AMBIGUITY AVOIDANCE - GitHub Pages

AMBIGUITYAVOIDANCEBy Amanda Perlman & JackieGutman

What is Ambiguity Avoidance? According to Victor Ferreira and Gary Dell, sentenceambiguity occurs when a sentence “permits more than onesyntactic interpretation” (p. 5).*The sentence is biased towards one of these interpretationsuntil the point of disambiguation when the firstinterpretation is found to be no longer appropriateAmbiguity avoidance is the idea that we, as speakers,avoid these ambiguities so as to make ourselves as clear aspossible*Ferreira, V.S. & Dell, G.S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availabilityon syntactic and lexical production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 40,296-340.)

Why Study Ambiguity Avoidance? Finding evidence for ambiguity avoidance willsupport the idea that speakers modify their speechfor comprehendersWe chose to experiment with ambiguity avoidance bystudying audience designAudience design is a design in which we canmanipulate conditions to show the effects of thepresence of comprehenders (an audience) onambiguity avoidance

Experimental Design We used a 2X2X2 Latin Square Design to testthe effects of audience design pressure onambiguity avoidanceWe have three conditions in which we will lookfor two types of audience design:Course ADFine AD Three conditions:Addressee present, confederate present, no addresseepresent

Item Stimuli 24 target items12 agents equally 24 target pictures, 48 distractor pictures48 fillers will be split equally among four categories:12 will have the same structure as the target sentences,except the modifying PP will be changed12 items, the verb will be changed12 items, the patient will be changed12 items, everything will be changed Filler Trials: 16 basic types they are split into:2 [active or passive] x 2 [verb change or verb identical] x 4[patient contrast or patient change or AGENT contrast orAGENT change]

ProcedureIn order to explain the procedure of ourexperiment, the next few slides will show anexample of a trial

Get Ready250 milliseconds

Hear sentence

Blank screen in between each experimental screen250 milliseconds

Speaker chooses the correct picturebased on the sentence heardTargetDifficult distractor2000 m/s

Blank screen in between each experimental screen250 milliseconds

Shows feedback by bordering correct picture500 m/s

Blank screen in between each experimental screen250 milliseconds

Task to prevent rehearsal of sentence inphonological loop4 6 2000 m/s

Blank screen in between each experimental screen250 milliseconds

Speaker is shown the same pictures (with the correct one still highlighted)to describe to addressee3000 m/s

Addressee’s ScreenAddressee screen has picture (same/different order50/50) 500 m/s before speaker sees final picture todescribe to addressee

Addressee’s ScreenAB1000 m/s

Blank screen in between each experimental screen250 milliseconds

Addressee receives feedback to show correct/incorrect choice500 m/s

After addressee selects picture, speaker receives feedbackSpeaker sees whether addressee has selectedcorrect picture based on the speaker’s description500 m/s

Coding for Variables speaker choosing correct picturespeaker describing correct picture for addresseeaddressee selecting correct picturespeaker using same ambiguous form as the original sentencepresented to them when addressee is not presentspeaker using same ambiguous form with addressee presentspeaker changing form of sentence when describing picture toaddresseespeaker changing form with no addressee presentspeaker choosing incorrect picture in first taskspeaker describing incorrect picture to addresseespeaker answering simple math problem incorrectlyaddressee choosing incorrect picturespeaker using too many sentences to describe picturespeaker producing disfluencies in describing picture

interpretation is found to be no longer appropriate Ambiguity avoidance is the idea that we, as speakers, avoid these ambiguities so as to make ourselves as clear as possible *Ferreira, V.S. & Dell, G.S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.)