title: Visual salience modulates structure choice in relative clause production.
abstract: The role of visual salience on utterance form was investigated in a picture description study. Participants heard spoken questions about animate or inanimate entities in a picture and produced a relative clause in response. Visual properties of the scenes affected production choices such that less salient inanimate entities tended to yield longer initiation latencies and to be described with passive relative clauses more than visually salient inanimates. We suggest that the participants' question-answering task can change as a function of visual salience of entities in the picture. Less salient entities require a longer visual search of the scene, which causes the speaker to notice or attend more to the non-target competitors in the picture. As a result, it becomes more important in answering the question for the speaker to contrast the target item with a salient competitor. This effect is different from other effects of visual salience, which tend to find that more salient entities take more prominent grammatical roles in the sentence. We interpret this discrepancy as evidence that visual salience does not have a single effect on sentence production, but rather its effect is modulated by task and linguistic context.
authors.forename: Jessica L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Montag
authors.forename: Maryellen C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: MacDonald
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D006801:Humans; D010700:Phonetics; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time; D013061:Speech Acoustics; D013067:Speech Perception; D013068:Speech Production Measurement; D013997:Time Factors; D014796:Visual Perception; D014833:Voice Quality
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):141-76
references.pmid: 22537914
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1993 Apr;25(2):188-230
references.pmid: 8482072
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2013 Apr 26;4:226
references.pmid: 23637689
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2007 Nov;57(4):544-569
references.pmid: 18978929
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 May;37(3):748-56
references.pmid: 21534707
references.citation: Cognition. 2003 Aug;89(1):25-41
references.pmid: 12893123
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):795-800
references.pmid: 12613685
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Dec;98(2):105-35
references.pmid: 16307955
references.citation: Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):47-67
references.pmid: 4075761
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2008 Mar;56(2):103-41
references.pmid: 17631877
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2007 Oct 1;57(3):348-379
references.pmid: 19668599
references.citation: Cognition. 1996 Apr;59(1):91-117
references.pmid: 8857472
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Jun;137(2):201-7
references.pmid: 20961518
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):150-71
references.pmid: 1546115
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Nov;32(6):669-92
references.pmid: 14653013
references.citation: Cognition. 2009 Jul;112(1):55-80
references.pmid: 19426968
references.citation: Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):1-23
references.pmid: 19215912
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 Nov;22(6):1482-93
references.pmid: 8921603
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2007 Jun;125(2):129-43
references.pmid: 16934737
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov;34(6):1466-81
references.pmid: 18980408
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446
references.pmid: 19884961