Cover not available
Part of
English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Evelien Keizer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 221] 2022
► pp. 107–134

Post-head compression in noun phrase referring expressions

Structural change in interactive communication

| University of Zurich
In communication, language users frequently produce referring expressions with noun phrases at their centre (NP REs). Over the course of a communicative interaction, interlocutors’ use of NP REs tends to change: previous research has attested to speakers’ tendency to converge on linguistic forms – establishing routines (e.g. Pickering & Garrod 2004, 2005) – and to shorten their NP REs in the process (e.g. Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs 1986; Brennan & Clark 1996; Castillo et al. 2019). The present chapter investigates this shortening process and observes the structural changes in NP REs that accompany it. The study is based on data from an experimentally elicited corpus of spoken English consisting of conversational dyads producing repeated references to visual stimuli in a referential communication task. Interlocutors are indeed shown to shorten their NP REs over the course of the elicited dialogues: particularly, a decrease in longer clausal post-head elements is observed, while the use of only premodified NP REs and shorter phrasal postmodification shows a relative increase. These changes are indicative of shifts in the type of structural modification the NP REs contain: initially, speakers produce more clausal elements, which are associated with structural elaboration; later in the interaction, a decrease in clausal and relative increase in phrasal modification reveals structural compression (cf. Biber & Clark 2002).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Change-in-interaction in the use of NP REs
    • 2.1Convergence and the IAM
    • 2.2Processes of shortening
    • 2.3Structural changes in the shortening of NP REs
    • 2.4Functions of the forms of NP REs: Audience design and efficiency
  • 3.Studying NP REs in interaction: An experimentally elicited corpus of spoken English dialogue
    • 3.1Experimental set-up
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
    • 3.2Data processing and coding
  • 4.Results and analysis
    • 4.1Length of NP REs and pre- and post-head elements
    • 4.2Structural changes in post-head elements
  • 5.Discussion: Compression in NP REs as change-in-interaction
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.03opp
References (44)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2017. Reference. In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, Yan Huang (ed.), 240–258. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16(5): 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2008. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 495–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bangerter, Adrian & Mayor, Eric. 2013. Lexical entrainment without conceptual pacts? Revisiting the matching task. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Cognitive and Computational Approaches to Reference (PRE-CogSci 2013), Albert Gatt, Roger van Gompel, Ellen Gurman Bard, Emiel Krahmer & Kees van Deemter (eds). Berlin. <Lexical entrainment without conceptual pacts?> (1 July 2021).Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anderson, Anne H., Sotillo, Catherine, Aylett, Matthew, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth & Newlands, Alison. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J. & Keysar, Boaz. 2002. Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language 46: 391–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Clark, Victoria. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures. In English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 223], Teresa Fanego, Javier Pérez-Guerra & María J. López-Couso (eds), 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 2–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 223–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Gray, Bethany & Poonpon, Kornwipa. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1): 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan E. & Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(6): 1482–1493.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah. 2009. Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language 61: 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John M. 1980. Naming and describing in social communication. Language and Speech 23(4): 309–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castillo, Lucía, Smith, Kenny & Branigan, Holly P. 2019. Interaction promotes the adaptation of referential convention to the communicative context. Cognitive Science 43(8): e12780. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cleland, Alexandra A. & Pickering, Martin J. 2003. The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 214–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: A Revolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Duff, Melissa C., Hengst, Julie, Tranel, Daniel & Cohen, Neal J. 2006. Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia. Nature Neuroscience 9(1): 140–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duff, Melissa C., Gupta, Rupa, Hengst, Julie A., Tranel, Daniel & Cohen, Neal J. 2011. The use of definite references signals declarative memory: Evidence from patients with hippocampal amnesia. Psychological Science 22(5): 666–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galati, Alexia & Brennan, Susan E. 2010. Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language 62: 35–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, Simon & Anderson, Anthony. 1987. Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 27: 181–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeannette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horton, William S. & Keysar, Boaz. 1996. When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition 59: 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David & Schneider, Gerold. 2012. Relative complexity in scientific discourse. English Language & Linguistics 16(2): 209–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Robert M. & Weinheimer, Sidney. 1964. Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science 1: 113–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1966. Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(3): 343–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967. Effect of referent similarity and communication mode on verbal encoding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 359–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronmüller, Edmundo & Barr, Dale J. 2015. Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 83: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Masson-Carro, Ingrid, Goudbeek, Martijn & Krahmer, Emiel. 2014. On the automaticity of reduction in dialogue: Cognitive load and repeated multimodal references. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36: 976–981.Google Scholar
Metzing, Charles & Brennan, Susan E. 2003. When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 201–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Establishing and using routines during dialogue: Implications for psychology and linguistics. In Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, Anne Cutler (ed.), 85–102. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2006. Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation 4: 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, Paula. 2016. How redundant are redundant color adjectives? An efficiency-based analysis of color overspecification. Frontiers in Psychology 7: Article 153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schober, Michael F. & Clark, Herbert H. 1989. Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology 21: 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Wege, Mija M. 2009. Lexical entrainment and lexical differentiation in reference phrase choice. Journal of Memory and Language 60: 448–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna & Clark, Herbert H. 1992. Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language 31(2): 183–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Si On, Benjamin, Aaron S. & Brown-Schmidt, Sarah. 2016. The historical context in conversation: Lexical differentiation and memory for the discourse history. Cognition 154: 102–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1935. The Psycho-Biology of Language. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar