Attenuating Information in Spoken Communication: For the Speaker, or for the Addressee?.

By Alexia Galati, Susan E. Brennan. 2010

200 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Speakers tend to attenuate information that is predictable or repeated. To what extent is this done automatically and egocentrically, because it is easiest for speakers themselves, and to what extent is it driven by the informational needs of addressees? In 20 triads of naive subjects, speakers told the same Road Runner cartoon story twice to one addressee and once to another addressee, counterbalanced for order (Addressee1/Addressee1/Addressee2 or Addressee1/Addressee2/Addressee1). Stories retold to the same (old) addressees were attenuated compared to those retold to new addressees; this was true for events mentioned, number of words, and amount of detail. Moreover, lexically identical expressions by the same speaker were more intelligible to another group of listeners when the expressions had been addressed to new addressees than when they had been addressed to old addressees. We conclude that speakers’ attenuating of information in spontaneous discourse is driven at least in part by addressees. Such audience design is computationally feasible when it can be guided by a “one-bit” model (my audience has heard this before, or not).

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7224ea51e5b46b3037fec5ecdc36e61e4dc23d18

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Hal Daumé Iii
2. Eliana Vornov
3. Keith Johnson
4. Susanne Gahl
5. Naho Orita
6. Yao Yao
7. Naomi H Feldman
8. Trevor Darrell

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Hal Daumé Iii
2. Keith Johnson
3. Yao Yao
4. Susanne Gahl
5. Naomi H Feldman
6. Yang Trista Cao
7. Florent Perek

In Language and Linguistics

1. Keith Johnson
2. Yao Yao
3. Hal Daumé Iii
4. Ivan Toni
5. Susanne Gahl
6. Florent Perek

Citations in the corpus

• Recipient design in human communication: simple heuristics or perspective taking? (2012, background): “Frontiers in Human Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2012 | Volume 6 | Article 253 | 1 HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE Galati and Brennan, 2010).”
• Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech (2012, background): “…accounts (sometimes termed ‘‘listener-oriented’’ or stated with reference to audience design (Clark, Brennan, Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991; Galati & Brennan, 2010) note that speakers may adjust their speech so as to ensure intelligibility of words that might otherwise be difficult to…”
• Why discourse affects speakers’ choice of referring expressions (2015, background): “, 2013) and listener models (Bard et al., 2004; Van der Wege, 2009; Galati and Brennan, 2010; Fukumura and van Gompel, 2012) in language production.”