Upload
josue-pinks
View
231
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comprehending Conversational Utterances: Experimental Studies of the Comprehension of Speaker Meaning
Thomas HoltgravesDept. of Psychological Science
Ball State UniversityMuncie, IN
USA
Speaker Meaning
• What a speaker intends to convey with an utterance on a particular occasion of use (Clark, 1985)
• Often different from literal or direct meaning• Fundamental issue: How do language users
comprehend indirect speaker meaning?• What are the social, cognitive, and neural
processes that underlie comprehension?
Types of Nonliteral Meaning
Commonly studied: Metaphor – My job is a jail. Ironic sarcasm – You’re a great friend (when one isn’t)
Indirect requests – Could you open the window?
Less commonly studied:Implicit Speech actsIndirect replies
Different Comprehension Processes Involved
Speech Act Theory
• John Austin and John Searle• Language use as action• Illocutionary act – specific act(s) speaker
intends the hearer to recognize– Take the form of speech act verbs (e.g., criticize,
thank, apologize, offer, etc.)• Implicit speech acts do not contain the speech
act verb (I’ll definitely do it tomorrow)
Speech Act Processing• Is speech act recognition involved in utterance
comprehension?
Necessary? (Not according to relevance theory)
Good enough processing in conversations; quick take on speaker meaning (via speech act recognition)
Speech Act Activation Experiments(Holtgraves & Ashley, 2001; Holtgraves, 2008)
Jenny and Emily had been close friends since grade school.
Now there were rooming together at college.
Emily was very forgetful.
Today, Jenny was sure Emily didn’t remember her dentist appointment.
Sample Experimental Materials
Jenny and Emily had been close friends since grade school.
Now there were rooming together at college.
Emily was very forgetful.
Today, Jenny was sure Emily didn’t remember (had forgotten) her dentist appointment.
Jenny: Don’t forget (I’ll bet you forgot) to go to yourdentist appointment today.
Probe: Remind
Recognition Probe Reaction Times (ms)Holtgraves, 2008
720
740760
780
800
820840
860
880
900920
Written Auditory
Speech Act
Control
Implicit Speech Act Comprehension Experiments
• Lexical Decision Procedure (Word/Nonword):– Judge speech act words (e.g., remind) faster after
speech act utterances than control utterances• Participants vs. Observers– Conversation Bot (SAM):• Participants demonstrate automatic speech act
activation– SAM: Don’t take a class from Harmon, he’s terrible
» WARN
Speech Acts and MemoryHoltgraves (2008)
• Do Speech acts play a role in long-term representation?
• Participants read scenarios/utterances – Speech act/control versions – Rated scenarios (incidental memory)– Intervening task (recall states)
• Memory test– Recognition or Recall
False Memory for Speech Act Verbs
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Recognition Recall
Speech Act
Control
What are the Neurophysiological Underpinnings of Speech Act
Comprehension?
Does Everyone Automatically Recognize Speech Acts?
Speech Act Recognition in Parkinson’s Disease
Parkinson’s Disease (PD) can display cognitive and social deficits as well as motor deficits
Are social deficits due to pragmatic deficits (speech act recognition)?
PD (N = 28) and age matched controls (N = 32) performed lexical decision task following speech act/control scenarios (rewritten for PD).- Assess executive function (stroop task)
Lexical Decision Times (ms)Holtgraves & McNamara, 2010
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
Control Participants Parkinson's Participants
Speech Act
Control
Speech Act Priming and Utterance Production
• Speech act priming correlated with under-informativeness in interactions– Interviews coded for under-informativeness• Failure to recognize others’ intentions related to lack of
informativeness in utterance production
Neural Underpinnings
• Why speech act recognition disrupted in PD?• Our results suggest executive cognitive function:– Speech act priming correlated with stroop
interference for PD Ps(r = - .81) but not control Ps (r = .05).
• Action verb/motor circuit connection• Speech act deficit due to motor impairment• Comprehension of action entails some simulation of
action (embodied cognition)• Upper body impairment - more lower body verbs
Neural Underpinnngs of Speech Act Comprehension: Lateralization
• Role of right hemisphere (RH) in speaker meaning– Evidence from RHD participants (poor at
recognizing nonliteral meanings)– RH intention recognition (imaging data)
• Predict RH specialized for Speech Act comprehension
• Speech Act Comprehension materials– Lateralize targets to RVF/LH or LVF/RH
Indirect Replies
• Replies that violate the Relation Maxim (be relevant)
• No preferred reading out of context (particularized implicatures)
Example:• Nick: What did you think of my
presentation?• Paul: It’s hard to give a good presentation.
Indirect Replies
–How are indirect replies interpreted?–Why are they interpreted this way?–How do people make this
interpretation?–What are the neural underpinnings of
this process?
Model: Grice + Goffman
• Relevance violation is noticed/inference generated• Inference based on perceived reason for violation• Relevance violations occur because of face
management• Recipients realize this and use it as an interpretive
frame• In general, relevance violations should be
interpreted as conveying FT information
Relevance Violation ExperimentsWhich inference?
• Participants read scenarios, questions and replies
• Manipulate context:– Positive (presentation was good)– Negative (presentation was bad)– No information
• Ask Ps to:• Interpret replies• Time reply comprehension
Percent Negative Interpretations
Indirect replies interpreted just as negatively in no information contexts as in negative information contexts
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
No Information NegativeInformation
Positive Information
j
Reply Comprehension Speed (in ms) as a Function of Context
Indirect replies interpreted just as quickly in no information contexts as in negative information contexts
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
No Information NegativeInformation
Positive Information
Relevance Violation ExperimentsComprehension Processes
• Manipulate context: Force literal or indirect reading• Assess: reply comprehension speed
indirect meaning priming literal priming
Reply Comprehension Speed (ms)
• Process is time-consuming (replies with indirect meanings take longer than matched controls)
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
Indirect Reading Literal Reading
Sentence Verification Speed (ms)
Sentence verification judgments for indirect interpretations faster following replies with indirect meanings relative to replies with literal meaning: Indirect meaning activated on-line (at comprehension, not post-hoc)
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
Indirect Reading Literal Reading
Dispreferred Markers and Reply Comprehension
• If recognition of face management drives interpretive process, then factors suggesting face management is operative should facilitate comprehension
• Indirect Reply comprehension faster if preceded by: – “Well”– Brief delay (2 s)
Neural CorrelatesBasnakova et al., 2011
• fMRI while comprehending indirect replies• Face-saving vs. informative indirect replies
(It’s hard to give a good presentation)– Greater activation of:• Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex (empathy)• Right Superior Temporal Gyrus (inferencing)• Right Inferior Frontal Cortex (contextual integration)
Summing Up• Nonliteral speaker meaning is pervasive in conversation• Many different types of nonliteral meaning• Different social, cognitive, and neural processes involved in
their comprehension• Social processes: face management– Comprehension is a mirror image of production (FM)
• Cognitive processes: good enough processing• Neural processes: RH and frontal networks involved in
perspective taking and inferencing (networks different from classic language networks)
• Process models require more research on real-time pragmatic processing (e.g., EEG)