The Structure of Names in Memory:Deviations from Uniform Entropy Impair Memory for Linguistic Sequences

Human languages can be seen as socially evolved systems thathave been structured to optimize information flow incommunication. Communication appears to proceed both moreefficiently and more fluently when information is distributedevenly across the linguistic signal. In previous work (Ramscaret al., 2013), we used tools from information theory to examinehow naming systems evolved to meet this requirementhistorically, and how, over the past several hundred years,social legislation and rapid population growth have disruptednaming practices in the West, making names ever harder toprocess and remember. In support of these observations, wepresent findings from three experiments investigating namefluency, recognition, and recall. These results provideconverging empirical evidence for an optimal solution to namedesign, and offer a more nuanced understanding of how socialengineering has impaired the structure of names in memory

Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches

Language form varies as a result of the information being communicated. Some of the ways in which it varies include word order, referential form, morphological marking, and prosody. The relevant categories of information include the way a word or its referent have been used in context, for example whether a particular referent has been previously mentioned or not, and whether it plays a topical role in the current utterance or discourse. We first provide a broad review of linguistic phenomena that are sensitive to information structure. We then discuss several theoretical approaches to explaining information structure: information status as a part of the grammar; information status as a representation of the speaker’s and listener’s knowledge of common ground and/or the knowledge state of other discourse participants; and the optimal systems approach. These disparate approaches reflect the fact that there is little consensus in the field about precisely which information status categories are relevant, or how they should be represented. We consider possibilities for future work to bring these lines of work together in explicit psycholinguistic models of how people encode information status and use it for language production and comprehension