Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:31:15.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disfluencies signal reference to novel objects for adults but not children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

Sarah J. OWENS ,
Justine M. THACKER  and
Susan A. GRAHAM
Sarah J. OWENS
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Justine M. THACKER
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Susan A. GRAHAM*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: S. Graham, Dept. of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speech disfluencies can guide the ways in which listeners interpret spoken language. Here, we examined whether three-year-olds, five-year-olds, and adults use filled pauses to anticipate that a speaker is likely to refer to a novel object. Across three experiments, participants were presented with pairs of novel and familiar objects and heard a speaker refer to one of the objects using a fluent (“Look at the ball/lep!”) or disfluent (“Look at thee uh ball/lep!”) expression. The salience of the speaker's unfamiliarity with the novel referents, and the way in which the speaker referred to the novel referents (i.e., a noun vs. a description) varied across experiments. Three- and five-year-olds successfully identified familiar and novel targets, but only adults’ looking patterns reflected increased looks to novel objects in the presence of a disfluency. Together, these findings demonstrate that adults, but not young children, use filled pauses to anticipate reference to novel objects.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , May 2018 , pp. 581 - 609
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by funds from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs program, and the University of Calgary, and by an operating grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awarded to Susan Graham. Sarah Owens was supported by a graduate fellowship from SSHRC, and funding from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions. Justine Thacker was supported by a graduate fellowship from SSHRC. We thank Melanie Khu, Vanessa Schell, Nicole Henezi, and Charlene Parker for their assistance with this research. Some of the data presented were included in Sarah Owens’ dissertation, submitted to the University of Calgary.

References

REFERENCES

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(4), 419–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Fagnano, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Disfluencies signal theee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, J. E., Hudson Kam, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). If you say thee uh- you're describing something hard: the on-line attribution of disfluency during reference comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 914–30.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2011). Disfluency effects in comprehension: how new information can become accessible. In Gibson, E. & Pearlmutter, N. J. (Eds), The processing and acquisition of reference, 197–217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Altmann, R. J., & Fagnano, M. (2004). The old and thee, uh, new: disfluency and reference resolution. Psychological Science, 15(9), 578–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D. J., & Seyfeddinipur, M. (2010). The role of fillers in listener attributions for speaker disfluency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(4), 441–55.Google Scholar
Berman, J. M. J., Khu, M., Graham, I., & Graham, S. A. (2013). ELIA: a software application for integrating spoken language and eye movements. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 646–55.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Birch, S. A. (2010). ‘I bet you know more and are nicer too!’ What children infer from others’ accuracy. Developmental Science, 13(5), 772–8.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37(3), 201–42.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science: an introduction to scientific and statistical inference. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781Google Scholar
Dienes, Z., & Mclatchie, N. (2017). Four reasons to prefer Bayesian analyses over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–12. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1266-zGoogle Scholar
Evey, J. A., & Merriman, W. E. (1998). The prevalence and the weakness of an early name mapping preference. Journal of Child Language, 25(1), 121–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(6), 709–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., & Watson, D. G. (2011). The disfluent discourse: effects of filled pauses on recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 161–75.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, S. A., Nilsen, E. S., & Collins, S., & Olineck., K. M. (2010). The role of gaze direction and mutual exclusivity in guiding 24-month-olds’ word mappings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 449–65.Google Scholar
Graham, S. A., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Baker, R. K. (1998). Infants’ disambiguation of novel object words. First Language, 18(53), 149–64.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Notebaert, L. (2010). Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech. Experimental Psychology, 57, 169–77.Google Scholar
Haynes, W. O., & Hood, S. B. (1977). Language and disfluency variables in normal speaking children from discrete chronological age groups. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 2(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
Heller, D., Arnold, J. E., Klein, N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2015). Inferring difficulty: flexibility in the real-time processing of disfluency. Language and Speech, 58(2), 190–203.Google Scholar
Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290–305.Google Scholar
Kidd, C., White, K. S., & Aslin, R. N. (2009). Children's use of disfluencies for pragmatic inference in lexical development. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 1494–9.Google Scholar
Kidd, C., White, K. S., & Aslin, R. N. (2011). Toddlers use speech disfluencies to predict speakers’ referential intentions. Developmental Science, 14(4), 925–34.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2005). How children and adults produce and perceive uncertainty in audiovisual speech. Language and Speech, 48(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Marazita, J. M., & Merriman, W. E. (2004). Young children's judgment of whether they know names for objects: the metalinguistic ability it reflects and the processes it involves. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 458–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1991). Categorization and naming in children: problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mashburn, A. J., Justice, L. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merriman, W. E., Bowman, L. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54(3/4), i–129.Google Scholar
Orena, A. J., & White, K. S. (2015). I forget what that's called! Children's online processing of disfluencies depends on speaker knowledge. Child Development, 86(6), 1701–9.Google Scholar
Oviatt, S. (1995). Predicting spoken disfluencies during human–computer interaction. Computer Speech & Language, 9(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
Owens, S., & Graham, S. A (2016). Thee, uhh disfluency effect in preschoolers: a cue to discourse status. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34, 388–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rispoli, M., & Hadley, P. (2001). The leading-edge: the significance of sentence disruptions in the development of grammar. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(5), 1131–43.Google Scholar
Rochester, S. R. (1973). The significance of pauses in spontaneous speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2(1), 51–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 362–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., Dijkstra, W., & Ongena, Y. P. (2012). Disfluencies and gaze aversion in unreliable responses to survey questions. Journal of Official Statistics, 28(4), 555–82.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. (1996). Disfluencies in switchboard. In Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 96, 11–14.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L., & Clark, H. H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 25–38.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., Cartwright, B. S., & Bowden, T. (1991). Perspective taking and theory of mind: Do children predict interpretive diversity as a function of differences in observers’ knowledge? Child Development, 62(6), 1334–51.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. (2008). Using eye movements as a developmental measure within psycholinguistics. In Sekerina, I. A., Fernandez, E. M. & Clahsen, H. (Eds), Developmental psycholinguistics: on-line methods in children's language processing, 73–96. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warton, D. I., & Hui, F. K. C. (2011). The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology, 92(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
Yaruss, J. S., Newman, R. M., & Flora, T. (1999). Language and disfluency in nonstuttering children's conversational speech. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 24(3), 185–207.Google Scholar
Zackheim, C. T., & Conture, E. G. (2003). Childhood stuttering and speech disfluencies in relation to children's mean length of utterance: a preliminary study. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 28(2), 115–42.Google Scholar