Communicative Context Affects Use of Referential Prosody.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Communicative Context Affects Use of Referential Prosody.
Autorzy:: Tzeng CY; Department of Psychology, Emory University.
Namy LL; Department of Psychology, Emory University.
Nygaard LC; Department of Psychology, Emory University.
Źródło:: Cognitive science [Cogn Sci] 2019 Nov; Vol. 43 (11), pp. e12799.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: 2009-: Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Norwood, N. J., Ablex Pub. Corp.
MeSH Terms:: Cues*
Speech Acoustics*
Speech Perception*
Verbal Behavior*
Attention ; Communication ; Humans ; Psycholinguistics/methods ; Semantics
References:: Alibali, M. W., Heath, D. C., & Myers, H. J. (2001). Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2752.
Banse, R., & Scherer, K. R. (1996). Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 614-636. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.614.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99532147.
Barsalou, L. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5-6), 513-562.
Boersma, P. (1993). Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-tonoise ratio of a sampled sound. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, 17, 97-119.
Bögels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., & Chwilla, D. J. (2011). Pitch accents in context: How listeners process accentuation in referential communication. Neuropsychologia, 49(7), 2022-2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.032.
Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2), 137-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004.
Broaders, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Truth is at hand: How gesture adds information during investigative interviews. Psychological Science, 21(5), 623-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610366082.
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.003.
Buxó-Lugo, A., Toscano, J. C., & Watson, D. G. (2018). Effects of participant engagement on prosodic prominence. Discourse Processes, 55(3), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1240742.
Campisi, E., & Özyürek, A. (2013). Iconicity as a communicative strategy: Recipient design in multimodal demonstrations for adults and children. Journal of Pragmatics, 47(1), 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.007.
Chiou, R., & Rich, A. N. (2012). Cross-modality correspondence between pitch and spatial location modulates attentional orienting. Perception, 41(3), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7161.
Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004.
Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(1), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.113.
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24(5), 613-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457374.
Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2014). Speakers adapt gestures to addressees' knowledge: Implications for models of co-speech gesture. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.796397.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 558-565. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313.
Glucksberg, S. (1986). How people use context to resolve ambiguity: Implications for an interactive model of language understanding. Advances in Psychology, 39, 303-325.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Singer, M. A. (2003). From children's hands to adults' ears: Gesture's role in the learning process. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 509-520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.509.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haryu, E., & Kajikawa, S. (2012). Are higher-frequency sounds brighter in color and smaller in size? Auditory-visual correspondences in 10-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 35(4), 727-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.07.015.
Herman, R. (2000). Phonetic markers of global discourse structures in English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 466-493. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2000.0127.
Herold, D. S., Nygaard, L. C., Chicos, K. A., & Namy, L. L. (2011). The developing role of prosody in novel word interpretation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(2), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.005.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393-402. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2113.
Holler, J., & Beattie, G. (2003). Pragmatic aspects of representational gestures: Do speakers use them to clarify verbal ambiguity for the listener? Gesture, 3(2), 127-154. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.2.02hol.
Holler, J., & Stevens, R. (2007). The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to represent size information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X06296428.
Hostetter, A. B., Alibali, M. W., & Schrager, S. M. (2011). If you don't already know, I'm certainly not going to show you! Motivation to communicate affects gesture production. In G. Stam & M. Ishino (Eds.), Integrating gestures: The interdisciplinary nature of gesture (pp. 61-74). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Hupp, J. M., & Jungers, M. K. (2013). Beyond words: Comprehension and production of pragmatic prosody in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(3), 536-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.012.
Jacobs, N., & Garnham, A. (2007). The role of conversational hand gestures in a narrative task. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.011.
Kelly, S., Byrne, K., & Holler, J. (2011). Raising the ante of communication: Evidence for enhanced gesture use in high stakes situations. Information, 2(4), 579-593. https://doi.org/10.3390/info2040579.
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11(1), 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00211.
Kröger, B. J., Kopp, S., & Lowit, A. (2010). A model for production, perception, and acquisition of actions in face-to-face communication. Cognitive Processing, 11(3), 187-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0351-2.
Marks, L. E. (1974). On associations of light and sound: The mediation of brightness, pitch and loudness. American Journal of Psychology, 87, 173-188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422011.
Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389-1400.
Marks, L. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 384-394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.384.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Melara, R. D. (1989). Dimensional interaction between color and pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.15.1.69.
Melinger, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). Gesture and the communicative intention of the speaker. Gesture, 4, 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.2.02mel.
Mondloch, C. J., & Maurer, D. (2004). Do small white balls squeak? Pitch-object correspondences in young children. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(2), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.2.133.
Nygaard, L. C., Herold, D. S., & Namy, L. L. (2009). The semantics of prosody: Acoustic and perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning. Cognitive Science, 33(1), 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01007.x.
Parise, C. V., Knorre, K., & Ernst, M. O. (2014). Natural auditory scene statistics shapes human spatial hearing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 6104-6108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322705111.
Perlman, M. (2010). Talking fast: The use of speech rate as iconic gesture. In F. Parrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, form, and body (pp. 245-262). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Perlman, M., Clark, N., & Falck, M. J. (2015). Iconic prosody in story reading. Cognitive Science, 1348-1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12190.
Pezzulo, G., Donnarumma, F., & Dindo, H. (2013). Human sensorimotor communication: A theory of signaling in online social interactions. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e79876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079876.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Šetić, M., & Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(2), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600732430.
Shintel, H., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2007). The sound of motion in spoken language: Visual information conveyed by acoustic properties of speech. Cognition, 105(3), 681-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.11.005.
Shintel, H., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2008). Moving to the speed of sound: Context modulation of the effect of acoustic properties of speech. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1063-1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210801897831.
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.002.
Smith, L. B., & Sera, M. D. (1992). A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 99-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90004-L.
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 103-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632-1634.
Tzeng, C. Y., Duan, J., Namy, L. L., & Nygaard, L. C. (2017). Prosody in speech as a source of referential information. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 512-526.
Weber, A., Braun, B., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech, 49(3), 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309060490030301.
Wurm, L. H., Vakoch, D. A., Strasser, M. R., Calin-Jageman, R., & Ross, S. E. (2001). Speech perception and vocal expression of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6), 831-852. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000086.
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28(4), 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.03.004.
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13(2), 168-171.
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Communicative demand; Prosody; Referential ambiguity; Semantics; Vocal gesture
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20191120 Date Completed: 20201005 Latest Revision: 20201005
Update Code:: 20240104
DOI:: 10.1111/cogs.12799
PMID:: 31742754
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

The current study assessed the extent to which the use of referential prosody varies with communicative demand. Speaker-listener dyads completed a referential communication task during which speakers attempted to indicate one of two color swatches (one bright, one dark) to listeners. Speakers' bright sentences were reliably higher pitched than dark sentences for ambiguous (e.g., bright red versus dark red) but not unambiguous (e.g., bright red versus dark purple) trials, suggesting that speakers produced meaningful acoustic cues to brightness when the accompanying linguistic content was underspecified (e.g., "Can you get the red one?"). Listening partners reliably chose the correct corresponding swatch for ambiguous trials when lexical information was insufficient to identify the target, suggesting that listeners recruited prosody to resolve lexical ambiguity. Prosody can thus be conceptualized as a type of vocal gesture that can be recruited to resolve referential ambiguity when there is communicative demand to do so.
(© 2019 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.)

Informacja