Hedges enhance memory but inhibit retelling

Abstract

We examined the effects of hedges and the discourse marker like on how people recalled specific details about precise quantities in spontaneous speech. We found that listeners treated hedged information differently from like-marked information, although both are thought to be indicators of uncertainty or vagueness. In addition, hedges had different effects depending on whether speakers were (1) retelling conversations to another person or (2) answering questions about material they had heard. When retelling to another person, listeners were more likely to report information that was either unmarked or marked with a like than hedged information (Experiment 1). Yet when answering questions by themselves, hedges enhanced memory for details, in comparison with likes (Experiment 2). Hedges appear to provide pragmatic cues about what information is reliable enough to repeat in a conversational context. But although hedged information may be left out, it is not forgotten.

The influence of conceptual (mis)match on collaborative referring in dialogue

“…Once chosen, it is added to their common ground (Clark & Schaefer, 1989), causing both partners to reuse it again later Same initial conceptualisation during the interaction (Brennan & Clark, 1996). This has a direct impact on subsequent communication, enabling dialogue partners to use fewer indefinite referring expressions and hedges (Brennan & Clark, 1996;Brennan & Ohaeri, 1999;Clark & Marshall, 1981;Horton & Gerrig, 2002;Liu & Fox Tree, 2012) as well as fewer words and speech turns (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986;Hupet & Chantraine, 1992;Hupet et al, 1993Hupet et al, , 1991. The purpose of this study was to examine how initial conceptualisation sharedness affects referring expression convergence as well as speech production during the remainder of the interaction.…”

“…However, this process becomes increasingly efficient after the referring expression has been added to the common ground. Indeed, when a referring expression is produced for the first time, the dialogue partner producing it also usually produces hedges such as "like" (other examples could include "a kind of" or "it looks like") to indicate that it is only provisional at this stage and that it can be negotiated further (Brennan & Clark, 1996;Brennan & Ohaeri, 1999;Horton & Gerrig, 2002;Liu & Fox Tree, 2012). Dialogue partners also favour the production of indefinite referring expressions (e.g., "a masterpiece book" rather than "the masterpiece book") at this stage (Clark & Marshall, 1981).…”

Giving up Twitter for Lent

“…A growing body of research, often referred to as personal informatics, health informatics, or quantified self, has focused on designing interfaces and devices for collecting and reflecting on data in domains such as fitness, nutrition, wellness, mental health, and sustainability [8,11,23]. However, these approaches require motivation and agency from users, who must decide they want to change their behavior in order to acquire and adopt such a technology (e.g.…”

The impact of hedged testimony on judgments of credibility

“…But research also shows that people view arguments—read or listened to—with hedge words more negatively and find them less persuasive (Blankenship & Holtgraves, ; Hosman, Huebner, & Siltanen, ). For example, in one experiment, Liu and Fox Tree () found that when people repeated autobiographical stories, they were less likely to retell details of the story that included a hedge. This result signals that listeners realize that hedge words are a marker of unreliability and are thus less worthy of repetition.…”

“…In their second experiment, however, participants were more likely to accurately recall details present in the original story that were prefaced by a hedge—a finding consistent with other work on the memorability of hedge words (Hosman & Siltanen, ). To reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings, Liu and Fox Tree () posited that hedge words encourage deeper processing, such that hedged statements are more likely to be encoded but at the same time provide cues to the listener that the statement is unreliable. Replicating Liu and Fox Tree's () work, research by Durik, Britt, Reynolds, and Storey () also found that the presence of hedge words can lead people to evaluate arguments more negatively, making them less persuasive than arguments without hedge words.…”