway. And so, we understand each other because speakers produce utterances efficiently even if they're not optimally understandable; addressees do what they need to to understand their speakers; and the grammar makes sure everything works out properly.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 19710948      PMCID: PMC2731310          DOI: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00006-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Motiv        ISSN: 0023-9690


  10 in total

1.  Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production.

Authors:  V S Ferreira; G S Dell
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  "Long before short" preference in the production of a head-final language.

Authors:  H Yamashita; F Chang
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2001-09

3.  Proactive interference effects on sentence production.

Authors:  Victor S Ferreira; Carla E Firato
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

4.  Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: for the speaker or for the addressee?

Authors:  Tanya Kraljic; Susan E Brennan
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?

Authors:  Sarah L Haywood; Martin J Pickering; Holly P Branigan
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-05

6.  How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?

Authors:  Victor S Ferreira; L Robert Slevc; Erin S Rogers
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2004-12-24

7.  Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences.

Authors:  Douglas Roland; Jeffrey L Elman; Victor S Ferreira
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-01

8.  Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading.

Authors:  F Ferreira; J M Henderson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths.

Authors:  J C Trueswell; M K Tanenhaus; C Kello
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected].

Authors:  M C MacDonald; N J Pearlmutter; M S Seidenberg
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 8.934

  10 in total
  10 in total

1.  Seeking predictions from a predictive framework.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger; Victor Ferreira
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Domain-General Brain Regions Do Not Track Linguistic Input as Closely as Language-Selective Regions.

Authors:  Idan A Blank; Evelina Fedorenko
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Cognitive constraints on constituent order: evidence from elicited pantomime.

Authors:  Matthew L Hall; Rachel I Mayberry; Victor S Ferreira
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2013-06-21

5.  A syntax-lexicon trade-off in language production.

Authors:  Neguine Rezaii; Kyle Mahowald; Rachel Ryskin; Bradford Dickerson; Edward Gibson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  Do verb bias effects on sentence production reflect sensitivity to comprehension or production factors?

Authors:  Victor S Ferreira; Elizabeth R Schotter
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger; Neal E Snider
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2013-01-23

8.  Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-04-26

9.  Neural signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning.

Authors:  Sebastian Sauppe; Kamal K Choudhary; Nathalie Giroud; Damián E Blasi; Elisabeth Norcliffe; Shikha Bhattamishra; Mahima Gulati; Aitor Egurtzegi; Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky; Martin Meyer; Balthasar Bickel
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Resourceful Event-Predictive Inference: The Nature of Cognitive Effort.

Authors:  Martin V Butz
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-06-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.