Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Dec 1;26(10):1736-1762.
doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.537482. Epub 2011 Jun 28.

Saying "that" in dialogue: The influence of accessibility and social factors on syntactic production

Victor S Ferreira  1 , Melanie Hudson
Affiliations

Saying "that" in dialogue: The influence of accessibility and social factors on syntactic production

Victor S Ferreira et al. Lang Cogn Process. .

Abstract

Previous evidence suggests that when speakers produce sentences from memory or as picture descriptions, their choices of sentence structure are influenced by how easy it is to retrieve sentence material (accessibility). Three experiments assessed whether this pattern holds in naturalistic, interactive dialogue. Pairs of speakers took turns asking each other questions, the responses to which allowed mention of an optional "that" before either repeated (accessible) or unrepeated (inaccessible) material. Speakers' "that" mention was not sensitive to the repetition (accessibility) manipulation. Instead, "that" mention was sensitive to social factors: Speakers said "that" more when adopting another's perspective rather than one's own, and tended to say "that" more when attributing emotions to oneself rather than another. A fourth experiment confirmed that in a memory task, the original pattern is observed. These results suggest that "that" mention is sensitive to the cognitive forces that operate within a production task; in dialogue settings, social factors were especially influential.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentages of sentences produced with “that” as a function of main and embedded subject (“I” or “you”) in Experiment 1. Error bars report 95% confidence interval derived from subject ANOVA.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentages of sentences produced with “that” as a function of main and embedded subject (“I” or “you”) in Experiment 2. Error bars report 95% confidence interval derived from subject ANOVA.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentages of sentences produced with “that” as a function of main and embedded subject (“I” or “you”) in Experiment 3 (collapsed across whether the original sentence included or omitted the “that”). Error bars report 95% confidence interval derived from subject ANOVA.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Percentages of sentences produced with “that” as a function of main subject collapsed across embedded subject (top panel) and embedded subject collapsed across main subject (bottom panel) in Experiment 4. Error bars report 95% confidence interval derived from subject ANOVA.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Percentages of sentences produced with “that” (top left panel) and average certainty and unusualness (other three panels) as a function of main and embedded subject (“I” or “you”) in followup experiment. Error bars report 95% confidence interval derived from subject ANOVA.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bock JK. The effect of a pragmatic presupposition on syntactic structure in question answering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1977;16:723–734.
    1. Bock JK. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review. 1982;89:1–47.
    1. Bock JK. Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1986;12:575–586.
    1. Bock JK. An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language. 1987;26:119–137.
    1. Bock JK, Irwin DE. Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1980;19:467–484.

LinkOut - more resources