Optional that indicates production difficulty: Evidence from disfluencies

Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, DiSS 2005

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 103-108

  Jaeger, T Florian ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDIENCE DESIGN; DISFLUENCIES; RELATIVE CLAUSE;

EID: 84931403635     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Arnold, J. E., Wasow, T., Asudeh, A., & Alrenga, P. 2004. Avoiding Attachment Ambiguities: the role of Constituent Ordering. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 55-70.
2. Bolinger, D. 1972. That's that. The Hague: Mouton.
3. Brennan, S. E., & Williams, M. 1995. The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 383-393.
4. Bresnan, J., Carletta, J., Crouch, R., Nissim, M., Steed-man, M., Wasow, T., et al. 2002. Paraphrase analysis for improved generation: HRCR Edinburgh-CLSI Stanford.
5. Clark, H. 2004. Pragmatics of language performance. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 365-382). Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73-111.
7. Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. 2000. Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.
8. Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. to appear. Relative Clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, Frequency and the notion of Construction. Studies in Language.
9. Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. 1997. Pronouncing "the" as "thee" to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151-167.
10. Goffman, E. 1981. Radio talk. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 197-327). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
11. Hakes, D. T., Evans, J. S., & Brannon, L. L. 1976. Understanding sentences with relative clauses. Memory & Cognition, 4(3), 283-290.
12. Hawkins, J. A. 2001. Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics, 37, 1-34.
13. Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Jaeger, T. F., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. 2005. Dissociation between Production and Comprehension Complexity. The 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, March 31st - April 2nd, 2005, Tuscon, AZ.
15. Jaeger, T. F., Orr, D., & Wasow, T. 2005. Comparing Frequency-based and Complexity-based Accounts (of Relativizer Omission), The 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, March 31st - April 2nd, 2005, Tuscon, AZ.
16. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. 2005. Processing as a Source of Accessibility Effects on Variation. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
17. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. 2005. Production Complexity Driven Variation: The case of relativizer distribution in non-subject-extracted relative clauses, The 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, March 31st - April 2nd, 2005, Tuscon, AZ.
18. Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. 2005. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the hearer? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194-231.
19. Levelt, W. J. M. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41-104.
20. Mateer, M., & Taylor, A. 1995. Disfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.
21. Race, D. S., & MacDonald, M. C. 2003. The use of "that" in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
22. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. 1987. Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 39A(4), 657–673.
23. Rohde, D. 2001. Tgrep2 Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Brain & Cognitive Science Department, MIT.
24. Roland, D., Elman, J. L., & Ferreira, V. S. in press. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition.
25. Temperley, D. 2003. Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language, 79(3), 464-484.
26. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Fourth edition ed.): Springer.
27. Wasow, T., & Jaeger, T. F. 2005. Lexical Variation in Relativizer Frequency, Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar Workshop at the 27th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Association.