Psycholinguistik / Kognitive Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (16)
- Article (15)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Keywords
- Kognitive Linguistik (33) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (21)
- Postprint (5)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (5)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- de Gruyter (10)
- Benjamins (2)
- Equinox (2)
- Frontiers Media S.A. (2)
- Taylor & Francis (2)
- Frontiers Media (1)
- Lang (1)
- Language Science Press (1)
- Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen (1)
- Routledge (1)
A constructicon, i.e., a structured inventory of constructions, essentially aims at documenting functions of lexical and grammatical constructions. Among other parameters, so-called constructional collo-profiles, as introduced by Herbst (2018, 2020), are conclusive for determining constructional meanings. They provide information on how relevant individual words are for construction slots, they hint at usage preferences of constructions and serve as a helpful indicator for semantic peculiarities of constructions. However, even though collo-profiles constitute an indispensable component of constructicon entries, they pose major challengers for constructicographers: For a constructicographic enterprise it is not feasible to conduct collostructional analyses for hundreds or even thousands of constructions. In this article, we introduce a procedure based on the large language model BERT that allows to predict collo-profiles without having to extensively annotate instances of constructions in a given corpus. Specifically, by discussing the constructions X macht Y ADJP (‘x makes Y ADJ’, e.g. he drives him crazy) and N1 PREP N1 (e.g., bumper to bumper, constructions over constructions), we show how the developed automated system generates collo-profiles based on a limited number of annotated instances. Finally, we place collo-profiles alongside other dimensions of constructional meanings included in the German Constructicon.
Poetic diction routinely involves two complementary classes of features: (i) parallelisms, i.e. repetitive patterns (rhyme, metre, alliteration, etc.) that enhance the predictability of upcoming words, and (ii) poetic deviations that challenge standard expectations/predictions regarding regular word form and order. The present study investigated how these two prediction-modulating fundamentals of poetic diction affect the cognitive processing and aesthetic evaluation of poems, humoristic couplets and proverbs. We developed quantitative measures of these two groups of text features. Across the three text genres, higher deviation scores reduced both comprehensibility and aesthetic liking whereas higher parallelism scores enhanced these. The positive effects of parallelism are significantly stronger than the concurrent negative effects of the features of deviation. These results are in accord with the hypothesis that art reception involves an interplay of prediction errors and prediction error minimization, with the latter paving the way for processing fluency and aesthetic liking.
In conversation, turn-taking is usually fluid, with next speakers taking their turn right after the end of the previous turn. Most, but not all, previous studies show that next speakers start to plan their turn early, if possible already during the incoming turn. The present study makes use of the list-completion paradigm (Barthel et al., 2016), analyzing speech onset latencies and eye-movements of participants in a task-oriented dialogue with a confederate. The measures are used to disentangle the contributions to the timing of turn-taking of early planning of content on the one hand and initiation of articulation as a reaction to the upcoming turn-end on the other hand. Participants named objects visible on their computer screen in response to utterances that did, or did not, contain lexical and prosodic cues to the end of the incoming turn. In the presence of an early lexical cue, participants showed earlier gaze shifts toward the target objects and responded faster than in its absence, whereas the presence of a late intonational cue only led to faster response times and did not affect the timing of participants' eye movements. The results show that with a combination of eye-movement and turn-transition time measures it is possible to tease apart the effects of early planning and response initiation on turn timing. They are consistent with models of turn-taking that assume that next speakers (a) start planning their response as soon as the incoming turn's message can be understood and (b) monitor the incoming turn for cues to turn-completion so as to initiate their response when turn-transition becomes relevant.
Speech planning is a sophisticated process. In dialog, it regularly starts in overlap with an incoming turn by a conversation partner. We show that planning spoken responses in overlap with incoming turns is associated with higher processing load than planning in silence. In a dialogic experiment, participants took turns with a confederate describing lists of objects. The confederate’s utterances (to which participants responded) were pre-recorded and varied in whether they ended in a verb or an object noun and whether this ending was predictable or not. We found that response planning in overlap with sentence-final verbs evokes larger task-evoked pupillary responses, while end predictability had no effect. This finding indicates that planning in overlap leads to higher processing load for next speakers in dialog and that next speakers do not proactively modulate the time course of their response planning based on their predictions of turn endings. The turn-taking system exerts pressure on the language processing system by pushing speakers to plan in overlap despite the ensuing increase in processing load.
To ensure short gaps between turns in conversation, next speakers regularly start planning their utterance in overlap with the incoming turn. Three experiments investigate which stages of utterance planning are executed in overlap. E1 establishes effects of associative and phonological relatedness of pictures and words in a switch-task from picture naming to lexical decision. E2 focuses on effects of phonological relatedness and investigates potential shifts in the time-course of production planning during background speech. E3 required participants to verbally answer questions as a base task. In critical trials, however, participants switched to visual lexical decision just after they began planning their answer. The task-switch was time-locked to participants' gaze for response planning. Results show that word form encoding is done as early as possible and not postponed until the end of the incoming turn. Hence, planning a response during the incoming turn is executed at least until word form activation.
When humans have a conversation with one-another, they generally take turns speaking one after the other without overlapping each others talk or leaving silence between turns for long stretches of time. Previous research has shown that conversation is a structured practice following rules that help interlocutors to manage the flow of conversation interactively. While at the beginning of a conversation it remains open who will speak when about what and for how long, interlocutors regulate the flow of conversation as it unfolds. One basic set of rules that interlocutors operate with governs the allocation of speaking turns, with the central rule stating that whoever starts speaking first at a point in time when speaker change becomes relevant has the rights and obligations to produce the next turn. The organization of turn allocation, therefore, is one reason for conversational turn taking to be so remarkably fast, with the beginnings of turns most often being quite accurately aligned with the ends of the previous turns. Observations of this outstanding speed of turn taking gave rise to a number of questions concerning language processing in conversational situations. The studies presented in this thesis investigate some of these questions from the perspective of the current listener preparing to be the next speaker who will respond to the current turn.
The study presented in Chapter 2 investigates when next speakers begin to plan their own turn with respect to two points in time, (i) the moment when the incoming turn’s message becomes clear enough to make response planning possible and (ii) the moment when the incoming turn terminates. Results of previous studies were inconclusive about the timing of language planning in conversation, with evidence in favour of both late and early response planning. Furthermore, previous studies presented both evidence as well as counter evidence indicating that response planning depends or does not depend on an accurate prediction of the timing of the incoming turn’s end. The study presented here makes use of a novel experimental paradigm which includes a dialogic task that participants need to fulfil in response to critical utterances by a confederate. These critical utterances were structured, on the one hand, so that their message became clear either only at the end of the turn or before the end of the turn, and, on the other hand, so that it was either predictable or not predictable when exactly the turn would end. Participant’s eye-movements as well as their response latencies indicated that they always planned their next turn as early as possible, irrespective of the predictability of the incoming turn’s end. The presented results provide evidence in favour of models of turn taking that predict speech planning to happen in overlap with the incoming turn.
Having established that next speakers begin to plan their turn in overlap, the study presented in Chapter 3 goes more into detail investigating to which depth language planning progresses while the incoming turn is still unfolding. To this end, a number of psycholinguistic paradigms were combined. In the study’s main experiment, participants had to fulfil a switch-task in which they switched from picture naming in response to an auditorily presented question to making a lexical decision. By manipulating the relatedness of the word for lexical decision with the picture that was prepared to be named before the task-switch it was possible to draw inferences on which processing stages were entered during the speech production process in overlap with the incoming turn. Participants’ behavioural responses in the lexical decision task revealed that they entered the stage of phonological encoding while the incoming turn was still unfolding, showing that planning in overlap is not limited to conceptual preparation but includes all sub-processes of formulation.
Given that speech production regularly enters the stages of formulation in overlap with the incoming turn, as shown in Chapters 2 and 3, the question arises whether planning the next turn in overlap is cognitively more demanding than during the gap between turns. This question is approached in the study presented in Chapter 4 by measuring pupillometric responses of participants in a dialogic task. An increase in pupil diameter during a cognitive task is indicative of increased processing load, and pupillometric responses to planning in overlap with the incoming turn were found to be greater than responses to planning in the gap between turns. These results show that planning in overlap is more demanding than planning during the gap, even though it is highly practiced by speakers.
After Chapters 2 to 4 investigated the timing and mechanisms of speech planning in conversation, Chapter 5 turns towards the timing of articulation of a planned turn, asking the question what sources of information next speakers use to time the articulation of a planned utterance to start closely after the incoming turn comes to an end. In this Chapter’s study, participants taking turns with a confederate responded to utterances containing or not containing different cues to the location of the incoming turn’s end. Participants made use of lexical and turn-final intonational cues, but not of turn-initial intonational cues, responding faster when the relevant cues were present than when they were not present. These results show that the timing of turn initiation in next speakers depends on the recognition of the incoming turn’s point of completion and not merely on the progress in planning the next turn.
All evidence presented in Chapters 2 to 5 is summed up and bundled together in a cognitive model of turn taking, which is being presented in Chapter 6. This model assumes, centrally, that the planning of a turn and the timing of its articulation are separate cognitive processes that run in parallel in any next speaker during conversation. Planning generally starts as early as possible, often in overlap with the incoming turn, while the timing of articulation depends on the next speaker’s level of certainty that speaker change has become relevant at a particular moment, with a number of cues to the end of the incoming turn leading to an increase of certainty. Next turns are assumed to often be planned down to fully formulated utterance plans including their phonological form as early as possible on the basis of anticipations of the incoming turn’s message, which are created with the help of the general and situational knowledge about the world, the current speaker and her intentions, as well as the input that has been received so far. The level of certainty that speaker change becomes relevant rises or decreases as lexico-syntactic, prosodic, and pragmatic projections about the development of the current turn are fulfilled or not fulfilled. As the incoming turn progresses towards its end as was projected by the current listener, he becomes certain that speaker change becomes relevant and will initiate articulation of the prepared next turn. Viewing these two processes, planning a next turn and timing of its articulation, as separate makes it possible to explain the observable fast timing of turn taking while still modelling the allocation of turns as interactionally managed by interlocutors — a considerable advantage of the presented model compared to more traditional perspectives on turn taking and conversation.
In conversation, interlocutors rarely leave long gaps between turns, suggesting that next speakers begin to plan their turns while listening to the previous speaker. The present experiment used analyses of speech onset latencies and eye-movements in a task-oriented dialogue paradigm to investigate when speakers start planning their responses. German speakers heard a confederate describe sets of objects in utterances that either ended in a noun [e.g., Ich habe eine Tür und ein Fahrrad (“I have a door and a bicycle”)] or a verb form [e.g., Ich habe eine Tür und ein Fahrrad besorgt (“I have gotten a door and a bicycle”)], while the presence or absence of the final verb either was or was not predictable from the preceding sentence structure. In response, participants had to name any unnamed objects they could see in their own displays with utterances such as Ich habe ein Ei (“I have an egg”). The results show that speakers begin to plan their turns as soon as sufficient information is available to do so, irrespective of further incoming words.
This special issue investigates early responses—responsive actions that (start to) unfold while the production of the responded-to turn and action is still under way. Although timing in human conduct has gained intense interest in research, the early production of responsive actions has so far largely remained unexplored. But what makes early responses possible? What do such responses tell us about the complex interplay between syntax, prosody, and embodied conduct? And what sorts of actions do participants accomplish by means of such early responses? By addressing these questions, the special issue seeks to offer new advances in the systematic analysis of temporal organization in interaction, contributing to broader discussions in the language and cognitive sciences as to the social coordination of human conduct.
This special issue investigates early responses—responsive actions that (start to) unfold while the production of the responded-to turn and action is still under way. Although timing in human conduct has gained intense interest in research, the early production of responsive actions has so far largely remained unexplored. But what makes early responses possible? What do such responses tell us about the complex interplay between syntax, prosody, and embodied conduct? And what sorts of actions do participants accomplish by means of such early responses? By addressing these questions, the special issue seeks to offer new advances in the systematic analysis of temporal organization in interaction, contributing to broader discussions in the language and cognitive sciences as to the social coordination of human conduct. In this introductory article, we discuss the role of temporality and sequentiality in social interaction, specifically focusing on projective and anticipatory mechanisms and the interplay between multiple semiotic resources, which are crucial for making early responses possible.