Article | Proceedings of the 4th European and 7th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM 2016), Copenhagen, 29-30 September 2016 | Gaze patterns and fillers : Empirical data on the difference between Dutch ‘euh’ and ‘euhm’
Göm menyn

Title:
Gaze patterns and fillers : Empirical data on the difference between Dutch ‘euh’ and ‘euhm’
Author:
Annelies Jehoul: KU Leuven, Belgium Geert Brône: KU Leuven, Belgium Kurt Feyaerts: KU Leuven, Belgium
Download:
Full text (pdf)
Year:
2017
Conference:
Proceedings of the 4th European and 7th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM 2016), Copenhagen, 29-30 September 2016
Issue:
141
Article no.:
007
Pages:
43-50
No. of pages:
8
Publication type:
Abstract and Fulltext
Published:
2017-09-21
ISBN:
978-91-7685-423-5
Series:
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
ISSN (print):
1650-3686
ISSN (online):
1650-3740
Publisher:
Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet


Export in BibTex, RIS or text

In naturally occurring conversation, speakers use fillers such as ‘euh’ and ‘euhm’ for a variety of reasons. In this study, we explore speakers’ gaze behavior when producing a filler, as the functions that have been associated with fillers and gaze aversion show some promising similarities. Studies show that both fillers and gaze aversion are associated with a speaker being hesitant or uncertain (Kendon, 1967, De Leeuw, 2007). Also in terms of the turn taking system, the functions of fillers and gaze aversion overlap as they both play an important role as turn holding signals (Maclay and Osgood, 1959; Kendon, 1967). However, the present analysis shows that speakers’ gaze behavior when uttering a filler is not so clear cut: a sustained gaze at the interlocutor during a filler is almost as frequent as gazing away. In the second part of the analysis, we compare speakers’ gaze patterns when producing two different manifestations of the filler (‘euh’ vs. ‘euhm’ in Dutch). These formal variants show some interesting differences in the co-occurring gaze distribution. More than ‘euh’, the longer variant ‘euhm’ is accompanied by a gaze aversion or a gaze fixation to the background. The multimodal analysis we present in this study supports previous findings of an interactional difference in vocal and vocal-nasalic fillers (Clark, 1994; Swerts, 1998; De Leeuw, 2007, Navarretta, 2015).

Proceedings of the 4th European and 7th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM 2016), Copenhagen, 29-30 September 2016

Author:
Annelies Jehoul, Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts
Title:
Gaze patterns and fillers : Empirical data on the difference between Dutch ‘euh’ and ‘euhm’
References:

Michael Argyle and Mark Cook. 1976. Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


Geoffrey W. Beattie. 1983. Talk: An Analysis of Speech and Non-verbal Behaviour in Conversation. Open Uni-versity Press, Milton Keynes, UK.


Susan E. Brennan and Maurice Williams. 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: 383-398.


Herbert H. Clark. 1994. Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communication, 15(3-4): 243-250.


Herbert H. Clark and Joan E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using ’uh’ and ’um’ in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84: 73-111.


Esther De Leeuw. 2007. Hesitation markers in English, German, and Dutch. Journal of German Linguistics, 19(2): 85-114.


Scott H. Fraundorf and Duane G. Watson. 2014. Alice’s adventures in umderland: psycholinguistic sources of variation in disfluency production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(9): 1083-1096.


Marjorie H. Goodwin and Charles Goodwin. 1986. Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62: 51-75.


Adam Kendon. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26: 22-63.


Johanna K. Lake, Karin R. Humphreys and Shannon Cardy. 2011. Listener vs. speaker-oriented aspects of speech: studying the disfluencies of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1): 135-140.


Howard Maclay and Charles E. Osgood. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15: 19-44.


Bilge Mutlu, Takayuki Kanda, Jodi Forlizzi, Jessica Hodgins and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2012. Conversational gaze mechanisms for humanlike robots. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., 1(2): article 12.


Costanza Navarretta. 2015. The functions of fillers, filled pauses and co-occurring gestures in Danish dyadic con-versations. Proceedings from the 3rd European Symposium on Multimodal Communication, 55-61.


Daniel C. O’Connell and Sabine Kowal. 2005. ‘Uh’ and ‘um’ revisited: are they interjections for signaling delay? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(6): 555-576.


Allan Reynolds and Allan Paivio. 1968. Cognitive and emotional determinants of speech. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22: 164–175.


Elizabeth Shriberg. 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.


Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of “uh huh” and other things thatcome between sentences. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: text and talk. Georgetown Uni-versity, Washington, DC.


Michael F. Schober, Frederick G. Conrad, Wil Dijkstra and Yfke P. Ongena. 2012. Disfluencies and gaze aversion in unreliable responses to survey questions. Journal of Official Statistics, 28(4): 555-582.


Aron W. Siegman and Benjamin Pope. 1966. Ambiguity and verbal fluency in the TAT. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30: 239-245.


Marc Swerts. 1998. Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 485-496.


Gina Villar, Joanne Arciuli and David Mallard. 2012. Use of “um” in the deceptive speech of a convicted murderer. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33: 83-95.


Esther J. Walker, Evan F. Risko and Alan Kingstone. 2014. Fillers as signals: evidence from a question – answer-ing paradigm. Discourse Processes, 51(3): 264-286.


Clarissa Weiß and Peter Auer. 2016. Das Blickverhalten des Rezipienten bei Sprecherhäsitionen: eine explorative Studie. Gesprächsforschung, 17: 132-167.


Peter Wittenburg, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann and Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Lan-guage Resources and Evaluation.

Proceedings of the 4th European and 7th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM 2016), Copenhagen, 29-30 September 2016

Author:
Annelies Jehoul, Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts
Title:
Gaze patterns and fillers : Empirical data on the difference between Dutch ‘euh’ and ‘euhm’
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
Citations:
No citations available at the moment


Responsible for this page: Peter Berkesand
Last updated: 2017-02-21