Language Use Language Use and and

UnderstandingUnderstandingBCS 261BCS 261

LIN 241LIN 241

PSY 261PSY 261

CLASS 5: GIVEN AND NEW CLASS 5: GIVEN AND NEW INFORMATIONINFORMATION

Sign up for article Sign up for article presentationpresentation

Given vs. NewGiven vs. New

Given = information that is knownGiven = information that is known New = information that is not knownNew = information that is not known

… … the ball. Give me the ball.the ball. Give me the ball. … … the ball. Give me the bat.the ball. Give me the bat.

What does it mean for What does it mean for something to be known?something to be known?

Prince (1992)Prince (1992) DISCOURSE-GIVEN vs. HEARER-GIVENDISCOURSE-GIVEN vs. HEARER-GIVEN INFERRABLEINFERRABLE

Here’s a house. The door is yellow.Here’s a house. The door is yellow.

Linguistically givenLinguistically given Visually givenVisually given Given recently, not so recentlyGiven recently, not so recently

Linguistic marking of Linguistic marking of Given/NewGiven/New

Determiners (the vs. a)Determiners (the vs. a) I’m going to adopt I’m going to adopt the / athe / a dog. dog.

TooToo Elizabeth tells awful jokes tooElizabeth tells awful jokes too

Relative clausesRelative clauses The jokes Horace tells are awful.The jokes Horace tells are awful.

CleftsClefts It was me who ate the pie.It was me who ate the pie. What I ate was the pie.What I ate was the pie.

Anaphor = a linguistic term that Anaphor = a linguistic term that corefers with something mentioned corefers with something mentioned earlierearlier

Antecedent = the given information Antecedent = the given information that was mentioned earlierthat was mentioned earlier

This is This is my dogmy dog. . HeHe’s a labrador.’s a labrador. Give me Give me the candlethe candle. . The candleThe candle is is

the one on the left.the one on the left.

How does given/new How does given/new affect language affect language

processing?processing? Production:Production:

Speakers tend to place given Speakers tend to place given information before new (e.g., Arnold et information before new (e.g., Arnold et al., 2000)al., 2000)

Comprehension:Comprehension: Listeners try to identify what given Listeners try to identify what given

information the novel linguistic input information the novel linguistic input relates to.relates to.

Haviland & Clark (1974)Haviland & Clark (1974)

The Given-New Strategy: The speaker’s The Given-New Strategy: The speaker’s purpose is to provide information to his purpose is to provide information to his audience, the listener’s goal is to extract audience, the listener’s goal is to extract the new information and integrate it with the new information and integrate it with old information already in memory. old information already in memory.

Predictions by Given-New Predictions by Given-New StrategyStrategy

1. If the Given Information matches 1. If the Given Information matches something in context, that is, if it has something in context, that is, if it has an Antecedent, the listener will be an Antecedent, the listener will be quick to respond that he quick to respond that he understands the sentence.understands the sentence.

2. If the Given Information does not 2. If the Given Information does not have a matching Antecedent, the have a matching Antecedent, the listener will be slower to claim he listener will be slower to claim he comprehends the sentence.comprehends the sentence.

Experiment 1Experiment 1

Direct Antecedent Direct Antecedent PairPair

e.g. We got some beer e.g. We got some beer out of the trunk. out of the trunk. The The beerbeer was warm. was warm.

Indirect Antecedent Indirect Antecedent PairPair

e.g. We checked the e.g. We checked the picnic supplies. picnic supplies. The The beerbeer was warm. was warm.

Purpose: To test the predictions claimed by Purpose: To test the predictions claimed by Given-New StrategyGiven-New Strategy

Procedure: Pairs of context & target sentences Procedure: Pairs of context & target sentences are presented to subjects sequentially. The are presented to subjects sequentially. The sentence pairs are grouped into 2 types:sentence pairs are grouped into 2 types:

• Comprehension time of target sentence are measured •(“Press the red button as soon as you understand what •the second sentence means”)

Results:Results:Direct condition faster than IndirectDirect condition faster than Indirect

Direct Antecedent Pairs: 835 msDirect Antecedent Pairs: 835 ms

Indirect Antecedent Pairs: 1016 Indirect Antecedent Pairs: 1016 msms

Why?Why?

Is it reference to given Is it reference to given information?information?

Or repeat of same noun phrase?Or repeat of same noun phrase?

ExperimentExperiment 2 2 Purpose: To test if the results from exp. 1 Purpose: To test if the results from exp. 1

are due to the repetition of a nounare due to the repetition of a noun

Direct antecedent: We got Direct antecedent: We got some beersome beer out out of the trunk.of the trunk. The beer The beer was warm. was warm. ““some beer” is the antecedent of “the beer”some beer” is the antecedent of “the beer”

Indirect antecedent: Andrew was Indirect antecedent: Andrew was especially fond of especially fond of beerbeer. . The beerThe beer was was warm.warm. ““beer” is NOT the antecedent of “the beer”beer” is NOT the antecedent of “the beer”

ResultsResults Comprehension time:Comprehension time: Direct Antecedent Pairs: 1031msDirect Antecedent Pairs: 1031ms Indirect Antecedent Pairs: 1168msIndirect Antecedent Pairs: 1168ms Subjects responded on an average Subjects responded on an average

137ms faster towards the direct 137ms faster towards the direct antecedent. antecedent.

Repetition of the critical noun is Repetition of the critical noun is not enough to account for the not enough to account for the comprehension time difference.comprehension time difference.

Experiment 3Experiment 3

Purpose: To investigate the model with Purpose: To investigate the model with various types of presupposition & what various types of presupposition & what effect of negation has on the processeffect of negation has on the process

PresuppositionPresupposition: used adverbs e.g. still, : used adverbs e.g. still, either, again, tooeither, again, too

Negative AntecedentNegative Antecedent: Given information : Given information is expressed in negation in the context is expressed in negation in the context sentence. (subjects had to deduce the sentence. (subjects had to deduce the meaning and therefore required a longer meaning and therefore required a longer comprehension time)comprehension time)

Experiment 3Experiment 3DA: DA: Last Christmas Eugene became absolutely Last Christmas Eugene became absolutely

smashed.smashed.

IAIA Last Christmas Eugene went to a lot of parties.Last Christmas Eugene went to a lot of parties.

NA:NA: Last Christmas Eugene couldn’t stay sober.Last Christmas Eugene couldn’t stay sober.

… … This Christmas he got very drunk again. This Christmas he got very drunk again.

Additional manipulation for DA pairs:Additional manipulation for DA pairs:

lexical repetitionlexical repetition

no lexical repetitionno lexical repetition

PredictionsPredictions

Comprehension times for DA should be Comprehension times for DA should be shortest among the 3 pairs, since both IA shortest among the 3 pairs, since both IA and NA require an extra inference. No and NA require an extra inference. No direct relationship between IA and NA. direct relationship between IA and NA.

ResultsResults

Comprehension time:Comprehension time: DA = fastest for all 4 adverbsDA = fastest for all 4 adverbs IA, NA = roughly equal for all the IA, NA = roughly equal for all the

adverbs except ‘either’ (where IA adverbs except ‘either’ (where IA was slower)was slower)

No difference between DA pairs with No difference between DA pairs with surface repetition and withoutsurface repetition and without

ConclusionConclusion

Sentences are comprehended w.r.t. the context Sentences are comprehended w.r.t. the context and past knowledgeand past knowledge

Given-New Strategy -- listeners syntactically break Given-New Strategy -- listeners syntactically break sentences into Given & New information, and then sentences into Given & New information, and then attempt to add New information to memory using attempt to add New information to memory using the Given information as a pointer to some the Given information as a pointer to some Antecedent already in memory.Antecedent already in memory.

If no Antecedent is present, listeners must build If no Antecedent is present, listeners must build some sort of bridging structure, treat all some sort of bridging structure, treat all information as new and begin construction or a information as new and begin construction or a new structure, or attempt to recompute what is new structure, or attempt to recompute what is Given and what is New in the sentence. Given and what is New in the sentence.

IssuesIssues

““Given” is not always defined syntacticallyGiven” is not always defined syntactically The dog I’m going to buyThe dog I’m going to buy

Or is defined late in the utteranceOr is defined late in the utterance Last Christmas Eugene became smashed.Last Christmas Eugene became smashed. This Christmas he got drunk This Christmas he got drunk againagain.. This Christmas he got drunk This Christmas he got drunk insteadinstead..

How is information defined as given or How is information defined as given or new?new?

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions Is given information more readily available in working

memory stores? . . . There is no need to search memory stores because it seems that all relevant information is readily available (Elizabeth Riina)

On p 518 the researchers posit that the subject will treat the first sentence as new info, and set up a memory structure for it which he can then use to process the second sentence. Are the sentences/concepts/vocabulary simply being stored in short term memory? This would suffice for the duration of the experiment, but if that is true than what types of memories/knowledge is being accessed as the antecedent for the given information? (Heather McLendon)

When I transcribed the conversation with my friends I noticed there was a lot of word repetitions when we spoke. Is this repetition of words the redundant information that becomes the prerequisite for understanding and communication, or do the speech repetitions in common conversations serve another purpose? (Maryrita Maier)

They stated in the "discussion" section of the paper that the subject will take the first sentence in the pair as new information and then take the second sentence in the pair and find an antecendent for it. Does this mean that the subject needs two antecendents; one for the first sentence and one for the second sentence? (Jessee Blake)

Would an experiment testing this strategy using spoken language carry the same results? (Anthony Shook)

As I read the examples of sentence pairings I was struck foremost by how artificial they sounded . . . I wonder how applicable the results of the study are to more natural language patterns. I also wonder if any of the delayed response times could be due simply to the awkward construction (Heather McLendon)

They made the assumption that the subjects were comprehending the sentences with respect to the contect because of how they structured their experiment. However, is there a way that they could have directly tested for that so that they would not have needed to make that assumption? (Jessee Blake)

How was the content of the sentences controlled? (Elizabeth Riina)

Do you think the reaction time for direct antecedents would change significantly if the sentences dealt with content the students were already familiar with, ie: a particular class they are in or a schoolwide event? (Jessica DeSisto)

What about when the listener is not reminded of the Given information directly preceding a piece of New information, but that New information is still relevant to something the listener already knows? Would that be considered an inference? Why? (Nicole Dobrowolski)

Is the Given information referred by Haviland and Clark the same as prior knowledge? (Maryrita Maier)

How would the Given-New strategy work if the New information were believed to be false? (Nicole Dobrowolski)