Conceptualisation in reference production

Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing

Rutger van-Gompel (Lead / Corresponding author), Kees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Rick Snoeren, Emiel Krahmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In psycholinguistics, there has been relatively little work investigating conceptualisation – how speakers decide which concepts to express. This contrasts with work in natural language generation (NLG), a subfield of AI, where much research has explored content determination during the generation of referring expressions. Existing NLG algorithms for conceptualisation during reference production do not fully explain previous psycholinguistic results, so we developed new models that we tested in three language production experiments.

In our experiments, participants described target objects to another participant. In Experiment 1, either its size, its colour, or both its size and colour distinguished the target from all distractor objects; in Experiment 2, either colour, type or both colour and type distinguished it from all distractors; In Experiment 3, either colour, size or the border around the object distinguished the target. We tested how well the different models fit the distribution of description types (e.g., “small candle”, “grey candle”, “small grey candle”) that participants produced.

Across these experiments, the PRO model provided the best fit. In this model, speakers first choose a property that rules out all distractors. If there is more than one such
property, then they probabilistically choose one based on a preference for that property. Next, they sometimes add another property, with the probability again determined by its preference and speakers’ eagerness to overspecify.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)345-373
JournalPsychological Review
Volume126
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Color
Psycholinguistics
Language
Research

Keywords

  • Reference production
  • referring expresssions
  • conceptualisation
  • overspecification
  • computational models

Cite this

van-Gompel, R., van Deemter, K., Gatt, A., Snoeren, R., & Krahmer, E. (2019). Conceptualisation in reference production: Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing. Psychological Review, 126(3), 345-373.
van-Gompel, Rutger ; van Deemter, Kees ; Gatt, Albert ; Snoeren, Rick ; Krahmer, Emiel. / Conceptualisation in reference production : Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing. In: Psychological Review. 2019 ; Vol. 126, No. 3. pp. 345-373.
@article{4d0b8317fff84a7794522a9e24f84728,
title = "Conceptualisation in reference production: Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing",
abstract = "In psycholinguistics, there has been relatively little work investigating conceptualisation – how speakers decide which concepts to express. This contrasts with work in natural language generation (NLG), a subfield of AI, where much research has explored content determination during the generation of referring expressions. Existing NLG algorithms for conceptualisation during reference production do not fully explain previous psycholinguistic results, so we developed new models that we tested in three language production experiments.In our experiments, participants described target objects to another participant. In Experiment 1, either its size, its colour, or both its size and colour distinguished the target from all distractor objects; in Experiment 2, either colour, type or both colour and type distinguished it from all distractors; In Experiment 3, either colour, size or the border around the object distinguished the target. We tested how well the different models fit the distribution of description types (e.g., “small candle”, “grey candle”, “small grey candle”) that participants produced.Across these experiments, the PRO model provided the best fit. In this model, speakers first choose a property that rules out all distractors. If there is more than one suchproperty, then they probabilistically choose one based on a preference for that property. Next, they sometimes add another property, with the probability again determined by its preference and speakers’ eagerness to overspecify.",
keywords = "Reference production, referring expresssions, conceptualisation, overspecification, computational models",
author = "Rutger van-Gompel and {van Deemter}, Kees and Albert Gatt and Rick Snoeren and Emiel Krahmer",
note = "Funding: RvG acknowledges support from ESRC award ES/P001866/1. AG and EK received financial support from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, via a Vici Grant (NWO Grant 27770007). KvD was supported by the RefNet project (EPSRC award EP/J019615/1)",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "126",
pages = "345--373",
journal = "Psychological Review",
issn = "0033-295X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association",
number = "3",

}

van-Gompel, R, van Deemter, K, Gatt, A, Snoeren, R & Krahmer, E 2019, 'Conceptualisation in reference production: Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing', Psychological Review, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 345-373.

Conceptualisation in reference production : Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing. / van-Gompel, Rutger (Lead / Corresponding author); van Deemter, Kees; Gatt, Albert; Snoeren, Rick; Krahmer, Emiel.

In: Psychological Review, Vol. 126, No. 3, 04.2019, p. 345-373.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conceptualisation in reference production

T2 - Probabilistic modelling and experimental testing

AU - van-Gompel, Rutger

AU - van Deemter, Kees

AU - Gatt, Albert

AU - Snoeren, Rick

AU - Krahmer, Emiel

N1 - Funding: RvG acknowledges support from ESRC award ES/P001866/1. AG and EK received financial support from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, via a Vici Grant (NWO Grant 27770007). KvD was supported by the RefNet project (EPSRC award EP/J019615/1)

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - In psycholinguistics, there has been relatively little work investigating conceptualisation – how speakers decide which concepts to express. This contrasts with work in natural language generation (NLG), a subfield of AI, where much research has explored content determination during the generation of referring expressions. Existing NLG algorithms for conceptualisation during reference production do not fully explain previous psycholinguistic results, so we developed new models that we tested in three language production experiments.In our experiments, participants described target objects to another participant. In Experiment 1, either its size, its colour, or both its size and colour distinguished the target from all distractor objects; in Experiment 2, either colour, type or both colour and type distinguished it from all distractors; In Experiment 3, either colour, size or the border around the object distinguished the target. We tested how well the different models fit the distribution of description types (e.g., “small candle”, “grey candle”, “small grey candle”) that participants produced.Across these experiments, the PRO model provided the best fit. In this model, speakers first choose a property that rules out all distractors. If there is more than one suchproperty, then they probabilistically choose one based on a preference for that property. Next, they sometimes add another property, with the probability again determined by its preference and speakers’ eagerness to overspecify.

AB - In psycholinguistics, there has been relatively little work investigating conceptualisation – how speakers decide which concepts to express. This contrasts with work in natural language generation (NLG), a subfield of AI, where much research has explored content determination during the generation of referring expressions. Existing NLG algorithms for conceptualisation during reference production do not fully explain previous psycholinguistic results, so we developed new models that we tested in three language production experiments.In our experiments, participants described target objects to another participant. In Experiment 1, either its size, its colour, or both its size and colour distinguished the target from all distractor objects; in Experiment 2, either colour, type or both colour and type distinguished it from all distractors; In Experiment 3, either colour, size or the border around the object distinguished the target. We tested how well the different models fit the distribution of description types (e.g., “small candle”, “grey candle”, “small grey candle”) that participants produced.Across these experiments, the PRO model provided the best fit. In this model, speakers first choose a property that rules out all distractors. If there is more than one suchproperty, then they probabilistically choose one based on a preference for that property. Next, they sometimes add another property, with the probability again determined by its preference and speakers’ eagerness to overspecify.

KW - Reference production

KW - referring expresssions

KW - conceptualisation

KW - overspecification

KW - computational models

M3 - Article

VL - 126

SP - 345

EP - 373

JO - Psychological Review

JF - Psychological Review

SN - 0033-295X

IS - 3

ER -