Disfluencies and human language comprehension

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 231-237

  Ferreira, Fernanda ^a   Bailey, Karl G D ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; HUMAN ENGINEERING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

COMPREHENSIONS; DISFLUENCIES; HUMAN LANGUAGE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; CONVERSATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; REVIEW; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VOCABULARY;

EID: 2142754114     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.011     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Bailey K.G.D., Ferreira F. Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences. J. Mem. Lang. 49:2003;183-200
2. Arnold J.E., et al. Disfluencies signal thee, um, new information. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 32:2003;25-36
3. Clark H.H., Fox Tree J.E. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition. 84:2002;73-111
4. Snedeker J., Trueswell J. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: effects of speaker awareness and referential context. J. Mem. Lang. 48:2003;103-130
5. Steinhauer K., Friederici A.D. Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: the closure positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker for prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 30:2001;267-295
6. Clifton C., et al. Informative prosodic boundaries. Lang. Speech. 45:2002;87-114
7. Bortfeld H., et al. Disfluency rates in conversation: effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Lang. Speech. 44:2001;123-147
8. Fox Tree J.E. The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. J. Mem. Lang. 34:1995;709-738
9. Core, M.G. and Schubert, K. (1999) Speech repairs: a parsing perspective. In Satellite Meeting ICPHS 99, pp. 47-50.
10. Ferreira F., et al. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11:2002;11-15
11. Fodor J.D., Inoue A. Syntactic features in reanalysis: positive and negative symptoms. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 29:2000;25-36
12. Frazier L., Clifton C. Construal: overview, motivation, and some new evidence. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 26:1997;277-297
13. Ferreira, F., et al. Disfluencies, language comprehension, and tree adjoining grammars. Cogn. Sci. (in press).
14. Tomasello M. Culture and cognitive development. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9:2000;37-40
15. Todd P.M., Gigerenzer G. Precis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behav. Brain Sci. 23:2000;727-780
16. Pinker S. How the Mind Works. 1997;W.W. Norton
17. Trueswell, J.C. and Tanenhaus, M.K. (in press) Processing World-Situated Language: Bridging the Language-as-Product and Language-as-Action Traditions, MIT Press.
18. Ferreira F. The creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 100:1993;233-253
19. Pickering M.J., Traxler M.J. Parsing and incremental understanding during reading. Crocker M.W., et al. Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. 2000;238-258 Cambridge University Press
20. Sedivy J.C., et al. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition. 71:1999;109-147
21. Traxler M.J., et al. Influence of connectives on language comprehension: eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 50A:1997;481-497
22. Altmann G.T.M., Kamide Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition. 73:1999;247-264
23. Altmann, G.T.M. and Kamide, Y. Now you see it, now you don't: mediating the mapping between language and the visual world. In The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World (Henderson, J.M and Ferreira, F., eds), Psychology Press, New York (in press).
24. Charniak, E. and Johnson, M. (2001) Edit detection and parsing for transcribed speech. In Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 118-126.
25. Stolcke, A. and Shriberg, E. (1996) Statistical language modeling for speech disfluencies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 405-409.
26. Levelt W., Cutler A. Prosodic marking in speech repair. J. Semantics. 2:1983;205-217
27. Smith V.L., Clark H.H. On the course of answering questions. J. Mem. Lang. 32:1993;25-38
28. Brennan S.E., Williams M. The feeling of another's knowing: prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. J. Mem. Lang. 34:1995;383-398
29. Brennan S.E., Schober M.F. How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. J. Mem. Lang. 44:2001;274-296
30. Seidenberg M.S., MacDonald M.C. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cogn. Sci. 23:1999;569-588
31. Boland J.E., Blodgett A. Understanding the constraints on syntactic generation: lexical bias and discourse congruency effects on eye movements. J. Mem. Lang. 45:2001;391-411
32. Sturt P., et al. The preservation of structure in language comprehension: is reanalysis the last resort? J. Mem. Lang. 45:2001;283-307
33. Sturt P., et al. Syntactic resolution after initial misanalysis: the role of recency. J. Mem. Lang. 46:2002;371-390
34. van Gompel R.P.G., et al. Reanalysis in sentence processing: evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. J. Mem. Lang. 45:2001;225-258
35. Fodor J.D., Inoue A. Attach anyway. Fodor J.D., Ferreira F. Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. 1998;101-141 Kluwer
36. Christianson K., et al. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cogn. Psychol. 42:2001;368-407
37. Ferreira F., Henderson J.M. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. J. Mem. Lang. 31:1991;725-745
38. Clark H.H., Wasow T. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 37:1998;201-242
39. Hawkins P.R. The syntactic location of hesitation pauses. Lang. Speech. 14:1971;277-288
40. Ford M. Sentence planning units: implications for the speaker's representation of meaningful relations underlying sentences. Bresnan J. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. 1982;798-827 MIT Press
41. Joshi A.K., Schabes Y. Tree-adjoining grammars. Rosenberg G., Salomaa A. Handbook of Formal Languages. 1997;69-123 Springer
42. Koenig J.-P., et al. Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition. 89:2003;67-103
43. Deese J. Pauses, prosody, and the demands of production in language. Dechert W., Raupach M. Temporal Variables in Speech: Studies in Honor of Frieda Golman-Eisler. 1980;69-84 Mounton
44. Lickley, R.J. (1995) Missing disfluencies. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Vol. 4) pp. 192-195.