| These studies explore the production of literal versus analogical (figurative) language through the description of geometric, abstract shapes. Subjects provided descriptions for later identification by two audience conditions: themselves and a peer. They were then asked to describe the figures in strictly literal (geometric) terms, in order to examine whether they were able to use an alternative description style to the one originally chosen. Subjects were asked to do this in both written and oral modalities, in order to study whether style/content varied across modality of production. Peers of this group were then asked to identify the figures using the descriptions generated by the language producers.; Results indicated that subjects used predominantly figurative language to describe the shapes for both audience conditions. In the "self" description condition, subjects used fewer words and proportionately more figurative language than they did in the "other" condition. They also used more specific more idiosyncratic nouns and less complex sentences. Subjects using these descriptions were able to identify figures produced under "self" and "other" conditions equally well, but were less accurate identifying the descriptions generated under the imposed "literal" condition.; These results support the hypothesis that context plays a key role in language production in terms of influencing word choice and style of language. Also, it was shown that people tailor descriptions specifically for their perceived target audience, often providing more than was necessary for successful comprehension. Results are discussed within a constructionist framework. |
