Producing Referring Expressions in Identification Tasks and Route Directions: What’s the Difference?

Adriana Baltaretu, Emiel Krahmer, Alfons Maes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Although communicative purposes are an important element in language production, few studies investigate the extent to which they might affect referential choices. In this study we contrast two tasks with different purposes: identification and route directions giving. In Experiment 1 speakers referred to a target building nearby or further away so their addressee would distinguish it from other buildings (identification) or give route directions and use the same building as a landmark (instructions). Our results showed that irrespective of the speaker’s purposes, referring expressions consisted of the same types of attributes, yet the attribute frequency and formulation differed. In the identification task the referring expressions were longer and contained more locative and more postnominal modifiers. In addition, referential choices were influenced by the visual distance between the speaker and the target: When speakers observed the target from afar, their references were longer and contained more often locative modifiers. In Experiment 2 a different group of participants had to evaluate references produced in Experiment 1 while assessing descriptions of objects or descriptions of objects extracted from route directions. Neither task, distance, nor the length of the phrases influenced their choice, indicating that addressees consider references produced in both conditions equally adequate in both uses.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-19
JournalDiscourse Processes
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

experiment
Experiments
building
instruction
language
Route
Referring Expressions
Group
Experiment
Modifier
Referential
Locative
Addressee
Language Production
Length
Landmarks

Cite this

@article{83c99a2769354fd2ab33f0112ecb8570,
title = "Producing Referring Expressions in Identification Tasks and Route Directions: What’s the Difference?",
abstract = "Although communicative purposes are an important element in language production, few studies investigate the extent to which they might affect referential choices. In this study we contrast two tasks with different purposes: identification and route directions giving. In Experiment 1 speakers referred to a target building nearby or further away so their addressee would distinguish it from other buildings (identification) or give route directions and use the same building as a landmark (instructions). Our results showed that irrespective of the speaker’s purposes, referring expressions consisted of the same types of attributes, yet the attribute frequency and formulation differed. In the identification task the referring expressions were longer and contained more locative and more postnominal modifiers. In addition, referential choices were influenced by the visual distance between the speaker and the target: When speakers observed the target from afar, their references were longer and contained more often locative modifiers. In Experiment 2 a different group of participants had to evaluate references produced in Experiment 1 while assessing descriptions of objects or descriptions of objects extracted from route directions. Neither task, distance, nor the length of the phrases influenced their choice, indicating that addressees consider references produced in both conditions equally adequate in both uses.",
author = "Adriana Baltaretu and Emiel Krahmer and Alfons Maes",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1080/0163853X.2017.1386522",
language = "English",
pages = "1--19",
journal = "Discourse Processes",
issn = "0163-853X",
publisher = "ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD",

}

Producing Referring Expressions in Identification Tasks and Route Directions : What’s the Difference? / Baltaretu, Adriana; Krahmer, Emiel; Maes, Alfons.

In: Discourse Processes, 2017, p. 1-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Producing Referring Expressions in Identification Tasks and Route Directions

T2 - What’s the Difference?

AU - Baltaretu, Adriana

AU - Krahmer, Emiel

AU - Maes, Alfons

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Although communicative purposes are an important element in language production, few studies investigate the extent to which they might affect referential choices. In this study we contrast two tasks with different purposes: identification and route directions giving. In Experiment 1 speakers referred to a target building nearby or further away so their addressee would distinguish it from other buildings (identification) or give route directions and use the same building as a landmark (instructions). Our results showed that irrespective of the speaker’s purposes, referring expressions consisted of the same types of attributes, yet the attribute frequency and formulation differed. In the identification task the referring expressions were longer and contained more locative and more postnominal modifiers. In addition, referential choices were influenced by the visual distance between the speaker and the target: When speakers observed the target from afar, their references were longer and contained more often locative modifiers. In Experiment 2 a different group of participants had to evaluate references produced in Experiment 1 while assessing descriptions of objects or descriptions of objects extracted from route directions. Neither task, distance, nor the length of the phrases influenced their choice, indicating that addressees consider references produced in both conditions equally adequate in both uses.

AB - Although communicative purposes are an important element in language production, few studies investigate the extent to which they might affect referential choices. In this study we contrast two tasks with different purposes: identification and route directions giving. In Experiment 1 speakers referred to a target building nearby or further away so their addressee would distinguish it from other buildings (identification) or give route directions and use the same building as a landmark (instructions). Our results showed that irrespective of the speaker’s purposes, referring expressions consisted of the same types of attributes, yet the attribute frequency and formulation differed. In the identification task the referring expressions were longer and contained more locative and more postnominal modifiers. In addition, referential choices were influenced by the visual distance between the speaker and the target: When speakers observed the target from afar, their references were longer and contained more often locative modifiers. In Experiment 2 a different group of participants had to evaluate references produced in Experiment 1 while assessing descriptions of objects or descriptions of objects extracted from route directions. Neither task, distance, nor the length of the phrases influenced their choice, indicating that addressees consider references produced in both conditions equally adequate in both uses.

U2 - 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1386522

DO - 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1386522

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Discourse Processes

JF - Discourse Processes

SN - 0163-853X

ER -