The Perception of Overlapping Speech: Effects of Speaker Prosody and Listener Attitudes

Speakers use overlapping speech to achieve a range of interactional moves. Competitive overlaps, or interruptions, challenge an interlocutor’s control of the conversational floor, while non-competitive overlaps, like back-channeling and coconstructed discourse, communicate engagement with the conversation and ratify the interlocutor’s right to be speaking. Being able to evaluate the intentions behind moments of overlap is critical for interlocutors, as well as researchers seeking to model human-human interaction. Researchers have analyzed the acoustics of overlapping speech in order to understand what determines whether an overlap is heard as competitive or noncompetitive. They have overwhelmingly found that prosodic prominence plays an important role; incoming overlaps with higher pitch and intensity are more competitive or interruptive. However, no research has directly tested whether and how listeners use prosodic cues to evaluate moments of overlap. Furthermore, much of the current research on classifying overlapping speech ignores listener variability. The present study uses a perception experiment with 500 participants to test the effects of speaker prosody and listener attitudes on the evaluation of overlapping speech. The results demonstrate that prosodic prominence does significantly affect evaluations of overlapping speech, but it is mediated by the listener’s own interactional style and attitudes toward overlapping speech.

[1]  Peter French,et al.  Turn-competitive incomings , 1983 .

[2]  UTTERANCE OVERLAP AND LONG SILENCE AMONG THE BAKA PYGMIES: COMPARISON WITH BANTU FARMERS AND JAPANESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS , 2001 .

[3]  H. Li Cooperative and Intrusive Interruptions in Inter- and Intracultural Dyadic Discourse , 2001 .

[4]  Guy J. Brown,et al.  Resources for turn competition in overlapping talk , 2013, Speech Commun..

[5]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[6]  Adrian Bennett,et al.  Interruptions and the Interpretation of Conversation , 1978 .

[7]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[8]  D. Tannen Processes and Consequences of Conversational Style , 1979 .

[9]  Anne Berry,et al.  Spanish and American Turn-Taking Styles: A Comparative Study. , 1994 .

[10]  Dennis Reidsma,et al.  Continuous interaction with a virtual human , 2011, Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces.

[11]  Kathryn Campbell-Kibler The nature of sociolinguistic perception , 2009, Language Variation and Change.

[12]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 2015 .

[13]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  Observations on overlap: findings and implications for automatic processing of multi-party conversation , 2001, INTERSPEECH.

[14]  Mattias Heldner,et al.  Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations , 2010, J. Phonetics.

[15]  S. MacFarlane,et al.  Prosody as an Interactional Resource: Turn-projection and Overlap , 1998, Language and speech.

[16]  D. H. Zimmerman,et al.  9. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation , 1996 .

[17]  Morena Danieli,et al.  The role of speakers and context in classifying competition in overlapping speech , 2015, INTERSPEECH.

[18]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Cues to turn boundary prediction in adults and preschoolers , 2012 .

[19]  S. Fillenbaum,et al.  Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[20]  M. Heldner Detection thresholds for gaps, overlaps, and no-gap-no-overlaps. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.