Multimodal corpus of multiparty conversations in L1 and L2 languages and findings obtained from it

To investigate the differences in communicative activities by the same interlocutors in Japanese (their L1) and in English (their L2), an 8-h multimodal corpus of multiparty conversations was collected. Three subjects participated in each conversational group, and they had conversations on free-flowing and goal-oriented topics in Japanese and in English. Their utterances, eye gazes, and gestures were recorded with microphones, eye trackers, and video cameras. The utterances and eye gazes were manually annotated. Their utterances were transcribed, and the transcriptions of each participant were aligned with those of the others along the time axis. Quantitative analyses were made to compare the communicative activities caused by the differences in conversational languages, the conversation types, and the levels of language expertise in L2. The results reveal different utterance characteristics and gaze patterns that reflect the differences in difficulty felt by the participants in each conversational condition. Both total and average durations of utterances were shorter in their L2 than in their L1 conversations. Differences in eye gazes were mainly found in those toward the information senders: Speakers were gazed at more in their second-language than in their native-language conversations. Our findings on the characteristics of conversations in the second language suggest possible directions for future research in psychology, cognitive science, and human–computer interaction technologies.

[1]  Martial Michel,et al.  The NIST Meeting Room Pilot Corpus , 2004, LREC.

[2]  Gökhan Tür,et al.  The CALO meeting speech recognition and understanding system , 2008, 2008 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop.

[3]  Masafumi Nishida,et al.  Multimodal corpus of conversations in mother tongue and second language by same interlocutors , 2012, Gaze-In '12.

[4]  A. Anderson,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Dialogue and Performance in a Cooperative Problem Solving Task , 1994 .

[5]  Erving Goffman,et al.  Replies and responses , 1976, Language in Society.

[6]  Mohammad Hossein Moattar,et al.  A review on speaker diarization systems and approaches , 2012, Speech Commun..

[7]  M. Argyle,et al.  Gaze and Mutual Gaze , 1994, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[8]  C. Goodwin The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation , 1979 .

[9]  Yuri Hosoda,et al.  Repair and Relevance of Differential Language Expertise in Second Language Conversations , 2006 .

[10]  A. Kendon Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[11]  Costanza Navarretta,et al.  The MUMIN coding scheme for the annotation of feedback, turn management and sequencing phenomena , 2007, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[12]  G. Psathas Everyday language : studies in ethnomethodology , 1981 .

[13]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Walking Through Jelly: Language Proficiency, Emotions, and Disrupted Collaboration in Global Work , 2009 .

[14]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding , 2004 .

[15]  M. Argyle,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Interaction in a Dyad , 1968 .

[16]  Jean Carletta,et al.  The AMI Meeting Corpus: A Pre-announcement , 2005, MLMI.

[17]  Masafumi Nishida,et al.  Differences in Interactional Attitudes in Native and Second Languag Conversations: Quantitative Analyses of Multimodal Three-Party Corpus , 2013, CogSci.

[18]  G. Beattie,et al.  Floor apportionment and gaze in conversational dyads , 1978 .

[19]  Alex Pentland Socially Aware Computation and Communication , 2005, Computer.

[20]  Masafumi Nishida,et al.  Effects of language proficiency on eye-gaze in second language conversations: toward supporting second language collaboration , 2013, ICMI '13.

[21]  Lukás Burget,et al.  The AMIDA 2009 meeting transcription system , 2010, INTERSPEECH.

[22]  M. Pickering,et al.  Why is conversation so easy? , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  Daniel Gatica-Perez,et al.  Automatic nonverbal analysis of social interaction in small groups: A review , 2009, Image Vis. Comput..

[24]  Masafumi Nishida,et al.  Gaze and turn-taking behavior in casual conversational interactions , 2013, TIIS.

[25]  Maja Pantic,et al.  Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain , 2009, Image Vis. Comput..

[26]  C. Kleinke Gaze and eye contact: a research review. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. , 1967, Journal of consulting psychology.

[28]  G. Kasper Participant Orientations in German Conversation‐for‐Learning , 2004 .

[29]  Nicholas W. D. Evans,et al.  Speaker Diarization: A Review of Recent Research , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[30]  Masafumi Nishida,et al.  Multimodal Corpus of Multi-party Conversations in Second Language , 2012, LREC.

[31]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Decoding of inconsistent communications. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.