1. The scope of planning in sentence production Effects of partner-general audience design Benjamin Swets May 7, 2007

2. Background Speech planning in monologue –Incremental Planning scope not over entire sentence at each processing level More so under time pressure –So it is flexibly incremental Speech planning in dialog

3. Flexible incrementality Planning scope can shift (Ferreira & Swets, 2003) –Speakers produced two kinds of sentences Simple: “This is a dog that doesn’t know what it has.” Complex: “This is a dog that I don’t know what it has.” –No time pressure: Non-incremental (high-beams) –Time pressure: Incremental (low-beams)

4. Flexible incrementality –No time pressure: Simple: “This is a dog that doesn’t know where it lives.” Complex: “This is a dog that I don’t know where it lives.” –Under time pressure: Simple: “This is a dog that doesn’t know where it lives.” Complex: “This is a dog that I don’t know where it lives.”

5. Background Speech planning in monologue –Incremental More so under time pressure –So it is flexibly incremental Speech planning in dialog –?

6. Partner-General Audience Design In what ways might the needs of an addressee affect the scope of planning in sentence production? Potential need: No pauses between sentences (dialog as natural time pressure) –High level utterance planning more incremental (less extensive planning) in dialog –More disfluencies in dialog Potential need: Precisely coded information –High level utterance planning is more careful in dialog than in monolog

7. Study Task: Picture description w/ tangrams “The shoe moves below the desk and the mountain-hat moves above the desk.”

8. Design Manipulations –Between subjects ( N = 48) : Monologue vs. dialog –Theoretical matcher vs. Matcher Deadline vs. no deadline –Initiation deadline –Within subjects: Location of tangram –Control vs. 1 st noun vs. 2 nd noun vs. 3 rd noun

9. Predictions Potential need: No pauses between sentences (natural time pressure) –People should slow down earlier to plan for tangram in monologue—especially without deadline If dialog is like time pressure, then no effect of time pressure in dialog –More disfluencies in dialog Potential need: Precisely coded information –More precise (not necessarily concise) descriptions in dialog

10. The X moves above the Y and the Z…

14. Predictions Potential need: No pauses between sentences (natural time pressure) –People should slow down earlier to plan for tangram in monolog, no deadline situations If dialog is like time pressure, then no effect of time pressure in dialog –More disfluencies in dialog Potential need: Precisely coded information –More precise (not necessarily concise) descriptions in dialog

15. The X moves above the Y and the Z…

17. Summary of Results Small early effects of tangram position, but largest effects come late Few effects of audience on planning times, disfluencies –Deadline manipulation more robust Descriptions much longer in dialog –Convey more helpful information as well

18. Tentative Conclusions Some evidence for extensive high-level planning with and without addressees, but speakers mostly quite incremental May be a tradeoff in planning strategies –Need to prepare information for addressees in dialog offsets additional time pressure to begin speaking –Or else, the “dialog as time pressure” hypothesis is simply incorrect

19. Future Directions Manipulating addressee feedback Eyetracking Partner-specific audience design –Effects of entrainment/new addressees on planning

20. Acknowledgements Richard Gerrig Susan Brennan Matt Jacovina Bill Wenzel Kanwal Asif