Very Funny Actions Every C59 wnt Fan Really Need To Have A Go With

As speakers are inclined to mention object properties that capture their attention or the attention of the addressee (e.g., Krahmer and Van Deemter, 2012), the yellow tomato��s atypical color probably causes the speaker to MAO include this in the referring expression, even though this property may not be strictly necessary for unique identification. If speakers are influenced by atypical colors, that implies that speakers are sensitive to contrasts with stored object knowledge when they determine the content of a referring expression. The question of content determination (i.e., which properties of an object does a speaker include in a referring expression?) is often addressed from both a psycholinguistic perspective and in the field of natural language generation (NLG). Psycholinguistics provides models of content determination by human speakers (e.g., Brennan and Clark, 1996; Engelhardt et al., 2011), for example by addressing the question whether object properties are mentioned merely because they are salient to the speakers themselves, or also because these properties may be found useful for the addressee, whose task it is to identify the referred-to object (e.g., Brennan and Clark, 1996; Horton and Keysar, 1996; Arnold, 2008). NLG models make comparable predictions on content determination, as they often aim to simulate human referring behavior (e.g., Dale and Reiter, 1995; Frank and Goodman, 2012; Krahmer and Van Deemter, 2012). Models of reference, either implicitly or explicitly, describe at least two (addressee-oriented and speaker-internal) types of factors that speakers rely on when determining the content of a referring expression. The first is how informative an object property is for addressees: when, for example, a property is unique to an object in a context, this property is highly informative with respect to the addressees�� task to identify the target object, as it rules out all other objects in the context. As such, informativeness can be regarded as a mainly addressee-oriented factor in content determination. The other factor, salience, is essentially more speaker-internal: speakers tend to mention object properties that capture their visual attention (e.g., Conklin and McDonald, 1982; Brennan and Clark, 1996; Fukumura et al., 2010; Frank and Goodman, 2012; Krahmer and Van Deemter, 2012). This is not to say that addressees would not benefit from object properties that are included in a referring expression based on salience. Speakers�� decisions with respect to content determination may reflect addressee-oriented considerations as well (we will further elaborate on this in the general discussion). While both informativeness for addressees and salience for speakers are part of current models of content determination in reference production, specific extensions may be needed to capture the potential effects of atypicality on content determination.