Abstract

Color adjectives tend to be used redundantly in referential communication. I propose that redundant color adjectives (RCAs) are often intended to exploit a color contrast in the visual context and hence facilitate object identification, despite not being necessary to establish unique reference. Two language-production experiments investigated two types of factors that may affect the use of RCAs: factors related to the efficiency of color in the visual context and factors related to the semantic category of the noun. The results of Experiment 1 confirmed that people produce RCAs when color may facilitate object recognition; e.g., they do so more often in polychrome displays than in monochrome displays, and more often in English (pre-nominal position) than in Spanish (post-nominal position). RCAs are also used when color is a central property of the object category; e.g., people referred to the color of clothes more often than to the color of geometrical figures (Experiment 1), and they overspecified atypical colors more often than variable and stereotypical colors (Experiment 2). These results are relevant for pragmatic models of referential communication based on Gricean pragmatics and informativeness. An alternative analysis is proposed, which focuses on the efficiency and pertinence of color in a given referential situation.

Highlights

  • Redundancy is generally defined in terms of informativeness: to say that an expression is redundant is to say that it is over-informative or overspecific (Engelhardt et al, 2006; Sedivy, 2007; Davies and Katsos, 2010; Arts et al, 2011a,b)

  • This paper focuses on the last type of redundant expressions; namely, redundant color adjectives (RCAs) in object requests

  • The study reported in this paper investigated what factors affect the production of RCAs as a way to understand why they are so frequently used in object requests

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Redundancy is generally defined in terms of informativeness: to say that an expression is redundant is to say that it is over-informative or overspecific (Engelhardt et al, 2006; Sedivy, 2007; Davies and Katsos, 2010; Arts et al, 2011a,b). According to this view the following utterances are redundant:.

Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call