Stephen C. Levinson

Presentations

Displaying 1 - 24 of 24
  • Bögels, S., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). To plan or to listen? The trade-off between comprehension and production in conversation. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL 2016), London, UK.

    Abstract

    Transitions between speakers in conversation are usually smooth, lasting around 200 milliseconds. Such rapid response latencies suggest that, at least sometimes, responders must begin planning their response before the ongoing turn is finished. Indeed, evidence from EEG suggests that listeners start planning their responses to questions as soon as they can, often midway through the incoming turn [1]. But given substantial overlap in the neural hardware for language production and comprehension, early response planning might incur a cost on participants’ concurrent comprehension of the ongoing turn. Do early responses come at the expense of less careful listening? We performed an EEG study in which participants played an interactive game with a confederate partner. Participants saw two pictures on their screen (e.g., a banana and a pineapple), then heard a (prerecorded) question from their partner, and then responded verbally by naming the correct picture. Participants were made to believe that their partner spoke to them live. Examples of the conditions in the experiment: 1. Early planning: 'Which object is curved and is considered to be fruit/healthy?'; 2. Late planning: 'Which object is considered to be fruit/healthy and is curved?' (response: 'the banana'). The questions were designed such that participants could start planning their response early (Example 1) or late (Example 2) in the turn. Crucially, in another part of the turn, we included either an expected word (e.g., 'fruit') or an unexpected one (e.g., 'healthy') to elicit a differential N400 effect. Our aims were two-fold: replicating the prior planning effect [1] and testing the effect of planning on comprehension. First, our results largely replicated the earlier study [1], showing a large positivity in the ERPs and an alpha/beta reduction in the time-frequency domain, both immediately following the onset of the critical information when participants could have first started planning their verbal response (i.e., 'curved'). As before [1], we interpret these effects as indicating the start of response planning. Second, and more importantly, we hypothesized that the N400 effect (the ERP difference between 'fruit' and 'healthy') would be attenuated when participants were already planning a response (i.e., in early vs. late planning). In contrast, we found an N400 effect of similar size in both the early and late planning conditions, although a small late positivity was only found in the late planning condition. Interestingly, we found a positive correlation between participants' overall response time and the size of the N400 effect after planning had started (i.e., in early planning), illustrating a trade-off between comprehension and production during turn taking. That is, quick responders showed a smaller N400 effect. We argue that their focus on production planning reduced their attention to the incoming audio signal and probably also their predictive processing, leading to a smaller N400 effect. Slow responders focused instead on the audio signal, preserving their N400 effect but delaying their response. Reference [1]: Bögels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5: 12881. Topic Area: Meaning: Discourse and Pragmatics
  • Byun, K.-S., Roberts, S. G., De Vos, C., Levinson, S. C., & Zeshan, U. (2016). Content-biased and coordination-biased selection in the evolution of expressive forms in cross-signing. Talk presented at the International Society for Gesture Studies. Paris, France. 2016-07-18 - 2016-07-22.

    Abstract

    This paper studies communication among deaf sign language users with highly divergent linguistic backgroun
    ds
    who have no signed or written language in common. It constitutes the earliest, least conventionalised stages of
    improvised communication, called ”cross
    -
    signing” (Zeshan 2015), as opposed to the semi
    -
    conventionalised
    contact language International Sign (
    e.g. Supalla & Webb 1995). The specific focus here is on the evolution of the
    shared repertoire amongst signers over several weeks as they co
    -
    construct meaning across linguistic and
    cultural boundaries. We look at two possible factors influencing the selec
    tion of expressive forms (cf. Tamariz et
    al. 2014): content
    -
    bias (where the more iconically
    -
    motivated, and/or easily
    -
    articulated form is selected) and
    coordination
    -
    bias (where participants attempt to match each other’s usag
    e). The data set consists of a 320
    -
    minute corpus of first encounters between dyads of signers of Nepali Sign Language, Indian Sign Language,
    Jordanian Sign Language and Indonesian Sign Language. Recordings took place at the first meeting, after one
    week, a
    nd after three weeks. The participants vary naturally with regard to their linguistic and international
    experience as well as their age of sign language acquisition. In addition to spontaneous conversations, we
    collected structured dialogues using a Direct
    or
    -
    Matcher task. In this language elicitation game, the Director has
    the coloured images and the Matcher has identical but black and white images alongside a set of colour chips
    from which they need to select based on the Director’s descriptions. We coded
    and examined the various colour
    expressions exploited by the participants. The semantic field of colour was chosen for this investigation into the
    evolution of shared communication for two reasons: the visual domain of colour retains sufficient levels of
    a
    bstraction while affording signers with iconic potential.
    Participants initially used a range of strategies, including pointing, articulating signs for common objects with
    that colour (e.g. referring to a common iconic sign for ‘tree’ and pointing to the b
    ase to mean ‘brown’), and their
    own native variants. However, three weeks later these individuals all start using the same forms, e.g. the Indian
    signer’s variant for ‘green’ and the Nepali signer’s improvised ‘tree
    -
    trunk’ variant for ‘brown’. The iconic
    m
    otivation of the latter and the ease of articulation of the former suggest that the content
    -
    bias is in play. The
    coordination
    -
    bias also seems influential in the group’s eventual selection of one variant (cf. Tamariz et al. 2014).
    We explore these and furth
    er factors that may affect the two biases in the selection of forms within our data.
    We also consider participants’ meta
    -
    linguistic skills (Zeshan 2013) and fluency in multiple sign
    languages (Byun
    et al. in preparation).
  • Byun, K.-S., De Vos, C., Levinson, S. C., & Zeshan, U. (2016). Repair strategies and recursion as evidence of individual differences in metalinguistic skill in Cross-signing. Poster presented at the 12th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR12), Melbourne, Australia.
  • Byun, K.-S., Levinson, S. C., Zeshan, U., & De Vos, C. (2016). Success rates of conversational repair strategies by cross-signers. Poster presented at the 12th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR12), Melbourne, Australia.
  • Casillas, M., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Communicative development in a Mayan village. Talk presented at the Tilburg University. Tilburg, The Netherlands.
  • Hömke, P., Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Talk presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS7). Paris, France. 2016-07-22 - 2016-07-24.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2016). Empathy and the early stages of language evolution. Talk presented at the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies. Cambridge, UK. 2016-03-08.
  • Levinson, S. C., & Brown, P. (2016). Comparative feedback: Cultural shaping of response systems in interaction. Talk presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS7). Paris, France. 2016-07-18 - 2016-07-22.

    Abstract

    There is some evidence that systems of minimal response (‘feedback’, ‘back-channel’, ‘reactive tokens’) may vary systematically across speakers of different languages and cultural backgrounds (e.g., Maynard, 1986; Clancy et al., 1996). The questions we address here are these: what is the nature of such differences? And what difference do they make to how do these differences affect the interactional system as a whole? We explore this these questions by looking in detail at conversational data from two languages and cultures: Y ́elˆı Dnye, spoken on Rossel Island (Papua New Guinea), and Tzeltal Mayan, spoken in southern Mexico. The Rossel system is gaze-based, interlocutors tend to maintain a high level of mutual gaze, and a large proportion of feedback signals – many nonverbal – occur during the production of the turn that is being reacted to. Tzeltal speakers, in contrast, practice gaze avoidance, and produce very few visual feedback signals, but instead relying on frequent verbal response signals at the end of each TCU, and an elaborate convention of repeating (parts of) the prior turn to display understanding and agreement. We outline the repertoire of response tokens for each language, illustrate their differential usage, and suggest some consequences of these properties of turn-taking systems for interactional style and for on- line processing
  • Levinson, S. C. (2016). The Interaction Engine hypothesis. Talk presented at the Language in Interaction Summerschool on Human Language: From Genes and Brains to Behavior. Berg en Dal, The Netherlands. 2016-07-03 - 2016-07-14.

    Abstract

    Along with complexity, the extent of the variability of human language across social groups is unprecedented in the animal kingdom, and we need to understand how this is possible. An underdetermined innate basis is plausible, but there is no consensus about what it is (other than vocal learning and the vocal apparatus), or how it would make it possible to learn varied languages. An alternative, and potentially complementary, explanation suggests that there is a set of communicative instincts and motivations that together make it possible for the infant to bootstrap into the local language, whatever it may be. Some evidence for this is as follows. First, the organization of informal interactive human communication – the core niche for language use – looks much less variable than languages. Thus all language users in this niche take rapid turns at talking even though the speed of this is highly demanding. Similarly, all users avail themselves of the same mechanisms for repairing miscommunication, and use the same restricted system for building coherent dialogues. Second, long before infants have any linguistic knowledge, they take part in ‘proto-conversations’ that exhibit these same universal organizations. Third, where normal spoken language is not accessible to individuals (as when they are profoundly deaf), they still share the same communicative infrastructure. Finally, there are some signs of phylogenetic parallels in other primates. If this is correct, Darwin’s characterization of language as “an instinct to acquire an art” may have its root in communicative instincts as much as specific instincts about language structure
  • Toni, I., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Communication with and before language [Session Chair]. Talk presented at the Language in Interaction Summerschool on Human Language: From Genes and Brains to Behavior. Berg en Dal, The Netherlands. 2016-07-03 - 2016-07-14.
  • De Vos, C., Casillas, M., Crasborn, O., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Linguistic cues enabling rapid conversational turn-taking in sign. Talk presented at the Language seminar, Institut Jean-Nicod. Paris, France. 2016-10-26.
  • De Vos, C., Casillas, M., Crasborn, O., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Linguistic cues enabling rapid conversational turn-taking in sign. Talk presented at the Research Training Group 2070 "Understanding Social Relationships". Göttingen, Germany. 2016-11-07.
  • De Vos, C., Casillas, M., Crasborn, O., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Linguistic cues enabling rapid conversational turn-taking in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Talk presented at the Grammar & Cognition colloquium. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2016-12-08.
  • De Vos, C., Casillas, M., Crasborn, O., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Stroke-to-stroke turn-boundary prediction in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Poster presented at the 12th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR12), Melbourne, Australia.
  • De Vos, C., Casillas, M., Crasborn, O., & Levinson, S. C. (2016). The role of facial expressions in the anticipation of turn-ends. Talk presented at the International Gesture Conference (ISGS 2016). Paris, France. 2016-07-18 - 2016-07-22.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). A revolution in the language sciences?. Talk presented at The ALEAR workshop on The future of Linguistics. Barcelona, Spain. 2011-01-23 - 2011-01-25.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Cross–cultural universals and communication structures. Talk presented at the Ernst Strungmann Forum: Language, Music and the Brain. Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2011-05-09 - 2011-05-13.

    Abstract

    This paper approaches the issues surrounding the relationship between language and music tangentially, by arguing that the language sciences have largely misconstrued the nature of their object of study – when language is correctly repositioned as a quite elaborate cultural superstructure resting on two biological columns as it were, the relationship to music looks rather different.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Inferring Speech acts. Talk presented at Workshop on Post-Gricean Pragmatics and Meaning. University of Cambridge, UK. 2011-05-20.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Multi-action turns. Talk presented at the 12th International Pragmatics Conference [IPrA 2011]. University of Manchester, UK. 2011-07-03 - 2011-07-08.

    Abstract

    This paper addresses the phenomenon of single turns, even single turn-constructional units, that perform multiple speech acts or social actions. The paper reviews the main approaches - ''indirect speech acts'' as treated in linguistic pragmatics, and the ''vehicle'' approach as in conversation analysis - and argues that both of these are inadequate. Instead a solution is sought in the hierarchical nature of action planning, and it is shown that this approach sheds considerable light on multi-action turns. The simplest cases involve pre-sequences, but more complex cases involving extended ''projects'' by participants are also reviewed. It seems that there is no principled limit to the number of actions that a single turn-construcional unit can perform - certainly cases of up to four such actions can be found. The implications for speech act theory and conversation analysis are spelled out.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). introduction to Interactional Foundations of Language Workshop. Talk presented at the Interactional Foundations of Language Workshop. LSA, Boulder, CO, USA. 2011-07-16 - 2011-07-17.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Obstacles and options for cross–disciplinary cooperation in the cognitive sciences [Panel discussion]. Talk presented at the ZiF Conference on The Cultural Constitution of Causal Cognition. Bielefeld University, Germany. 2011-10-13 - 2011-10-14.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Origins of cross–cultural diversity. Talk presented at the Workshop of the Max Planck Research Group for Comparative Cognitive Anthropology. Schloss Ringberg, Germany. 2011-12-14 - 2011-12-17.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Recursion in pragmatics. Talk presented at The International Conference on Language and Recursion. Mons, Belgium. 2011-03-14 - 2011-03-16.

    Abstract

    Recursion has become a lamp for the linguistic moths – it has become an obsession far from the centre of what linguistics should be focused on. It plays a limited role in the structure of many languages, indefinite recursion is of course never actually displayed, and what is exemplified could therefore always be modeled in practice by finite state devices. There are many more central puzzles to focus on, like the diverse specific structures mapped on strings, rather than the mechanisms that generate unstructured string-sets. Embedded clauses have been the main focus of interest, but it is noteworthy that (a) many languages offer very limited embedding possibilities; (b) some which do have embedding effectively cap embedding at one deep; (c) almost any such embeddings can be paraphrased by parataxis (strings of adjoined clauses as in veni, vidi, vici). Parataxis is why many languages can lack embedded clauses of different kinds without any loss of expressive power: the expressive power is always present in the pragmatics whether or not it is there in the syntax. To make the point that expressive power lies in the pragmatics, I’ll examine centre-embedding in interactive discourse. Centre-embedding has the virtue that it is easily distinguished from parataxis – which is not the case for edge-recursion in many languages. Centre-embedding in clauses is effectively capped at two deep in all spoken languages (very occasionally three deep in written), apparently by memory and parsing limitations. But centre-embedding in interactive discourse can break this barrier, and does so routinely. The explanation for this is actually unclear, but the phenomenon would seem to show the advantages of distributed cognition. Rather than thinking of recursion as the performance-limited “externalization” of an individual competence, the discourse phenomena suggest that interactive language usage, where centre-embedding is hyper-trophied, is the natural home base and the ultimate source of complex recursion in the grammatical system.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Vocal tract, speech, genes and language typology. Talk presented at Workshop on Co-variation in vocal tract anatomy, speech perception, genes and language typology. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2011-02-25.

Share this page