How Objects With Different Ontological and Linguistic Accessibility are Represented in Speech

The correlation between the cognitive accessibility of an object and the way of representing this object in the text when retelling a video plot or stories based on a set of pictures has been investigated. The key research method involves eliciting and documenting narratives. Two groups of subjects were tested: a group of schoolchildren 15—17 years old (N: 20) and a group of adults 35—40 years old (N: 21). Cognitive accessibility is understood as a parameter that consists of ontological accessibility (whether the object is accessible to the speaker in direct experience) and lexical accessibility (whether a well-mastered lexicalized way of naming the object is available to the speaker, i.e. a fixed specific word or expression). The following questions were posed: (1) is there a correlation between the cognitive accessibility of an object and the frequency of mentioning this object in the text; and (2) is there is a correlation between the cognitive accessibility of the object and the difficulties experienced by the speaker in naming the object, manifested in the observed symptoms of speech disfluencies. The first question was answered in the negative in both age groups. The second question in both age groups received a convincing positive answer: when mentioning an object with low cognitive accessibility, the subjects significantly more often demonstrated symptoms of speech disfluencies than when mentioning an object with high cognitive accessibility.

Podlesskaya, Vera; Klokotova, Maria (2021): How Objects with Different Ontological and Linguistic Accessibility are Represented in Speech. Psychological Research Data & Tools Repository. Media. https://doi.org/10.25449/ruspsydata.17293994

Appendix A. Stimulus material for the first stage of the experiment — video clip "Film about pears"

Appendix B. Synopsis of the "Film about pears" [8: xi—-xiii]

Appendix C. Stimulus material for the second and third stage of the experiment — screenshots (Fig. 1—5)

Appendix D. Examples of extracted texts

Appendix E. Tables E1—E4. Mentioning target and control objects in extracted stories

Appendix F. Tables F1—F4. Speech glitches when mentioning target and control objects in extracted stories

1. Bergelson M., Dragoj O., Mannova E., Skvorcov A., Statnikov A., Iskra E. Kognitivnaja dostupnost’ kak kriterij pravilnosti predlozhenija [Cognitive accessibility as a criteria of sentence correctness]. Psixolingvistika v ХХI veke: resul’taty, problem, perspektivy [Psycholinguistics in the ХХI century: results, problems perspectives]. : Ejdos, 2009. P. 268—269. (In Russ.).
2. Kibrik A., Fedorova O. An empirical study of multichannel communication: Russian Pear Chats and Stories // Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2018. 15 (2). P. 191—200. (In Russ.).
3. Kibrik A., Fedorova O. Pamjati Uollasa Chejfa [In memory of Wallace Chafe] // Moscow University Philology Bulletin, 2019. № 5. P. 211—216. (In Russ.).
4. Podlesskaya V., Korotaev N., Mazurina S. Samoispravlenija govorjaschegov russkom monologicheskom i dialogicheskom diskurse: an attempt of corpus study [A corpus study of self‑repairs in russian monologues and dialogues] // Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue” (2019). Issue 18, M.: RSUH, 2019. P. 493—507. (In Russ.).
5. Potanina Y., Podlesskaya V., Fedorova O. Verbal’naja rabochaja pamjat’ i leksiko-grammaticheskie signaly rechevyx zatrudnenij: dannye russokogo multimodal’nogo korpusa [Verbal Working Memory and Speech Production Difficulties: Data from Russian Multimodal Corpus] // Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialog”, 2016. 15 (22). M.: RSUH. P. 566—577. (In Russ.).
6. Fedorova O. Eksperimental’nyj analiz diskursa [Eksperimental analysis of discourse]. : Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kul’tury. 2014. P. 512. (In Russ.).
7. Chafe W. (ed.) The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex. 1980.
8. Du Bois J.W. Introduction — The search for a cultural niche: Showing the Pear Film in a Mayan community // Chafe, W. (Ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, 1980. NJ: Ablex. P. 1—7
9. Khudyakova M., Bergelson M., Akinina Y., Iskra E., Toldova S., Dragoy O. Russian CliPS: a Corpus of Narratives by Brain-Damaged Individuals // Proceedings of the Tenth conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), Portoroz, Slovenia: ELRA. 2016. P. 22—26.
10. Korotaev N., Podlesskaya V., Smirnova K., & Fedorova O. Disfluencies in Russian spoken monologues: A distributional analysis // Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue”, 19 (26). P. 439—451.
11. Korotaev N., Dobrov G., & Khitrov A. RUPEX Search: Online tool for analyzing multichannel discourse // Velichkovsky B., Balaban P., Ushakov V. (Eds.) Advances in Cognitive Research, Artificial Intelligence, and Neuroinformatics. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Studies (Intrercognsci-2020) 11-16 of October, 2020, Moscow, Russia. Springer-Nature. 2021. P. 385—394.
12. Linnik A., Bastiaanse R., Stede M. & Khudyakova M. Linguistic mechanisms of coherence in aphasic and non-aphasic discourse, Aphasiology, 2021. DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2020.1852527
13. Mazur I., Chmiel A. Towards Common European Audio Description Guidelines: Results of the Pear Tree Project. Perspectives // Studies in Translatology, 20 (1). P. 5—23.
14. Pear Stories: 40 years later. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1419 (EAPCogSci 2015) [Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science, Torino, Italy, September 25-27, 2015], Gabriella Airenti, Bruno G. Bara, Giulio Sandini (eds.) 2015. ONLINE: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/
15. Podlesskaya V.I. Parameters for typological variation of placeholders // N.Amiridze & Boid H.Davis and Margaret Maclagan (eds.) Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders. [Typological Studies in language (TSL), vol. 93]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2010. P. 11—32.
16. Tannen D. A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian Greek and American English // Chafe, W. (Ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, 1980. NJ: Ablex. P. 51—87.
17. Toldova S.Yu., Bergelson M.B., Khudyakova M.V. Coreference in Russian Oral Movie Retellings (the Experience of Coreference Relations Annotation in “Russian CliPS” corpus) // Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialog”, 2016. 15 (22). M.: RSUH. P. 769—782.