The impact of shared knowledge on speakers’ prosody


Autoři: Amandine Michelas aff001;  Cécile Cau aff001;  Maud Champagne-Lavau aff001
Působiště autorů: Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, LPL, Aix-en-Provence, France aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223640

Souhrn

How does the knowledge shared by interlocutors during interaction modify the way speakers speak? Specifically, how does prosody change when speakers know that their addressees do not share the same knowledge as them? We studied these effects in an interactive paradigm in which French speakers gave instructions to addressees about where to place a cross between different objects (e.g., You put the cross between the red mouse and the red house). We manipulated (i) whether the two interlocutors shared or did not necessarily share the same objects and (ii) the informational status of referents. We were interested in two types of prosodic variations: global prosodic variations that affect entire utterances (i.e., pitch range and speech rate variations) and more local prosodic variations that encode informational status of referents (i.e., prosodic phrasing for French). We found that participants spoke more slowly and with larger pitch excursions in the not-shared knowledge condition than in the shared knowledge condition while they did not prosodically encode the informational status of referents regardless of the knowledge condition. Results demonstrated that speakers kept track of what the addressee knew, and that they adapted their global prosody to their interlocutors. This made the task too cognitively demanding to allow the prosodic encoding of the informational status of referents. Our findings are in line with the idea that complex reasoning usually implicated in constructing a model of the addressee co-exists with speaker-internal constraints such as cognitive load to affect speaker’s prosody during interaction.

Klíčová slova:

Acoustics – Cognitive psychology – Computers – Speech – Syllables – Vision – Vowels – Finches


Zdroje

1. Halliday M. A. K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part2. Journal of Linguistics. 1967; 3:199–244.

2. Chafe W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, subject, topic, and point of view. In: Li C, editors. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press; 2016. pp. 25–55.

3. Clark H. H., Haviland S. E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle RO: Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing; 1977. pp. 1–40.

4. Prince, E. F. On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. In: Farley A, Farley P, McCullough KE, editors. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. 2nd Regional Meeting in Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society; 1986. pp. 208–222.

5. Cruttenden, A. Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.

6. Swerts M., Krahmer E., & Avesani C. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics. 2002; 30(4): 629–654.

7. Féry C. Intonation of focus in French. In: Féry C., Sternefeld W, editors. Audiatur Vox Sapientes: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademi Verlag; 2001. pp. 153–181.

8. Dohen, M., Lœvenbruck, H. Pre-focal rephrasing, focal enhancement and postfocal deaccentuation in French. In: Proceedings of Interspeech; 2004.

9. Beyssade, C., Hemforth, B., Marandin, J.-M., Portes, C. “Prosodic Markings of Information Focus in French”. In: Yoo HY, Delais-Roussarie E, editors. Actes d’Interfaces, Discours et Prosodie. Paris, ISSN 2114-7612; 2009. pp. 109–122. http://makino.linguist.jussieu.fr/idp09/actes_fr.html.

10. Chen, A., Destruel, E. Intonational encoding of focus in Toulousian French. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody; 2010.

11. Michelas A., Faget C., Portes C., Lienhart A.-C., Boyer L., Lançon C., Champagne-Lavau M. Do patients with schizophrenia use prosody to encode contrastive discourse status?. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5:755. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00755 25101025

12. Smiljanić R., Bradlow A. R. Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Language and linguistics compass. 2009; 3(1): 236–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00112.x 20046964

13. Arnold J. E., Kahn J. M., Pancani G. C. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2012;19(3):2012: 505–512.

14. Bard E. G., Anderson A. H., Sotillo C., Aylett M., Doherty-Sneddon G., Newlands A. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language. 2000; 42: 1–22.

15. Bard E. G., Aylett M. P. Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue. In: Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MK, editors. Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the languageas-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2004. pp. 173–191

16. Kaland C., Krahmer E., & Swerts M. White bear effects in language production: Evidence from the prosodic realization of adjectives. Language and speech. 2014; 57(4): 470–486.

17. Fraundorf S. H., Watson D. G., & Benjamin A. S. Reduction in prosodic prominence predicts speakers’ recall: implications for theories of prosody. Language, cognition and neuroscience. 2015; 30(5): 606–619. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.966122 26594647

18. Picheny M. A., Durlach N. I., Braida L. D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1986: 29(4), 434–446.

19. Picheny M. A., Durlach N. I., Braida L. D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing III: An attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to differences in intelligibility between clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1989: 32(3), 600–603.

20. Matthies M., Perrier P., Perkell J. S., Zandipour M. Variation in anticipatory coarticulation with changes in clarity and rate. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2001; 44(2): 340–353. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/028) 11324656

21. Perkell J. S., Zandipour M. Economy of effort in different speaking conditions. II. Kinematic performance spaces for cyclical and speech movements. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2002; 112(4):1642–1651. doi: 10.1121/1.1506368 12398469

22. Ferguson S. H., Kewley-Port D. Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2002; 112(1): 259–271. doi: 10.1121/1.1482078 12141351

23. Bradlow A. R., Kraus N., Hayes E. Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: Sentence perception in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2003; 46(1): 80–97. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/007) 12647890

24. Krause J. C., Braida L. D. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 115(1); 362–378. doi: 10.1121/1.1635842 14759028

25. Liu S., Del Rio E., Bradlow A. R., Zeng F. G. Clear speech perception in acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 116(4): 2374–2383.

26. Smiljanić R., Bradlow A. R. Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2005; 118(3):1677–1688.

27. Michelas A., Cau C., & Champagne-Lavau M. (2017). How does the absence of shared knowledge between interlocutors affect the production of French prosodic forms?. Proc. Interspeech 2017, 3191–3195.

28. Ladd, Robert D. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1996.

29. Hart, J. t’., Collier, R., Cohen, A. A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge University Press; 2006.

30. Boersma, P., Weenink, D. Praat. Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.4.01, 2015), Computer program: www.praat.org.

31. Jun S.A., Fougeron C. Realizations of accentual phrase in French. Probus. 2002; 14:147–172.

32. Welby P. French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics. 2006; 34(3): 343–371.

33. Michelas A., D’Imperio M. When syntax meets prosody: Tonal and duration variability in French Accentual Phrases. Journal of Phonetics. 2012; 40(6): 816–829.

34. Astésano C., Bard E. G., & Turk A. (2007). Structural influences on initial accent placement in French. Language and Speech. 2007;50(3):423–446.

35. Baayen R. H., Davidson D. J., Bates D. M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008; 59:390–412.

36. Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., & Tily H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language. 2013; 68(3):255–278.

37. Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., Westfall, P. Multiple comparisons using R. CRC Press. 2016.

38. Rosa E. C., Finch K. H., Bergeson M., Arnold J. E. The effects of addressee attention on prosodic prominence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2015; 30(1–2): 48–56.

39. Kantola, L., van Gompel, R. P. Does the addressee matter when choosing referring expressions?. Proceedings of PRE-Cogsci: Bridging the gap between computational, empirical and theoretical approaches to reference. Boston; 2011.

40. Kantola L., van Gompel R. P. Is anaphoric reference cooperative? The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2016; 69:6:1109–1128.

41. Damen D., van der Wijst P., van Amelsvoort M., & Krahmer E. Perspective-Taking in Referential Communication: Does Stimulated Attention to Addressees’ Perspective Influence Speakers’ Reference Production? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2019, 48 (2), 257–288. doi: 10.1007/s10936-018-9602-7 30219958

42. Vogels J., Krahmer E., Maes A. How cognitive load influences speakers’choice of referring expressions. Cognitive science. 2015; 39(6): 1396–1418. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12205 25471259

43. Duran N. D., Dale R., & Kreuz R. J. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition; 121(1), 22–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.009 21752357

44. Kuhlen A. K., & Brennan S. E. Language in dialogue: when confederates might be hazardous to your data. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2013; 20(1): 54–72.

45. Horton W. S., & Keysar B. When do speakers take into account common ground?. Cognition. 1996; 59(1): 91–117. 8857472


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 10