title: Production and comprehension show divergent constituent order preferences: Evidence from elicited pantomime.
abstract: All natural languages develop devices to communicate who did what to whom. Elicited pantomime provides one model for studying this process, by providing a window into how humans (hearing non-signers) behave in a natural communicative modality (silent gesture) without established conventions from a grammar. Most studies in this paradigm focus on production, although they sometimes make assumptions about how comprehenders would likely behave. Here, we directly assess how naïve speakers of English (Experiments 1 & 2), Korean (Experiment 1), and Turkish (Experiment 2) comprehend pantomimed descriptions of transitive events, which are either semantically reversible (Experiments 1 & 2) or not (Experiment 2). Contrary to previous assumptions, we find no evidence that Person-Person-Action sequences are ambiguous to comprehenders, who simply adopt an agent-first parsing heuristic for all constituent orders. We do find that Person-Action-Person sequences yield the most consistent interpretations, even in native speakers of SOV languages. The full range of behavior in both production and comprehension provides counter-evidence to the notion that producers' utterances are motivated by the needs of comprehenders. Instead, we argue that production and comprehension are subject to different sets of cognitive pressures, and that the dynamic interaction between these competing pressures can help explain synchronic and diachronic constituent order phenomena in natural human languages, both signed and spoken.
authors: University of Connecticut, Linguistics.
authors: Matthew L
authors: ML
authors: Hall
authors: UC San Diego, Psychology.
authors: Y Danbi
authors: YD
authors: Ahn
authors: UC San Diego, Linguistics.
authors: Rachel I
authors: RI
authors: Mayberry
authors: UC San Diego, Psychology.
authors: Victor S
authors: VS
authors: Ferreira
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Jul;3(7):272-279
references: 10377542
references: Biom J. 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63
references: 18481363
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 8;105(27):9163-8
references: 18599445
references: Cogn Psychol. 2010 Jun;60(4):291-318
references: 20189553
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Oct 18;108(42):17290-5
references: 21987807
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 May 14;110(20):8051-6
references: 23637344
references: Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul 1;24(7):1079-88
references: 23649563
references: Cogn Sci. 2013 Sep-Oct;37(7):1356-67
references: 23763661
references: Cognition. 2013 Oct;129(1):1-17
references: 23792806
references: J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):null
references: 24403724
references: Cogn Sci. 2014 Jun;38(5):943-72
references: 24641486
references: Cognition. 2014 Jun;131(3):431-6
references: 24704967
references: Front Psychol. 2014 Apr 29;5:354
references: 24808874
references: Front Psychol. 2014 May 12;5:376
references: 24860523
references: Cognition. 2017 Jan;158:189-207
references: 27837693