Do repeated references result in sign reduction?

Hoetjes, Marieke; Krahmer, Emiel; Swerts, Marc

doi:10.1075/sll.17.1.03hoe

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figures 7a and 7b provide examples of shape-based reference reduction in English and ASL between the initial, third, and final round. Consistent with previous research on collaborative referring in spoken language (Brennan & Clark, 1996; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986) and sign language (Hoetjes et al, 2014), our results indicate that regardless of language modality, repeated referential expressions become reduced over time as participants establish mutual ground.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Similar reduction and refinement of reference has been observed in sign languages. In a referential communication task conducted in Sign Language of the Netherlands, repeated references to people and furniture became shorter and contained fewer and shorter signs than initial references (Hoetjes, Krahmer, & Swerts, 2014). Repeated references to objects tended to be judged as less precise by an independent group of perceivers compared to the initial references (Bard et al, 2000; Hoetjes et al, 2014), suggesting that common ground is crucial for communicative success.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a referential communication task conducted in Sign Language of the Netherlands, repeated references to people and furniture became shorter and contained fewer and shorter signs than initial references (Hoetjes, Krahmer, & Swerts, 2014). Repeated references to objects tended to be judged as less precise by an independent group of perceivers compared to the initial references (Bard et al, 2000; Hoetjes et al, 2014), suggesting that common ground is crucial for communicative success. Without interaction, referring expressions might remain lengthy and complex (Garrod, Fay, Lee, Oberlander, & MacLeod, 2007; Hupet & Chantraine, 1992; Krauss & Weinheimer, 1966).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Referring strategies in American Sign Language and English (with co-speech gesture): The role of modality in referring to non-nameable objects

Sehyr

Nicodemus

Petrich

et al. 2018

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American Sign Language (ASL) and English differ in linguistic resources available to express visual–spatial information. In a referential communication task, we examined the effect of language modality on the creation and mutual acceptance of reference to non-nameable figures. In both languages, description times reduced over iterations and references to the figures’ geometric properties (“shape-based reference”) declined over time in favor of expressions describing the figures’ resemblance to nameable objects (“analogy-based reference”). ASL signers maintained a preference for shape-based reference until the final (sixth) round, while English speakers transitioned toward analogy-based reference by Round 3. Analogy-based references were more time efficient (associated with shorter round description times). Round completion times were longer for ASL than for English, possibly due to gaze demands of the task and/or to more shape-based descriptions. Signers’ referring expressions remained unaffected by figure complexity while speakers preferred analogy-based expressions for complex figures and shape-based expressions for simple figures. Like speech, co-speech gestures decreased over iterations. Gestures primarily accompanied shape-based references, but listeners rarely looked at these gestures, suggesting that they were recruited to aid the speaker rather than the addressee. Overall, different linguistic resources (classifier constructions vs. geometric vocabulary) imposed distinct demands on referring strategies in ASL and English.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Referring strategies in American Sign Language and English (with co-speech gesture): The role of modality in referring to non-nameable objects

Sehyr

Nicodemus

Petrich

et al. 2018

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, although clear lab speech is easier to perceive than plain lab speech, it is produced in a context in 3 Second mention reduction may also be linked to other aspects of the communicative domain: Hoetjes et al (2015) observed that co-speech gesturing that accompanies second mentions tends to be reduced in magnitude relative to gesturing which accompanies first mentions. Similarly, Hoetjes et al (2012) documented second mention reduction effects in Dutch Sign Language. 4 Speaking style is also a focus of a substantial body of work in variationist sociolinguistics (e.g., Eckert and Rickford 2001) and is therefore related to our discussion below of the effect of social factors, including dialect variation, on phonetic reduction.…”

Section: Phonetic Reduction In "Easy" Contextsmentioning

confidence: 84%

2. Exploring variation in phonetic reduction: Linguistic, social, and cognitive factors

Clopper¹,

Turnbull²

2018

Rethinking Reduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substantial empirical research has revealed that temporal and spectral phonetic vowel reduction occurs in "easy" processing contexts relative to "hard" processing contexts, including effects of lexical frequency, lexical neighborhood density, semantic predictability, discourse mention, and speaking style. Theoretical accounts of this phonetic reduction process include listener-oriented approaches, in which the reduction reflects the talker's balancing the comprehension needs of the listener with production effort constraints, talker-oriented approaches, in which reduction is argued to result entirely from constraints on speech production processes, and evolutionary approaches, in which reduction results directly from long-term interactive communication within a community. Recent research in our laboratory has revealed complex interactions among the linguistic, social, and cognitive factors involved in phonetic vowel reduction processes. These interactions reveal variation in the robustness of phonetic reduction effects across linguistic factors, as well as different patterns of interactions among linguistic, social, and cognitive factors across acoustic domains. These interactions challenge aspects of each of the three existing models of phonetic reduction. We therefore propose that a more complex view of the relationship between processing demands and phonetic vowel reduction processes is necessary to account for these observed patterns of variation.

show abstract

“…It is noteworthy that in other dimensions of language use, a tendency towards reduction of effort is palpable. After topics and entities are introduced into discourse they are typically referred to subsequently with definites with reduced descriptions and ultimately pronouns that exhibit phonological reduction [17,21]. Even in the context of such reductions, politeness terms persist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%