How Listeners Compensate for Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech

By Susan E. Brennan, Michael F. Schober. 2001

288 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12fd027c8efb4f2b08b6610f85186c6fdc9af7ac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. N. D. Jong
2. Dale J. Barr
3. Nigel G. Ward
4. Jennifer E. Arnold
5. J. E. Fox Tree
6. Mandana Seyfeddinipur
7. Susan E. Brennan
8. Sophie K. Scott

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Jennifer E. Arnold
2. N. D. Jong
3. Nigel G. Ward
4. J. E. Fox Tree
5. Matthew H. Davis
6. Susan E. Brennan
7. Dale J. Barr
8. Sophie K. Scott

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. N. D. Jong
2. Dale J. Barr
3. Jennifer E. Arnold
4. Nigel G. Ward
5. Mandana Seyfeddinipur
6. J. E. Fox Tree
7. Matthew H. Davis
8. Susan E. Brennan

Citations in the corpus

• Interpreting Pauses and Ums at Turn Exchanges (2002, background): “REFERENCES Brennan, S. E., & Williams, W. (1995).”
• Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, background): “Disfluency is not traditionally considered a discourse characteristic per se, in that it is not part of the speaker’s official message (Brennan & Schober, 2001).”
• Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English (2006, background): “In particular two basic questions have not been raised, much less addressed: first, the reason for such a large variety of sounds, and second, what they all mean.”
• Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences (2003, unknown): “If listeners are asked to move to a specific colored dot, a disfluency sometimes makes the task easier (Brennan & Schober, 2001).”
• Fluency in Second Language Testing: Insights From Different Disciplines (2018, background): “…raise their attention upon hearing disfluencies (Collard, Corley, MacGregor, & Donaldson, 2008) and subsequently anticipate complex syntax (Brennan & Schober, 2001; Fox Tree, 2001), low-probable words (Corley, Macgregor, & Donaldson, 2007), discourse-new rather than given referents…”
• The role of fillers in listener attributions for speaker disfluency (2010, background): “Some studies that have controlled for the length of surrounding pauses using splicing techniques suggest that fillers do not impact comprehension above and beyond the extra processing time they buy for the listener ( Brennan & Schober, 2001; Bailey & Ferreira, 2003).”
• Disfluency Rates in Conversation: Effects of Age, Relationship, Topic, Role, and Gender (2001, background): “In one series of studies, listeners were faster and more accurate in comprehending repair words such as orange in utterances like Move to the yel- uh, orange square when the interrupted word was followed by uh than when it was not (Brennan & Schober, 2001).”
• Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review (2012, background): “Although disfluencies can sometimes carry meaningful information (eg, Brennan & Schober, 2001 ; Clark & Fox Tree, 2002 ), they tend to impair recognition performance (eg, Levelt, 1989 ).”
• Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue (2004, unknown): “…University Press 0140-525X/04 $12.50 169 Keywords: common ground; dialogue; dialogue routines; language comprehension; language production; monitoring; perception-behavior link leagues (e.g., Brennan & Clark 1996; Wilkes-Gibbs & Clark 1992; also Brennan & Schober 2001; Horton & Keysar 1996).”