Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

Disfluencies Signal Theee, Um, New Information

  • Jennifer E. Arnold
  • Maria Fagnano
  • Michael K. Tanenhaus
Article

Abstract

Speakers are often disfluent, for example, saying “theee uh candle” instead of “the candle.” Production data show that disfluencies occur more often during references to things that are discourse-new, rather than given. An eyetracking experiment shows that this correlation between disfluency and discourse status affects speech comprehension. Subjects viewed scenes containing four objects, including two cohort competitors (e.g., camel, candle), and followed spoken instructions to move the objects. The first instruction established one cohort as discourse-given; the other was discourse-new. The second instruction was either fluent or disfluent, and referred to either the given or new cohort. Fluent instructions led to more initial fixations on the given cohort object (replicating Dahan et al., 2002). By contrast, disfluent instructions resulted in more fixations on the new cohort. This shows that discourse-new information can be accessible under some circumstances. More generally, it suggests that disfluency affects core language comprehension processes.

reference comprehension disfluency language processing information status 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419-439.Google Scholar
  2. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748-765.Google Scholar
  3. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, J. (1998). Reference Form and Discourse Patterns. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, J. E. (2001). The effect of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference Continuation. Discourse Processes, 31(2), 137-162.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000a). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13-B26.Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Ginstrom, R., & Losongco, T. (2000b). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28-55.Google Scholar
  8. Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (2002). Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences. Manuscript, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  9. Barr, D. J. (2001a). Trouble in mind: Paralinguistic indices of effort and uncertainty in communication, In C. Cavé, I. Guaïtella, & S. Santi (Eds.), Oralité et gestualité: Interactions et comportements multimodaux dans la communication (pp. 597-600). Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
  10. Barr, D. J. (2001b). Paralinguistic correlates of discourse structure. Poster presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL, Nov. 15-18.Google Scholar
  11. Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2), 137-167.Google Scholar
  12. Brennan, S. E., & Schober, M. E. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 274-296.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, H. H., & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory and Cognition, 7, 35-41.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201-242.Google Scholar
  15. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Time course of frequency effects in spoken word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 317-367.Google Scholar
  16. Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292-314.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, B. (1992). Saccadic reaction time: Implications for reading, dyslexia and visual cognition. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and Visual Cognition: Scene Perception and Reading (pp. 31-45). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Fox Tree, J. E. (1995). The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 709-738.Google Scholar
  19. Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners' uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 29(2), 320-326.Google Scholar
  20. Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing "the" as "thee" to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151-167.Google Scholar
  21. Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Hudson-D'Zmura, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Assigning antecedents to ambiguous pronouns: The role of the center of attention as the default assignment. In M. Walker, A. Joshi, & E. Prince (Eds.), Centering Theory in Discourse (pp. 199-226). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gordon, P. C., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(2), 216-231.Google Scholar
  24. Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, P. C., & Scearce, K. A. (1995). Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23(3), 313-323.Google Scholar
  26. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharaski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions. Language, 69(2), 274-307.Google Scholar
  27. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.Google Scholar
  28. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2001). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object database: Color and texture improve object recognition. Paper presented at the 1st Vision Science Conference, Sarasota, Florida, May, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6(2), 174-215.Google Scholar
  30. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632-1634.Google Scholar
  31. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1996). Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. In T. Inui & J. L. Mlelland (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVI: Information Integration in Perception and Communication (pp. 457-478). Cambridge, MA: MIT Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer E. Arnold
    • 1
  • Maria Fagnano
    • 1
  • Michael K. Tanenhaus
    • 1
  1. 1.University of RochesterRochester

Personalised recommendations