Inferring Difficulty: Flexibility in the Real-time Processing of Disfluency

Upon hearing a disfluent referring expression, listeners expect the speaker to refer to an object that is previously unmentioned, an object that does not have a straightforward label, or an object that requires a longer description. Two visual-world eye-tracking experiments examined whether listeners directly associate disfluency with these properties of objects, or whether disfluency attribution is more flexible and involves situation-specific inferences. Since in natural situations reference to objects that do not have a straightforward label or that require a longer description is correlated with both production difficulty and with disfluency, we used a mini-artificial lexicon to dissociate difficulty from these properties, building on the fact that recently learned names take longer to produce than existing words in one’s mental lexicon. The results demonstrate that disfluency attribution involves situation-specific inferences; we propose that in new situations listeners spontaneously infer what may cause production difficulty. However, the results show that these situation-specific inferences are limited in scope: listeners assessed difficulty relative to their own experience with the artificial names, and did not adapt to the assumed knowledge of the speaker.

[1]  D. Barr Trouble in mind: paralinguistic indices of effort and uncertainty in communication , 2001 .

[2]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[3]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference , 2008, Cognition.

[4]  William S. Horton,et al.  Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production , 2005 .

[5]  Stanley Feldstein,et al.  Of speech and time : temporal speech patterns in interpersonal contexts , 1981 .

[6]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[7]  S. Brennan,et al.  THE FEELING OF ANOTHER'S KNOWING : PROSODY AND FILLED PAUSES AS CUES TO LISTENERS ABOUT THE METACOGNITIVE STATES OF SPEAKERS , 1995 .

[8]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[9]  Michael K Tanenhaus,et al.  Scalar reference, contrast and discourse: Separating effects of linguistic discourse from availability of the referent. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[10]  O. Mimura [Eye movements]. , 1992, Nippon Ganka Gakkai zasshi.

[11]  M. Swerts,et al.  Prosody as a Marker of Information Flow in Spoken Discourse , 1994 .

[12]  S. Brennan,et al.  Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role, and Gender , 2001, Language and speech.

[13]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Producing Less Preferred Structures: More Gestures, Less Fluency , 2009 .

[14]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[15]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  If you say thee uh you are describing something hard: the on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Frieda Goldman Eisler Psycholinguistics : experiments in spontaneous speech , 1968 .

[17]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking , 2002, Cognition.

[18]  D. Barr,et al.  The role of fillers in listener attributions for speaker disfluency , 2010 .

[19]  Roger M. Cooper,et al.  The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. , 1974 .

[20]  G. Beattie Planning units in spontaneous speech: some evidence from hesitation in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation , 1979 .

[21]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 2003 .

[22]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  To Name or to Describe: Shared Knowledge Affects Referential Form , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[23]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Disfluency Effects in Comprehension , 2011 .

[24]  S. Schachter,et al.  Speech Disfluency and the Structure of Knowledge , 1991 .

[25]  Robbert-Jan Beun,et al.  Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure , 1996, Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96.

[26]  J. Raaijmakers,et al.  How to deal with "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. , 1999 .

[27]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  The Old and Thee, uh, New , 2004, Psychological science.

[28]  Albert Costa,et al.  How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  F. Rauscher,et al.  The Vocabularies of Academia , 1994 .

[30]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Repeating Words in Spontaneous Speech , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  D. Donaldson,et al.  It’s the way that you, er, say it: Hesitations in speech affect language comprehension , 2007, Cognition.

[32]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[33]  Keikichi Hirose,et al.  Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of upcoming phrases for native and non-native listeners , 2008, Speech Commun..

[34]  G. Beattie,et al.  Contextual Probability and Word Frequency as Determinants of Pauses and Errors in Spontaneous Speech , 1979 .

[35]  H. H. Clark,et al.  On the Course of Answering Questions , 1993 .

[36]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.