1,720,961 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Expectations about upcoming content: Speaker styles
No full textThis is a pre-registration for the second study of a project looking at expectations for informativity in language processing.
Comprehenders rely on real-world knowledge when guessing upcoming content. For example, taking a sip from the waterfall is more expected than taking a sip from the transmitter (Kutas & Hillyard 1980). By contrast, speakers tend to omit typical content in favour of newsworthy content: they include an optional instrument more often when it is atypical, favouring the production of stab with an ice pick over stab with a knife (Brown & Dell 1987). These findings are taken to reflect constraints on cooperative communication whereby speakers’ contributions are expected to be appropriately informative and relevant (Grice 1975). If comprehenders are rational and are sensitive to speakers’ production preferences, these should also bear upon their predictions about upcoming content: that is, they should expect the kind of content that cooperative speakers are likely to mention, rather than just the kind of content that is likely to be the case in the real world. In our first study in this project (Experiment 1), we elicited sentence completions via a Cloze task as an index of comprehenders’ expectations about upcoming material (Taylor 1953). We manipulated the salience of the speaker and showed that the more aware participants are of the speaker as an intentional communicator, the more informative they expect the speaker’s contribution to be.
In this second study, we will investigate whether this expectation for informativity is further malleable depending on properties of the speaker (Grodner & Sedivy 2011). Specifically, we ask whether participants will adjust their expectations based on the speaking style of two different speakers: one speaker routinely makes uninformative utterances, and one produces utterances that are highly informative
Why are you telling me this? The availability and timing of relevance inferences
No full textPart of successful communication involves recognising the purpose of, or the intentions underlying, what speakers choose to say. Often, such pragmatic inferences are studied with an emphasis on informativity. The present work however moves beyond the types of inferences typically studied in prior work and instead investigates inferences from more naturalistic utterances, specifically those whose triviality may invite addressees to reason about why a speaker would have made such a discourse contribution. We present four studies (total N=777) using offline and online methods to investigate how and when listeners derive relevance inferences from trivial utterances. We manipulate speaker knowledge, speaker style, and linguistic properties of the utterances to show that, even in the absence of explicit emphasis cues, trivial utterances such as “the library walls are blue” are likely to be understood as conveying more than what is stated explicitly (e.g. that the walls used to be a different colour), and that these inferences are more likely to arise when produced by a speaker who is knowledgeable about the situation and who does not typically talk a lot. Our results suggest that comprehenders have pervasive expectations of cooperativity which, when seemingly violated by a speaker’s trivial utterance, prompt reasoning about a speaker’s motivation for speaking to determine how the communicated content is relevant. We then turn to the processing costs of computing triviality-driven inferences and find evidence that there may be a cost to deriving relevance inferences. These findings extend previous work on inferencing, which typically targets specific classes of words that give rise to inferences and demonstrates that broader, systematic inferencing that can arise when addressees reason about speaker goals even in the absence of cues to pragmatic enrichment
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Expectations about upcoming content: Speaker styles
No full textThis is a pre-registration for the second study of a project looking at expectations for informativity in language processing.
Comprehenders rely on real-world knowledge when guessing upcoming content. For example, taking a sip from the waterfall is more expected than taking a sip from the transmitter (Kutas & Hillyard 1980). By contrast, speakers tend to omit typical content in favour of newsworthy content: they include an optional instrument more often when it is atypical, favouring the production of stab with an ice pick over stab with a knife (Brown & Dell 1987). These findings are taken to reflect constraints on cooperative communication whereby speakers’ contributions are expected to be appropriately informative and relevant (Grice 1975). If comprehenders are rational and are sensitive to speakers’ production preferences, these should also bear upon their predictions about upcoming content: that is, they should expect the kind of content that cooperative speakers are likely to mention, rather than just the kind of content that is likely to be the case in the real world. In our first study in this project (Experiment 1), we elicited sentence completions via a Cloze task as an index of comprehenders’ expectations about upcoming material (Taylor 1953). We manipulated the salience of the speaker and showed that the more aware participants are of the speaker as an intentional communicator, the more informative they expect the speaker’s contribution to be.
In this second study, we will investigate whether this expectation for informativity is further malleable depending on properties of the speaker (Grodner & Sedivy 2011). Specifically, we ask whether participants will adjust their expectations based on the speaking style of two different speakers: one speaker routinely makes uninformative utterances, and one produces utterances that are highly informative
Expectations about upcoming content: Speaker styles
No full textThis is a pre-registration for the second study of a project looking at expectations for informativity in language processing.
Comprehenders rely on real-world knowledge when guessing upcoming content. For example, taking a sip from the waterfall is more expected than taking a sip from the transmitter (Kutas & Hillyard 1980). By contrast, speakers tend to omit typical content in favour of newsworthy content: they include an optional instrument more often when it is atypical, favouring the production of stab with an ice pick over stab with a knife (Brown & Dell 1987). These findings are taken to reflect constraints on cooperative communication whereby speakers’ contributions are expected to be appropriately informative and relevant (Grice 1975). If comprehenders are rational and are sensitive to speakers’ production preferences, these should also bear upon their predictions about upcoming content: that is, they should expect the kind of content that cooperative speakers are likely to mention, rather than just the kind of content that is likely to be the case in the real world. In our first study in this project (Experiment 1), we elicited sentence completions via a Cloze task as an index of comprehenders’ expectations about upcoming material (Taylor 1953). We manipulated the salience of the speaker and showed that the more aware participants are of the speaker as an intentional communicator, the more informative they expect the speaker’s contribution to be.
In this second study, we will investigate whether this expectation for informativity is further malleable depending on properties of the speaker (Grodner & Sedivy 2011). Specifically, we ask whether participants will adjust their expectations based on the speaking style of two different speakers: one speaker routinely makes uninformative utterances, and one produces utterances that are highly informative
Expectations about upcoming content: The role of the addressee
No full textThis is a pre-registration for a study in a series of studies looking at expectations for informativity in language processing. Comprehenders rely on real-world knowledge when guessing upcoming content. For example, taking a sip from the waterfall is more expected than taking a sip from the transmitter (Kutas & Hillyard 1980). By contrast, speakers tend to omit typical content in favour of newsworthy content: they include an optional instrument more often when it is atypical, favouring the production of stab with an ice pick over stab with a knife (Brown & Dell 1987). These findings are taken to reflect constraints on cooperative communication whereby speakers’ contributions are expected to be appropriately informative and relevant (Grice 1975). If comprehenders are rational and are sensitive to speakers’ production preferences, these should also bear upon their predictions about upcoming content: that is, they should expect the kind of content that cooperative speakers are likely to mention, rather than just the kind of content that is likely to be the case in the real world. In our first study in this project (Experiment 1), we elicited sentence completions via a sentence continuation task as an index of comprehenders’ expectations about upcoming material (Taylor 1953). We manipulated the salience of the speaker and showed that the more aware participants are of the speaker as an intentional communicator, the more informative they expect the speaker’s contribution to be. In the second study, we further found that this expectation for informativity is malleable depending on properties of the speaker (Grodner & Sedivy 2011). Participants were familiarised with two different speakers in an initial exposure phase: one speaker routinely made uninformative utterances, and one produced utterances that were highly informative. In the following sentence continuation task, participants expected more informative utterances from the high-informativity speaker compared to the low-informativity speaker.
This third study will look at another aspect of how we might modulate our expectations for informativity: do comprehenders have different expectations for how informative a speaker's contribution will be when the addressee is a child compared to an adult? The study will use the same paradigm as the most speaker-salient condition in Experiment 1, which consisted of pictures of different (adult) speakers on the phone, with utterances to be completed embedded in a speech bubble.
NOTE (19/04/2024): discovered a typo in the Hypotheses section. In the sentence, "This hypothesis is supported by findings from Bergey et al. (2021), who analysed the use of adjectives in a corpus of child-directed speech and found that the younger the children are, the more often carers use adjectives that remark on atypical features of objects.", the word "atypical" should be "typical" (as hopefully made clear by the sentence following it)
Expectations about upcoming content: Speaker styles
No full textThis is a pre-registration for the second study of a project looking at expectations for informativity in language processing.
Comprehenders rely on real-world knowledge when guessing upcoming content. For example, taking a sip from the waterfall is more expected than taking a sip from the transmitter (Kutas & Hillyard 1980). By contrast, speakers tend to omit typical content in favour of newsworthy content: they include an optional instrument more often when it is atypical, favouring the production of stab with an ice pick over stab with a knife (Brown & Dell 1987). These findings are taken to reflect constraints on cooperative communication whereby speakers’ contributions are expected to be appropriately informative and relevant (Grice 1975). If comprehenders are rational and are sensitive to speakers’ production preferences, these should also bear upon their predictions about upcoming content: that is, they should expect the kind of content that cooperative speakers are likely to mention, rather than just the kind of content that is likely to be the case in the real world. In our first study in this project (Experiment 1), we elicited sentence completions via a Cloze task as an index of comprehenders’ expectations about upcoming material (Taylor 1953). We manipulated the salience of the speaker and showed that the more aware participants are of the speaker as an intentional communicator, the more informative they expect the speaker’s contribution to be.
In this second study, we will investigate whether this expectation for informativity is further malleable depending on properties of the speaker (Grodner & Sedivy 2011). Specifically, we ask whether participants will adjust their expectations based on the speaking style of two different speakers: one speaker routinely makes uninformative utterances, and one produces utterances that are highly informative
- …
