Abstract
Speakers are thought to articulate individual words in running speech less carefully whenever additional nonacoustic information can help listeners recognize what is said (Fowler & Housum, 1987; Lieberman, 1963). Comparing single words excerpted from spontaneous dialogues and control tokens of the same words read by the same speakers in lists, Experiment 1 yielded a significant but general effect of visual context: Tokens introducing 71 new entities in dialogues in which participants could see one another’s faces were more degraded (less intelligible to 54 naive listeners) than were tokens of the same words from dialogues with sight lines blocked. Loss of clarity was not keyed to momentto-moment visual behavior. Subjects with clear sight lines looked at each other too rarely to account for the observed effect. Experiment 2 revealed that tokens of 60 words uttered while subjects were looking at each other were significantly less degraded (in length and in intelligibility to 72 subjects) vis-à-vis controls than were spontaneous tokens of the same words produced when subjects were looking elsewhere. Intelligibility loss was mitigated only when listeners looked at speakers. Two separate visual effects are discussed, one of the global availability and the other of the local use of the interlocutor’s face.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abele, A. (1986). Functions of gaze in social interaction.Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour,10, 83–101.
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., &Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC Map Task Corpus.Language & Speech,34, 351–366.
Argyle, M. (1990).Bodily communication. London: Routledge.
Argyle, M., Alkema, F., &Gilmour, R. (1972). The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals.European Journal of Social Psychology,1, 385–402.
Argyle, M., &Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation.Sociometry,28, 289–304.
Argyle, M., &Graham, J. A. (1977). The Central Europe experiment: Looking at persons and looking at things.Journal of Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behaviour,1, 6–16.
Argyle, M., &Ingham, R. (1972). Gaze, mutual gaze and proximity.Semiotica,6, 32–49.
Ariel, M. (1990).Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge/ Croom Helm.
Bard, E. G., &Anderson, A. H. (1983). The unintelligibility of speech to children.Journal of Child Language,10, 265–292.
Bard, E. G., &Anderson, A. H. (1994). The unintelligibility of speech to children: Effects of referent availability.Journal of Child Language,21, 623–648.
Bard, E. G., Lowe, A., &Altmann, G. (1989). The effects of repetition on words in recorded dictations.Proceedings of EUROSPEECH ’89,2, 573–576.
Bard, E. G., Sotillo, C., Anderson, A. H., Doherty-Sneddon, G., &Newlands, A. (1995). The control of intelligibility in running speech.Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,4, 188–191.
Beattie, G. W. (1978). Sequential patterns of speech and gaze in dialogue.Semiotica,23, 29–52.
Beattie, G. W. (1980). The role of language production processes in the organization of behaviour in face-to-face interaction. In B. Butterworth (Ed.),Language production: Vol. 1. Speech and talk (pp. 69–107). London: Academic Press.
Beattie, G. W. (1981). A further investigation of the cognitive interference hypothesis of gaze patterns in conversation.British Journal of Social Psychology,20, 243–248.
Beattie, G. (1983).Talk: An analysis of speech and non-verbal behaviour in conversation. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1963). Length, vowel, juncture.Linguistics,1, 5–29.
Bolinger, D. (1981).Two kinds of vowels, two kinds of rhythm. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Boyle, E. A., Anderson, A. H., &Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of visibility on dialogue performance in a cooperative problem solving task.Language & Speech,37, 1–20.
Brown, G., Anderson, A. H., Shillcock, R., &Yule, G. (1984).Teaching talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness.Language,50, 111–133.
Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A. H., O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., & Bruce, V. (in press). Face-to-face interaction and video mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and co-operative task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
Duncan, S., &Fiske, D. W. (1977).Face-to-face interaction: Research methods and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellyson, S. L., Dovido, J. F., &Corson, R. L. (1981). Visual behaviour differences in females as a function of self-perceived expertise.Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour,5, 164–171.
Erber, N. P. (1974). Angle, distance and illumination on normal reception of speech.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,17, 99–112.
Exline, R. V. (1972). Visual interaction: The glance of power and preference. In J. K. Cole (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1971 (pp. 163–206). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Exline, R. V., Jones, P., & Maciorowski, K. (1977).Race, affiliationconflict theory and mutual visual attention during conversation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Exline, R. V., &Winters, L. C. (1965). Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In S. Tomkins & C. Izaed (Eds.),Affect, cognition and personality (pp. 319–350). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fisher, C., &Tokura, H. (1995). The given—new contract in speech to infants.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 287–310.
Fowler, C. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts.Language & Speech,28, 47–56.
Fowler, C., &Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signalling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 489–504.
Fowler, C., &Levy, E. (1991). Some ways in which forms arise from functions in linguistic communications.Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,1, 279–282.
Gailey, L. (1987). Psychological parameters of lip-reading skill. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 115–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1967). Sequential temporal patterns and cognitive processes in speech.Language & Speech,10, 122–132.
Goodwin, C. (1981).Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, S., &Warren, P. (1994). Phonetic influences on the intelligibility of conversational speech.Journal of Phonetics,22, 493–511.
Hunnicutt, S. (1985). Intelligibility vs. redundancy—conditions of dependency.Language & Speech,28, 47–56.
Isaacs, E., &Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 26–37.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction.Acta Psychologica,26, 22–63.
Koopmans-Van Beinum, F. J. (1980).Vowel contrast reduction: An acoustic and perceptual study of Dutch vowels in various speech conditions. Amsterdam: Academische Pers B. V.
Krantz, M., George, S. W., &Hursh, K. (1983). Gaze and mutual gaze of pre-school children in conversation.Journal of Psychology,113, 9–15.
Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech.Language & Speech,6, 172–175.
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In W. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.),Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Massaro, D. W. (1989). Multiple book review of Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,12, 741–794.
Massaro, D. W., &Cohen, M. M. (1983). Evaluation and integration of visual and auditory information in speech perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 753–771.
McAllister, J., Potts, A., Mason, K., &Marchant, G. (1994). Word duration in monologue and dialogue speech.Language & Speech,37, 393–406.
McGurk, H., &MacDonald, J. W. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices.Nature,264, 746–748.
Mehribian, A. (1972).Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Mehta, G., &Cutler, A. (1988). Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech.Language & Speech,31, 135–156.
Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., &Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.Journal of Experimental Psychology,41, 338–352.
Mogford, K. (1987). Lip-reading in the prelingually deaf. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: The psychology of lipreading (pp. 191–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nielson, G. (1962).Studies in self-confrontation. Copenhagen: Monksgaard.
O’Malley, C., &Langton, S. (1994). Making the case for face-toface interaction: Empirical studies of video-mediated communication. In S. Emott & D. Travis (Eds.),Proceedings of the International Symposium on POTS to PANS: User Issues in the Multimedia Revolution from Plain Old Telephoney Services to Pictures and Network Services. Suffolk, U.K.: British Telecom.
O’Sullivan, M., Ekman, P., Friesen, W., &Scherer, K. (1985). What you say and how you say it: The contribution of speech content and voice quality to judgment of others.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,48, 54–62.
Pollack, I., &Pickett, J. (1963). The intelligibility of excerpts from conversation.Language & Speech,6, 165–171.
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given—new information. In P. Cole (Ed.),Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–255). New York: Academic Press.
Reisberg, D., McLean, J., &Goldfield, A. (1987). Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 97–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schober, M., &Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers.Cognitive Psychology,21, 211–232.
Sumby, W. H., &Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise.Journal of the Acoustic Society of America,26, 212–215.
Summerfield, A. Q. (1987). Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audio-visual speech perception. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 3–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Terken, J., &Nooteboom, S. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for Given and New information.Language & Cognitive Processes,2, 145–163.
Walden, B. E., Prosek, R. A., &Worthington, D. W. (1975). Auditory and audiovisual feature transmission in hearing-impaired adults.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,18, 272–280.
Walker, M. B. (1977). The relative importance of verbal and nonverbal cues in the expression of confidence.Australian Journal of Psychology,29, 45–57.
Walker, M. B., &Trimboli, C. (1983). The expressive function of the eye flash.Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour,8, 3–13.
Wilkes-Gibbs, D., &Clark, H. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 183–194.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by the ESRC(UK)-funded Human Communication Research Centre and by ESRC Project Grant R000233560 to A.H.A., C. O’Malley, and V. Bruce. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the summer 1994 meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, A.H., Bard, E.G., Sotillo, C. et al. Limited visual control of the intelligibility of speech in face-to-face dialogue. Perception & Psychophysics 59, 580–592 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211866
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211866