Salience in Language Production - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Salience in Language Production PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 5ca618-ZWEzO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Salience in Language Production

Description:

Title: Salience in Language Production Author: Istvan Kecskes Last modified by: Istvan Kecskes Created Date: 11/5/2010 9:32:10 PM Document presentation format – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:50
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: IstvanK
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Salience in Language Production


1
Salience in Language Production
  • Istvan Kecskes
  • State University of New York, Albany

2
The Question
  • Why exactly do we say what we say the way we say
    it?

3
What to do to answer the question?
  • Examine what salience is in a socio-cognitive
    framework.
  • Discuss salience as a guiding mechanism in
    language production.

4
A socio-cognitive framework
  • Synthesis of cooperation-centered view of
    communication and the egocentrism-based cognitive
    psychological approach.
  • SCA supports a less idealized, more down-to-earth
    approach to communication than current pragmatic
    theories usually do.
  • While not denying the decisive role of
    cooperation, context and politeness in
    communication, SCA gives equal importance to
    egocentrism, linguistic aggression, and the
    untidy, trial-and-error nature of communication.

5
Main tenets of the socio-cognitive approach
  • SCA emphasizes that interlocutors are not only
    constrained by societal conditions but also shape
    these conditions at the same time.
  • It considers communication a process of the
    interplay of cooperation and egocentrism that are
    present in all phases of interaction to a varying
    extent.
  • While cooperation is an intention-directed
    practice measured by relevance, egocentrism is an
    attention-oriented trait measured by salience.

6
Egocentrism attention-salience
  • Language processing is anchored in the assumption
    that what is salient or accessible to oneself
    will also be accessible to ones interlocutors
    (Giora 2003 Barr Keysar 2005 Colston 2005
    Kecskes 2007).
  • Egocentrism means that interlocutors activate the
    most salient information to their attention in
    the construction (speaker) and comprehension
    (hearer) of utterances.

7
Conceptual accessibility
  • Conceptual accessibility is the ease with which
    the mental representation of some potential
    referent can be activated in or retrieved from
    memory (Bock Warren, 1985 Ariel 1991, 2000).
  • Several accessibility theories have been
    developed to explain how the accessibility of
    entities affects the form of referring
    expressions, as in the Givenness Hierarchy (Chafe
    1976 Givón 1992), Ariels Accessibility Theory
    (Ariel 19912000) or how it affects the local
    coherence of discourse, as in Centering Theory
    (Grosz and Sidner 1986 Grosz et al., 1995
    Wlodarczyk, A Wlodarczyk, H. 2006) and
    Jaszczolt concept of semantic default (2005).
  • Accessibility depends on salience, selective
    attention and situational context.

8
What is salience?
  • As a semiotic notion, salience refers to the
    relative importance or prominence of signs. The
    more prominent/important a sign is the more
    accessible it is.
  • Salience is the most important factor that
    affects the accessibility level of entities in
    interlocutors memory. (Most probable out of all
    possible.)
  • SCA Both speakers and hearers rely on their most
    accessible and salient knowledge expressed in
    language production and interpretation.

9
Graded Salience Hypothesis
  • Focuses on meaning salience in comprehension.
  • Meaning salience refers to degree of entrenchment
    of meanings listed in our mental lexicon.
  • Stored information is superior to unstored
    information, such as novel information or
    information inferable from context (Giora,
    200315).
  • Salient meanings of lexical units (e.g.,
    conventional, frequent, familiar, and/or
    prototypical meanings) are processed
    automatically, irrespective of contextual
    information and strength of bias. (Giora, 2003
    24).

10
Differences between SCA and the graded salience
hypothesis
  • GSH basically is hearer-centered, while SCA
    focuses on both production and comprehension.
  • GSH focuses on meaning salience that predicts the
    degree of accessibility of meanings in a
    speakers or hearers memory and how this
    accessibility affects the production and
    interpretation of language.
  • GSH emphasizes the importance of stored
    information, while SCA considers salience to be
    both a stored (inherent salience) and an emergent
    entity (emergent situational salience).
  • While GSH uses context in the sense of actual
    situational context, SCA emphasizes the
    difference and interplay between prior context,
    encapsulated in utterance formulation, and actual
    situational context.

11
Speaker salience may differ from hearer salience
  • The speaker will use the linguistic resources
    (e.g., lexical units, syntactic structures) which
    s/he thinks are most salient for expressing
    his/her communicative intentions and/or goals
  • Because of their different knowledge base, the
    frequency/rituality of their knowledge in the
    situation, and the attentional resources
    available to them for processing the salient
    items, the interlocutors knowledge has different
    levels of salience.

12
Susie and Roy
  • Roy - Is there something wrong, Susie?
  • Susie - I am fine, Roy.
  • Roy - I would have believed you if you hadnt
    said Roy.
  • Susie - OK, OK, just stop

13
Speakers commitment
  • By producing an utterance the speaker makes a
    commitment to some information or action s/he can
    be held accountable for. However, the degree of
    speakers commitment and accountability varies
    between saying and implying.
  • Haugh (2010) argued that where two (or more)
    interlocutors co-construct what is said, the
    speaker generally holds him/herself accountable
    for that interpreting, while in the case of
    implying, where two (or more) interlocutors
    co-construct an implicature, the degree to which
    the speaker should hold him/herself accountable
    for that interpreting is often more open to
    discussion.
  • Haugh added that he did not want to suggest that
    speakers are always held less accountable for
    meanings achieved through implying, because
    implicatures cannot always be legitimately
    cancelled (Burton-Roberts 2006 Jaszczolt 2009).

14
As a result, they conduct the attentional
processing of communication in an egocentric
manner.
  • Chris friend Peter arrived by plane and Chris
    met him on the airport.
  • Chris - Are you hungry?
  • Peter - I had something to eat on the plane. I
    am OK.
  • Chris - All right. Lets go to a Wendys.
  • Possible interpretations kind of hungry, not
    hungry, dont really know

15
Bock Levelts production model
  • The model includes three levels or stages of
    sentence generation distinguished as (1) MESSAGE
    component, (2) GRAMMATICAL component, and (3)
    PHONOLOGICAL component, or ARTICULATOR (see
    Figure 1 adopted from Bock Levelt, 1994).

16
(No Transcript)
17
Processing
  • Communicative intention is created. This
    intention is called a message. At the message
    stage, pre-verbal thought (intention) is
    processed, and organized into a conceptual scheme
    of the event before any linguistic processing
    occurs.
  • It is at this message level where salience comes
    in as an important factor. Salience effects are
    supposed to be the most active here biasing
    conceptualization of the event according to the
    events salience map.
  • The message captures features of the speakers
    intended meaning and provides the raw material
    for grammatical encoding.

18
Selection and ordering
  • What determines the selection of words to put the
    preverbal thoughts into? Past and current
    research has focused mainly on the formal and
    structural issues of selection and ordering
    asking the questions What facilitates the choice
    of a structure and the ordering of the sentence
    constituents during the production of utterances?
  • However, according to SCA conceptualization and
    the concept/word (lemma) interface plays a
    crucial role in shaping structures. Selected
    words require/facilitate particular structures
    and not vice versa. Structural variability
    depends on the selected words.

19
Salience in production
  • Evidence from some previous studies points to the
    role of salience and the distribution of
    attention in planning and formulation of
    sentences (e.g. Myachykov 2007 Tomlin 1997
    Stevenson 2002).
  • Allen Charlie
  • - Morning..
  • - Whats so good about it?
  • - I did not say good.

20
Theme and rheme, topic and comment
  • The role of salience and distribution of
    attention as primary factors affecting selection
    and ordering is somewhat contradicts to the
    traditional view commonly shared in linguistics
    The (sentence) constituents move to certain
    positions because of their discourse function
    interpretation (King, 1995, 63).
  • This approach is based on the assumption that the
    assignment of the syntactic positions in a clause
    depends on the functional opposition between
    clause-level theme and rheme, topic and comment,
    and/or the referents semantic roles, like agent
    and patient.
  • Traditionally, starting from the Prague school of
    linguistics (e.g. Mathesius, 1929 Firbas, 1965
    Daneš, 1970) continuing with Halliday (1985) the
    notion of theme is associated with the element
    what one is talking about, the topic, while the
    rheme is what one says about it, the comment
    (Daneš, 1970). In this framework the subject of a
    sentence frequently acts as the syntactic
    counterpart of the theme or topic of the
    utterance.

21
The information flow in discourse old or given
information and new information.
  • Givenness represents the knowledge shared between
    the interlocutors. Consequently, the given
    information is that which the speaker believes to
    be known by the hearer.
  • In contrast, the new information is the
    information the speaker is unfamiliar with (cf.
    Clark Haviland, 1977 Halliday, 1967/1968,
    Haviland Clark, 1974).
  • A quasi-psychological view on givenness suggests
    that given (old) versus new distinction
    correlates with the notion of cognitive
    activation of the concept.

22
Problems
  • - The approach is based on a priori mental state
    and intention and ignores the emergent features
    of salience and intention.
  • - The speakers cognitive egocentrism hardly
    depends on any assumption about the state of the
    mind of the hearer. So newly introduced
    information may or may not be new to the hearer
    at all.
  • - Both speaker and hearer are influenced by three
    types of salience.

23
Bob Sally
  • Bob - Will you have lunch with me today?
  • Sally - Sorry, I cant. I will have to pick up
    my sister at the airport.
  • Bob - Oh, you have a sister, dont you?

24
Salience in the socio-cognitive approach
  • Inherent salience is characterized as a natural
    preference built into the general conceptual- and
    linguistic knowledge of the speaker-hearer it
    has developed as a result of prior experience
    with lexical items and contexts. This is closed
    to what Giora (2003) calls meaning salience.
  • Collective salience is conceptual preference
    attached to a linguistic unit shared with the
    other members of the speech community, and
    changes diachronically.
  • Emergent situational salience refers to the
    salience of specific objects and linguistic
    elements in the context of language production.
    Situational salience may accrue through such
    determinants as vividness, speaker-hearer
    motivation, and recency of mention.

25
Inherent salience is affected and shaped both by
collective and situational salience
  • Jill - I met with someone today.
  • Jane - Good for you.
  • Jill - He is a police officer.
  • Jane - Are you in trouble?
  • Jill - Oh, no..

26
Emergent situational salience
  • Refers to the salience of situational constraints
    that can derive from factors such as obviousness,
    vivideness, recency of mention, and others. The
    cashiers how are you doing today? question in
    a supermarket requires only a short fine, thank
    you. The salience of the situation makes the
    function of the expression obvious.
  • However, ESS can be overridden by both collective
    salience and inherent salience. Sign on the door
    of a department store
  • Girls wanted for different positions.

27
Competition between inherent and emergent
situational salience
  • Osgood and Bock (1977) found that elements of
    inherent salience have a stronger effect on
    ordering than elements of motivated emergent
    salience.
  • This claim basically coincides with what Giora
    says in her graded salience hypothesis (Giora
    1997 2003).

28
Focused first versus old-before-new in SCA
  • Bock, Irwin, Davidson (2004) claimed, that the
    focused first and the old first proposals are
    contradictory because the information that
    attracts the focus of attention is typically the
    new elements of the scene, whereas givenness
    promotes the already established background. The
    lexical-semantic factors (e.g. old-before-new)
    and the perceptual factors (e.g. focused/attended
    first) should, therefore, produce competing
    effects.
  • Prior experience also plays some role in
    attention-getting, i.e., what the focus of
    attention becomes. Inherent salience
    (old-before-new) and emergent situational
    salience (focused-first) are intertwined and
    affect each other continuously in the
    communicative process. The strongest
    communicative effect is reached when there is no
    competition between the two.

29
(No Transcript)
30
No competition
  • Not only emergent situational salience but also
    perceptual inherent salience direct (especially
    males) attention to the girl in the
    advertisement. The note girl not included aims
    to decrease or cancel this powerful saliency.
    Male mind-set, based on prior experience directs
    attention to the female character just like
    actual situational salience does. This affect,
    however, may not be present in the case of female
    recipients, which demonstrates the different
    privatization of saliency.

31
Conclusion
  • Salience affects not only comprehension but also
    production.
  • Language processing is anchored in the assumption
    that what is salient or accessible to oneself
    will also be accessible to ones interlocutors
    (egocentrism).
  • Selection is motivated by the interplay of
    inherent, collective salience and emergent
    situational salience.
  • The role of salience and distribution of
    attention as primary factors in selection and
    ordering somewhat contradicts to the traditional
    view according to which (sentence) constituents
    move to certain positions because of their
    discourse function interpretation. Relationship
    of salience to theme/rheme and topic/comments
    needs further research.

32
Literature
  • Kecskes, I. 2010. The paradox of communication A
    socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics Society.
    Vol. 1. No. 1 50-73
  • Kecskes, I. 2010. Situation-Bound Utterances as
    Pragmatic Acts. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 42.
    No. 11 2889-2897.
  • Kecskes, I. F. Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking
    and creating common ground A socio-cognitive
    approach. Pragmatics Cognition. Vol. 17. No. 2
    331-355.
  • Kecskes, Istvan and Jacob Mey. (eds.) 2009.
    Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric
    Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York Mouton de
    Gruyter.
  • Kecskes, I. 2008. Dueling context A dynamic
    model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol.
    40. Issue 3 385-406.
About PowerShow.com