nips nips2010 nips2010-125 nips2010-125-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Yang Xu, Charles Kemp
Abstract: Communication between a speaker and hearer will be most efficient when both parties make accurate inferences about the other. We study inference and communication in a television game called Password, where speakers must convey secret words to hearers by providing one-word clues. Our working hypothesis is that human communication is relatively efficient, and we use game show data to examine three predictions. First, we predict that speakers and hearers are both considerate, and that both take the other’s perspective into account. Second, we predict that speakers and hearers are calibrated, and that both make accurate assumptions about the strategy used by the other. Finally, we predict that speakers and hearers are collaborative, and that they tend to share the cognitive burden of communication equally. We find evidence in support of all three predictions, and demonstrate in addition that efficient communication tends to break down when speakers and hearers are placed under time pressure.
[1] L. Horn. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Georgetown University Press, 1984.
[2] P. Grice. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[3] D. Sperber. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.
[4] S. Levinson. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000.
[5] D. Jurafsky. Pragmatics and computational linguistics. In L. R. Horn and G. Ward, editors, Handbook of Pragmatics, pages 578–604. Blackwell, Oxford, 2005.
[6] G. K. Zipf, editor. Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press, Cambridge, 1949.
[7] R. Levy and T. F. Jaeger. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2007.
[8] T. F. Jaeger. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1):23–62, 2010.
[9] M. Aylett and A. Turk. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1):31–56, 2004.
[10] S. T. Piantadosi, H. J. Tily, and E. Gibson. The communicative lexicon hypothesis. In The 31st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2009.
[11] R. Baddeley and D. Attewell. The relationship between language and the environment: information theory shows why we have only three lightness terms. Psychological Science, 20(9):1100–1107, 2009.
[12] J. Hawkins. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
[13] N. Chomsky. Language and mind: current thoughts on ancient problems. In L. Jenkins, editor, Variations and universals in biolinguistics, pages 379–405. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004.
[14] R. van Rooy. Conversational implicatures and communication theory. In J. van Kuppevelt and R. Smith, editors, Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. Kluwer, 2003.
[15] C. R. M. McKenzie and J. D. Nelson. What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bullentin and Review, 10, 2003.
[16] S. Sher and C. R. M. McKenzie. Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101:467–494, 2006.
[17] H. H. Clark and D. Wilkes-Gibbs. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22:1–39, 1986.
[18] H. H. Clark. Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
[19] J. B. Berk, E. Hughson, and K. Vandezande. The price is right, but are the bids? An investigation of rational decision theory. The American Economic Review, 86(4):654–970, 1996.
[20] D. L. Nelson, C. L. McEvoy, and T. A. Schreiber. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/, 1998.
[21] H. Kucera and W. N. Francis. Computational Analysis of Present-day American Engish. Brown University Press, Providence, 1967. 9