Abstract: . . .  part of the uniquely explained variance attributable to characteristics of the disfluent current Move itself. Page 7 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 These outcomes have theoretical, methodological and technological implications. Models of speech production, for example, will have to consider why disfluency rate is insensitive to attested difficulties of comprehension : features of a prior utterance which . . .
. . .  uniquely explained variance attributable to characteristics of the disfluent current Move itself. Page 7 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 Bard et al. / Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue 35 These outcomes have theoretical, methodological and technological implications. Models of speech production, for example, will have to consider why disfluency rate is insensitive to attested difficulties of comprehension : features of a prior utterance which ought to . . .
. . .  the speaker conducts an extensive unsuccessful search for a landmark which s/he lacks (Table 4a and 4b). Finally there are effects of production and planning in dialogue much like those known in monologue. IMIs are longer before longer utterances (.06) (Table 5) and those which begin larger units of dialogue: Transaction-initial moves follow longer intervals than Game-initial (.03, p < .05), which in turn follow longer intervals than Game-internal Moves (.14) (Table 6). Table 4. Effects of comprehension on Mean IMI: (a) referring expressions in prior Move by status of first referring expression; . . .
. . .  Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (EDILOG 2002), 29 4-6 September 2002, Edinburgh, UK, Pages 29-36. Bos, Foster & Matheson (eds): Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (EDILOG 2002), Towards a psycholinguistics of dialogue: defining reaction time and error rate in a dialogue corpus Ellen Gurman BARD HCRC & School of Philosophy, Psychology, & Language Sciences, U. of Edinburgh George Square Edinburgh, UK EH8 9LL ellen@ling.ed.ac.uk Matthew P. AYLETT HCRC, U. of Edinburgh & Rhetorical Systems, Ltd. 4 Crichton's Close Edinburgh, . . .
. . .  Proceedings of EDILOG 2002 36 References Anderson A., Bader M., Bard E. G., Boyle E., et al., (1991) The H.C.R.C. Map Task Corpus. Lang. & Speech, 34, pp. 351-366. Beattie G. (1983) Talk . Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Bard E. G., Aylett M., and Bull M. (2000) More than a Stately Dance: Dialogue as a Reaction Time Experiment . Proc. Soc. for Text & Discourse. Bard E. G. and Lickley R. J. (1998) Graceful failure in the recognition of running speech. Proc Cognitive Science Soc., pp. 108-113. Blackmer E. and Mitton J. (1991) Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition . . .
--3000,5,300,3399,32103