Jean E. Fox Tree

Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking

In spontaneous speaking, the is normally pronounced as thuh, with the reduced vowel schwa (rhyming with the first syllable of about). But it is sometimes pronounced as thiy, with a nonreduced vowel (rhyming with see). In a large corpus of spontaneous English conversation, speakers were found to use thiy to signal an immediate suspension of speech to deal with a problem in production. Fully 81% of the instances of thiy in the corpus were followed by a suspension of speech, whereas only 7% of a matched sample of thuhs were followed by such suspensions. The problems people dealt with after thiy were at many levels of production, including articulation. word retrieval, and choice of message, but most were in the following nominal.

Basic meanings of you know and I mean

Abstract Although you know and I mean are frequent in spontaneous talk, researchers have not agreed on what purpose they serve. They have been thought by some to be used similarly and by others to be used differently. Similarities of uses at a surface level encouraged historical discussions of these two markers in the same breath. The current synthesis details how both the apparent multifunctionality of you know and I mean and their surface similarities can arise out of each discourse markers basic meaning, with you know s basic meaning being to invite addressee inferences (Jucker, A.H., & Smith, S.W. (1998). And people just you know like ‘wow’ : Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (pp. 171–201). Philadelphia: John Benjamins), and I mean s basic meaning being to forewarn upcoming adjustments (Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Recognizing Verbal Irony in Spontaneous Speech

We explored the differential impact of auditory information and written contextual information on the recognition of verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Based on relevance theory, we predicted that speakers would provide acoustic disambiguation cues when speaking in situations that lack other sources of information, such as a visual channel. We further predicted that listeners would use this information, in addition to context, when interpreting the utterances. People were presented with spontaneously produced ironic and nonironic utterances from radio talk shows in written or auditory form, with or without written contextual information. When the utterances were read without written contextual information, all utterances were rated as equally ironic. But when they were heard as opposed to read, or when they were presented in irony-biasing contexts, originally ironic utterances were rated as more sarcastic than originally nonironic utterances. This evidence suggests both acoustic and contextual information are used when inferring ironic intent in spontaneous speech, and validates previous manipulations of intonation in studies of irony understanding.

Is there an Ironic Tone of Voice

Research on nonverbal vocal cues and verbal irony has often relied on the concept of an ironic tone of voice. Here we provide acoustic analysis and experimental evidence that this notion is oversimplified and misguided. Acoustic analyses of spontaneous ironic speech extracted from talk radio shows, both ambiguous and unambiguous in written form, revealed only a difference in amplitude variability compared to matched nonironic speech from the same sources, and that was only among the most clear-cut items. In a series of experiments, participants rated content-filtered versions of the same ironic and nonironic utterances on a range of affective and linguistic dimensions. Listeners did not rely on any set of vocal cues to identify verbal irony that was separate from other emotional and linguistic judgments. We conclude that there is no particular ironic tone of voice and that listeners interpret verbal irony by combining a variety of cues, including information outside of the linguistic context.

Building Syntactic Structures in Speaking: A Bilingual Exploration

In a series of three experiments we investigated syntactic priming using a sentence recall task. Participants read and memorized a target sentence for later recall. After reading a prime sentence and engaging in a distraction task, they were asked to produce the target sentence aloud. Earlier investigations have shown that this task is sensitive to a syntactic priming effect. That is, the syntactic form of the prime sentence sometimes influences the syntactic form of the recalled target. In this paper we report on a variation on this task, using Spanish-English bilingual participants. In the first two experiments we replicated the prepositional phrase priming effect using English target sentences and Spanish prime sentences. In the final experiment we investigated two additional syntactic forms, using Spanish target sentences and English prime sentences. Implications for models of syntax generation and bilingual speech production are discussed.

Interpreting Pauses and Ums at Turn Exchanges

In 3 experiments, this article compares how overhearers interpreted second speakers’ contributions to a conversation depending on whether the second speaker responded to a first speaker immediately; paused and responded; said um and responded; or said um, paused, and then responded. The conversational snippets tested were unscripted and diverse; an example of one exchange is, “Are you here because of affirmative action?” (pause, um, or both) “It helped me out a little bit.” Overhearers thought speakers had more production difficulty, were less honest, and were less comfortable with topics under discussion when speakers either said um or paused, and even more so with both. The best explanation for the data is that overhearers are judging, for each question asked, what it means for speakers to produce an anticipated or an unanticipated delay.

A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale

The lack of consistency in how bilingual language dominance is assessed currently impedes cross-experiment comparisons (Grosjean, 1998). We present a paper-and-pencil dominance scale that can be used to quantify the language dominancy of bilingual participants. The scale targets three main criteria important in gauging dominance (Grosjean, 1998; Flege, Mackay & Piske, 2002): percent of language use for both languages, age of acquisition and age of comfort for both languages, and restructuring of language fluency due to changes in linguistic environments. Reaction times from a Spanish/English lexical translation task and filler rates and elongation rates from a Spanish/English sentence translation task support the validity of the scale. The scale can be adapted for nonliterate populations by asking questions verbally and recording responses.

Listening in on monologues and dialogues

A study compared the communicative effectiveness of spontaneous monologues and dialogues on nonparticipating addressees overhearing talk. Overhearers were more accurate at following instructions in a referential communication task when listening in on dialogues than when listening in on monologues. Several extraneous variables could not account for the result. Two explanations for overhearers’ better performances on the dialogues are that the greater number of discourse markers helps overhearers follow the speech and that the perspectives of multiple interlocutors are more informative than one perspective. Extensions of the collaborative model of language use are discussed.

Placing like in telling stories

The discourse marker use of the word like (‘we hitch a ride out of there with uh this like one crazy like music major guy’) is considered by many to be superfluously sprinkled into talk, a bad habit best avoided. But a comparison of the use of like in successive tellings of stories demonstrates that like can be anticipated in advance and planned into stories. In this way, like is similar to other words and phrases tellers recycle during story telling. The anticipation of like contrasted with the uses of other discourse markers such as oh, you know, and well, which almost never re-occurred in similar locations across tellings. Um and uh did sometimes re-occur; these uses are contrasted with like. Although discourse markers are generally used on the fly to handle various issues that come up in coordinating talk as it unfolds, like can be used as an integral part of the story -a marked contrast to the prevalent idea that likes are speech tics.

BUILDING SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE IN SPEAKING

We investigated how people produce simple and complex phrases in speaking using a newly developed immediate recall task. People read and tried to memorize a target sentence, then read a prime sentence, then did a distractor task involving the prime sentence. Despite the delay and activity between memory and recall, people could still recall the target sentence although the syntactic form of the recalled sentence was influenced by the syntactic form of the prime sentence. This result replicates the syntactic priming effect found with other experimental paradigms. Using this task, we tested how people used abstract syntactic plans to produce simple and complex noun phrases. We found syntactic priming both when targets and prime sentences matched in complexity and when they did not match, suggesting that simple and complex noun phrases are built by the same syntactic routines during speech production.