=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0028
|storemode=property
|title=Quantitative analyses of Gaze Activity during Silence: Comparison between Native-Language and Second-Language Conversation
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0028.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/UmataTIY15
}}
==Quantitative analyses of Gaze Activity during Silence: Comparison between Native-Language and Second-Language Conversation==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0028.pdf
Quantitative analyses of Gaze Activity during Silence:
Comparison between Native-language and
Second-language Conversation
Ichiro Umata (umata@nict.go.jp)
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
3-5 Hikaridai, Seika-cho, Soraku-gun,
Kyoto 619-0289, Japan
Tomoya Tanizoe (duo0158@mail4.doshisha.ac.jp)
Doshisha University, Department of Information Systems Design
1-3 Miyakodani, Tatara, Kyotanabe-shi,
Kyoto 610-0321, Japan
Koki Ijuin (duo0108@mail4.doshisha.ac.jp)
Doshisha University, Department of Information Systems Design
1-3 Miyakodani, Tatara, Kyotanabe-shi,
Kyoto 610-0321, Japan
Seiichi Yamamoto (seyamamo@mail.doshisha.ac.jp)
Doshisha University, Department of Information Systems Design
1-3 Miyakodani, Tatara, Kyotanabe-shi,
Kyoto, 610-0321 Japan
Abstract Since this interdependency covers a wider area with
We analyze gazes during silence in multi-party conversation
more participants speaking a wider range of native
and compare them between conversations among native- languages, the role played by second-language conversation
language speakers and those among second-language becomes even more important in collaboration. However,
speakers. The duration of gaze during silence shows a second-language conversation in international collaboration
significant difference between these two conditions: Gaze typically involves participants with different levels of
during silence is longer in a second-language conversation. linguistic proficiency in the common language, and such
Correlation analyses for gazes during silence and the values differences can form a barrier to equal opportunity of
from questionnaire responses show unique characteristics of
second-language free-flowing conversations: Gazes during contribution to the collaboration (Beyene, Pamela, Hinds, &
silence are associated with a negative impression toward the Crampton 2009). Supporting conversation among people
conversation partners. Consequently, the monitoring functions with different levels of linguistic proficiency is thus an
of gazes during silence might affect the partners’ emotional urgent issue in efforts to fully elicit the abilities of all
states in such second-language free-flowing conversations. participants in international collaboration.
These results suggest that gazes during silence in second- In native-language conversation, people use non-verbal
language conversations have different functions from those in
information such as gazes and facial expressions in
native-language conversations.
conversation (Argyle, Lalljee, & Cook 1968; Beattie 1978,
Keywords: Second-language conversation, Proficiency, 1980; Clark 1996; Kendon 1967; Kleinke 1986; Mehrabian
Gazes, Silence, Grounding, Communication, Collaboration & Wiener 1967; Mehrabian & Ferris 1967; Clark &
Brennan 1991). Furthermore, gaze plays an important role
Introduction in tasks that require negotiations and mutual understanding
Interdependence among nations is increasing these days, among the collaborators (Boyle, Anderson, & Newlands
and the structure of international interaction is becoming 1994; Clark & Krych 2004; Jokinen, Furukawa, Nishida, &
complex and changing dynamically. Such interdependency Yamamoto 2013). Non-verbal information can provide even
is characterized by increased integration not only in trade, more effective cues to compensate for conversation
capital flow, and movement of labor (World Trade participants’ lack of linguistic proficiency. Hosoda (2006)
Organization 2008) but also in international collaboration in observed that gazes and facial expressions are crucial in
science and engineering (e.g. Falkenheim & Kannankutty monitoring the partners’ understanding in the repair process
2012). This deeper integration at the international level is when they encounter an obstacle to mutual understanding.
supported by wider geographical participation and Veinott, Olson, Olson, & Fu (1999) found that non-native
integrated systems such as international supply chain speaker pairs (but not native pairs) benefited from watching
production (World Trade Organization 2013). their partners’ video images in route-guiding tasks.
193
Quantitative studies of gazes during utterances showed that position for all four of the experiment’s trials. Three sets of
the relative duration of other participants looking at the NAC EMR-9 head-mounted eye trackers and headsets with
speaker in a second-language conversation was longer than microphones recorded their eye gazes and voices. The
in a native-language conversation (Kabashima, Nishida, participants talked about two predetermined topics in
Jokinen, & Yamamoto 2012; Yamasaki, Furukawa, Nishida, English (second language) and in Japanese (mother tongue).
Jokinen & Yamamoto 2012; Yamamoto, Taguchi, Umata, Each group participated in two conversations in each
Kabashima, & Nishida 2013) and that gazes in a second- language.
language conversation have different communicative One of the two conversational topics was assigned before
functions from those in a native-language conversation each trial. The first was a free-flowing one in which they
(Umata, Yamamoto, Ijuin, & Nishida 2014). These results chatted about their favorite foods. The second was a goal-
suggest that gazes compensate for the lack of linguistic oriented task in which they collaboratively decided what to
proficiency by helping participants monitor their partners’ take with them on a trip to a deserted island or the
understanding and coordinating the conversational turns. mountains. We randomly arranged the order of the
In this paper, we analyze gazes during silence in both conversation topics to counterbalance any order effect. We
second-language and native-language conversations. Silence also randomly arranged the order of the languages used in
not only signals difficulty in speech production and the conversations. Each group had six-minute conversations
communication management but also reflects affection, on the free-flowing and goal-oriented topics in both
judgments, affirmation, negation, thought process, and so on Japanese and English. The participants filled out
(Bruneau 1973; Johannesen 1974; Jensen 1973). Gazes questionnaires after each of their four conversations. We
might help speech-turn organization by signaling the next analyzed the data from the free-flowing and goal-oriented
speaker during silence. Although gazes during silence may conversations in Japanese and English.
have as much importance as, or possibly more importance From the fourth group on, the participants were asked to
than, those during utterances, there have been few fill out the questionnaire after each session. Consequently,
quantitative studies of them. The analysis of gazes during we analyzed the submitted questionnaires for seven of the
silence is expected to make a major contribution toward ten groups. The questionnaire required participants to
supporting interaction among participants with different express their interactional attitudes in each conversation,
levels of linguistic proficiency. and it consisted of 29 items, each of which was ranked on a
Our analysis of total gaze duration showed a significant Likert scale from 1 (negative to the question) to 7 (positive
difference between a native-language and a second- to the question). Each item’s question was categorized into
language conversation: Gazes during silence were longer in such communicational features as participant-gazing
the second-language conversation. The correlation analyses activities, feelings toward other participants, interest in the
for gazes during silence and the values from a conversation topic, conversational skills in English, and
questionnaire’s responses showed unique characteristics of evaluation of the conversation content.
free conversation in a second language: Gazes during The utterances were transcribed, and annotators
silence are associated with a negative impression toward the manually annotated the time spans for the utterances and
partners. These results suggest that gazes during silence in gazes at other participants to integrate the utterance and eye
second-language conversations have different functions gaze data. Utterances were divided by pauses of more than
from those in native-language conversations. 500 msec, and intervals where no utterance took place were
regarded as silence. Since we failed to record the eye gaze
DATA COLLECTION data of two participants due to equipment trouble, they were
We collected data from conversations in a mother tongue excluded from the analyses. We used the EUDICO
and those in a second language made by the same Linguistic Annotator (ELAN) developed by the Max Planck
interlocutors (for details, refer to Umata et al. 2013). Institute as an annotation tool.
Thirty university students (18 females and 12 males)
between the ages of 18 and 24 years were divided into ten ANALYSES
conversational groups of three strangers. All were native
Japanese speakers whose second language was English. We Analysis I: Total Duration of Silence
measured their English communication levels based on the We expected that the total duration of silence would be
Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). longer in the second-language conversations than in the
Participants were ranked within the group into three degrees native-language conversations, due to the higher possibility
of linguistic proficiency according to their TOEIC scores. of communicative problems in turn management, speech
Thus each participant had two partners of different linguistic production, and mutual understanding in a second-language
proficiency, and we defined the participant with higher conversation. We also expected that differences in topic
proficiency between the two as the “higher-ranked” and the would affect the duration of silence: Goal-oriented
one with lower proficiency as the “lower-ranked” partner. conversations would show a longer duration of silence
The three participants sat 1.5 m apart in a triangular because participants must organize their utterances to match
formation around a table. Each participant sat in the same the needs of their task. We conducted an ANOVA for the
194
total duration of silence within groups, with language Condition M SD N
difference and topic difference being within-subject factors. Free-flowing (JPN) to 30.87 11.76 30
The results showed a main effect of language difference (F(1, higher-ranked
9) = 59.5, p < .001) and a main effect of topic difference Free-flowing (JPN) to 30.60 11.14 30
(F(1.9) = 25.9. p < .01), and no interactions were observed. lower-ranked
As expected, the total duration of silence was significantly Goal-oriented (JPN) to 30.53 16.61 30
longer in the second-language conversations and the goal- higher-ranked
oriented conversations (Table 1). Goal-oriented (JPN) to 28.41 12.73 30
Table 1: Duration of silence (sec.) lower-ranked
Condition Free-flowing (ENG) to 33.76 10.50 30
M SD N higher-ranked
Free-flowing (JAP) 21.70 6.52 10 Free-flowing (ENG) to 31.93 11.52 30
Goal-oriented (JAP) 31.66 8.05 10 lower-ranked
Free-flowing (ENG) 39.62 8.20 10 Goal-oriented (ENG) to 32.27 15.93 30
Goal-oriented (ENG) 48.57 10.38 10 higher-ranked
Goal-oriented (ENG) to 31.12 12.18 30
lower-ranked
Analysis II: Gaze during Silence The average duration of gaze during silence was
A previous study found that the duration of the listeners’ significantly longer in the second-language conversations as
gazes during their partners’ speech was significantly longer expected, but the topic difference did not affect the gaze
in second-language conversations than in native-language duration during silence (Table 2).
ones (Yamamoto et al. 2013). We also expected that the
average duration of gazes during silence would be longer in Analysis III: Correlation Analyses of Gaze
the second-language conversations due to the need for during Silence
visual information (i.e. monitoring partners’ facial
The duration of gaze during silence was significantly
expression, signaling with gaze who is to speak, etc.) in a
longer in the second-language conversations than in the
second-language conversation and, moreover, the
native-language conversations. This result suggests that
assumption that linguistic proficiency in the second
there may be some functional difference in gaze during
language would affect the amount of gaze during silence in
silence between these two kinds of conversations. We
the second-language conversations.
conducted Spearman’s correlation analysis on gaze during
First, the average being gazed at ratio during silence is
silence, gaze during speech, and questionnaire items. The
defined as
items that exhibited significant correlation are shown with
correlation values (Spearman’s ρ) in the following tables,
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
! where a single asterisk * denotes p < .05, a double asterisk
!!! 𝐷𝑂𝑆(𝑖)
= ! ×100(%) ** denotes p < .01, a sharp # denotes p < .1, and n.s. denotes
!!! 𝑆(𝑖) no significant correlation.
Here, S(i) is the duration of the i-th silence, and DOS(i) is Correlations among Gazes during Silence
the duration when other participants are looking at the
There were positive significant or marginally significant
participant in the i-th silence.
correlations between the duration of being gazed at by the
The average gazing at ratio during silence is defined as
higher-ranked partner and that by the lower-ranked partner,
in both the native-language and second-language
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
! conversations in free-flowing conversation and in second-
!!! 𝐷𝑆𝑂(𝑖) language conversation in goal-oriented conversation.
= ! ×100 %
!!! 𝑆(𝑖) Free-flow ing Conv ersation
Native-language conversation:
Here, DSO(i) is the duration when the participant is Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during silence ρ
looking at other participants in the i-th silence.
<-> Being Gazed at by lower-ranked partner during
We categorized each participant’s gaze during silence .650**
silence
into two categories: 1) gaze toward the higher-ranked of the
two partners and 2) gaze toward the lower-ranked partner.
We conducted an ANOVA for gaze during silence, with Second-language conversation:
language difference, topic difference, and gaze category Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during silence ρ
(toward higher/lower partner) as the within-subject factors. <-> Being Gazed at by lower-ranked partner during
.630**
The results revealed a significant main effect of language silence
(F(1, 29) = 5.175, p < .05), but no other main effect or
interaction was observed. Goal-oriented Conv ersation
Table 2: Average duration of gaze during silence
195
Second-language conversation: <-> Gazing at higher-ranked partner while
.605**
Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during silence ρ speaking
<-> Being Gazed at by lower-ranked partner during
.747** Second-language conversation:
silence
Gazing at lower-ranked partner during silence ρ
<-> Gazing at lower-ranked partner while
There was an interesting negative correlation between the .725**
speaking
durations of gazing at the higher-ranked partner and being
gazed at by the higher-ranked partner only in the second- Goal-oriented Conversation
language free-flowing conversations, but no such correlation Native-language conversation:
was found in the other direction (i.e. gazing at the lower- Gazing at higher-ranked partner during silence ρ
ranked partner and being gazed at by the lower-ranked <-> Gazing at higher-ranked partner while
partner). .792**
speaking
Free-flow ing Conv ersation
Second-language conversation: Native-language conversation:
Gazing at higher-ranked partner during silence ρ Gazing at lower-ranked partner during silence ρ
<-> Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during <-> Gazing at lower-ranked partner while
-.539** .782**
silence speaking
Correlations between Gaze during Speech Second-language conversation:
and Gaze during Silence Gazing at higher-ranked partner during silence ρ
<-> Gazing at higher-ranked partner while
We conducted correlation analyses for the duration of .695**
speaking
gazes during utterances and those during silence. First, the
average being gazed at ratio while speaking is defined as Second-language conversation:
Gazing at lower-ranked partner during silence ρ
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔
! <-> Gazing at lower-ranked partner while
!!! 𝐷𝑃𝑂𝑆(𝑖) speaking
.697**
= ! ×100(%)
!!! 𝐷(𝑖)
Correlations between Gaze during Silence
Here, D(i) is the duration of the i-th utterance, and and Values from Questionnaire
DPOS(i) is the duration when other participants are looking
at the speaker in the i-th utterance. Second-language free-flowing conversations showed
The average gazing at ratio while speaking is defined as unique characteristics for the correlations between gaze
during silence and values from the questionnaire responses.
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 The duration of being gazed at by the partners and the
!
!!! 𝐷𝑆𝑂𝑃(𝑖)
self-evaluation of content understanding showed interesting
= ! ×100 % correlation in the second-language free-flowing
!!! 𝐷(𝑖)
conversations but not in the native-language ones nor in the
Here, DSOP(i) is the duration when the speaker is looking goal-oriented conversations.
at other participants in the i-th utterance. Free-flow ing Conv ersation
The duration of gaze during silence showed correlations Second-language conversation:
with the duration of gaze during speech for both gazing Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during
ρ
categories (toward higher-ranked/lower-ranked) in both silence
language conditions. <-> Do you think you could understand his/her
-.407*
Free-flowing Conversation discourse?
Native-language conversation:
Gazing at higher-ranked partner during silence ρ Second-language conversation:
<-> Gazing at higher-ranked partner while Being Gazed at by lower-ranked partner during silence ρ
.669**
speaking <-> Do you think you could understand his/her
-.474*
discourse?
Native-language conversation:
Gazing at lower-ranked partner during silence ρ
The values for evaluating the mental concentration of the
<-> Gazing at lower-ranked partner while
.556** higher-ranked partner also showed a negative correlation
speaking
with being gazed at during silence by the higher-ranked
Second-language conversation: partner in the second-language free-flowing conversations,
Gazing at higher-ranked partner during silence ρ
196
but this was not the case for these values of the lower- one of the causes of this phenomenon. Although these
ranked partner or in the native-language conversations. causes are not yet clear, the results seem to indicate a
Free-flow ing Conv ersation functional difference between gazes in native-language
Second-language conversation: conversations and those in second-language conversations.
Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during Content analyses of the utterances are now in progress to
ρ clarify the causes.
silence
<-> Do you think your partner concentrated when
Correlation analyses for gazes during silence and the
-.465* values from the questionnaire responses also showed
he/she spoke?
interesting results. The durations of being gazed at by the
higher and lower partners during silence and the values of
The duration of being gazed at by the higher-ranked
content understanding by self-evaluation showed significant
partner showed a negative correlation with the self-
negative correlations only in the second-language free-
evaluation of interest only in the second-language free-
flowing conversations. Such a result suggests that the
flowing conversation.
participants who were gazed at more by their partners felt
Free-flowing Conversation
that they could not understand the partners’ discourse. This
Second-language conversation:
may reflect the monitoring function of the gaze: the
Being Gazed at by higher-ranked partner during
ρ participants gazed at their partners to check their degree of
silence understanding in the second-language conversations. The
<-> Did you become interested in the discourse of your reason why this happens only in free-flowing conversations
-.424* is not clear either, but one possibility is that the need to
partner?
check the partners’ understanding is stronger in free-flowing
Gaze during silence and feelings toward partners also conversations because the contents of the next utterance are
showed interesting correlations only in the second-language less predictable, whereas the contents are expected to follow
free-flowing conversations. Gaze from the lower-ranked along a sequence of task requirements in goal-oriented
partner and favorable impression toward this partner showed conversations. We are now conducting analyses of the
a negative correlation. function of each utterance.
Free-flowing Conversation Duration of being gazed at by the higher-ranked partner
Second-language conversation: showed significant negative correlations with the results of
Being Gazed at by lower-ranked partner during silence ρ questionnaire items evaluating favorable impression,
interest in the partner’s discourse, and the partner’s
<-> Did you like your partner? -.571** concentration only in the second-language free-flowing
conversations. These results suggest that the gazes from the
higher-ranked partner during silence are associated with
DISCUSSION negative evaluations toward the partner in the second-
language free-flowing conversations but not in the native-
We confirmed that the total duration of silence is longer in
language conversations or in the second-language goal-
second-language conversations than in native-language
oriented conversations. One possible cause of this may be
conversations. This result apparently reflects the
the monitoring function of gaze in the second-language
communication difficulties in second-language
conversations: People who had their understanding checked
conversations. Differences in topic also affect the duration
closely by partners might not have had a good impression
of silence, suggesting that managing utterance production
toward them.
while attempting to contribute to a specific task makes the
The analyses in this paper were conducted for each
communication more difficult.
participant, and no intra-group structure was observed due
Then we compared the durations of gaze during silence in to the insufficient amount of data. For the same reason, the
the native-language and in the second-language correlation analyses of gazes were done for each question
conversations. An ANOVA showed a significant main item rather than subscales. We have recorded 10 additional
effect of language difference, suggesting that gaze during groups and are now processing the data. We are planning to
silence might play different roles in native-language and conduct multilevel analyses that also consider intra-group
second-language conversations. factors (see e.g. Kenny, Mannetti, Pierro, Stefano, & Kashy
The correlation analyses showed interesting 2002) in future studies.
characteristics of second-language free-flowing
conversations. There was a negative correlation between the CONCLUSION
duration of gazing at the higher-ranked partner and being We examined gaze during silence in native-language and
gazed at by the higher-ranked partner only in the second- second-language conversations. The duration of such gaze
language free-flowing conversations. The results from showed a significant difference between the two language
questionnaire analyses discussed below suggest that the conditions as we expected, suggesting that there are
gazes from the higher-ranked partner are associated with functional differences between gazes during silence in a
negative evaluations toward the partner, and this might be
197
second-language conversation and those in a native- Jensen, J. V. 1973. Communicative functions of silence,
language conversation. ETC 30, Vol. 1, pp. 249-257.
Correlation analyses showed interesting characteristics of Johannesen, R. 1974. The functions of silence: A plea for
second-language free-flowing conversations. Gazes from communication research. W estern Speech, Vol. 38, pp. 25-
the partner with higher linguistic proficiency are associated 35.
with negative evaluations toward that partner. The results Jokinen, K., Furukawa, H., Nishida, M., and Yamamoto, S.
suggest that the monitoring function of gazes during silence 2013. Gaze and turn-taking behavior in casual
might affect the partner’s emotional state in second- conversational interactions. ACM Transactions on
language free-flowing conversations. Content analyses are Interactive Intelligence Systems, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 12:1–30.
now being conducted to confirm this possibility. Kabashima, K., Nishida, M., Jokinen, K., and Yamamoto, S.
2012. Multimodal corpus of conversations in mother tongue
Acknowledgments and second language by same interlocutors. In Proceedings
This research was supported in part by a grant from the of 4th W orkshop on Eye Gaze in Intelligent Human
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No. Machine Interaction.
22520598, 15K00293). The authors also thank Professor Kendon, A. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in
Kristiina Jokinen of the University of Helsinki and social interaction, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 26, pp. 22–63.
Professor Mariko Sugawara of Doshisha University for their Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., and Kashy,
suggestions and discussions. We also deeply appreciate the D. A. 2002. The statistical analysis of data from small
reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments. groups, Journal of personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
83, 126-137.
Kleinke, C. L. 1986. Gaze and eye contact: a research
References
review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 100, pp. 78–100.
Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., and Cook, M. 1968. The effects of Mehrabian, A. and Wiener, M. 1967. Decoding of
visibility on interaction in dyad. Human relations, Vol. 21, inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and
pp. 3-17. Social Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 109–114.
Beattie, G. W. 1978. Floor apportionment and gaze in Mehrabian, A. and Ferris, S. R. 1967. Inference of attitudes
conversational dyads. British Journal of Social and Clinical from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 7-16. Consulting Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 248–252.
Beattie, G. W. 1980. The role of language production TOEIC (2012). http://www.ets.org/toeic
process in the organization of behavior in face-to-face Umata, I., Yamamoto, S., Ijuin, K., and Nishida, M. 2013.
interaction. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production Effects of language proficiency on eye-gaze in second
(Vol. 1), pp. 69–107, London: Academic Press. language conversations: toward supporting second language
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge collaboration. In Proceedings of the International
University Press. Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI 2013), pp.
Beyene, T., Pamela, J., Hinds, P. J., and Crampton, C. D. 413–419, Sydney, Australia.
2009. Walking through jelly: language proficiency, Veinott, E., Olson, J., Olson, G., and Fu, X. 1999. Video
emotions, and disrupted collaboration in global work. helps remote work: speakers who need to negotiate common
Harvard Business School W orking Paper 09-138. ground benefit from seeing each other, In Proceedings of the
Bruneau, T. J. 1973. Communicative Silence: Forms and Conference on Computer Human Interaction (CHI'99), pp.
Functions. The Journal of Communication, Vol. 23, pp. 17- 302-309.
46. Yamamoto, S., Taguchi, K., Umata, I, Kabashima, K., and
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. A. 1991. Grounding in Nishida, M. 2013. Differences in interactional attitudes in
communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, native and second language conversations: quantitative
American Psychological Association, pp. 222-233. analyses of multimodal three-party corpus. In Proceedings
Boyle, E., Anderson, A., and Newlands, A. 1994. The effect of the 35th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,
of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative pp. 3823-3828.
problem solving task. Language and Speech Journal, pp. 1– Yamasaki, S., Furukawa, H., Nishida, M., Jokinen, K., and
20. Yamamoto, S. 2012. Multimodal corpus of multi-party
Clark, H. H. and Krych, M. A. 2004. Speaking while conversations in second language. In Proceedings of the 8th
monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of International Conference on Language Resources and
Memory and Language, p. 62-81. Evaluation (LREC2012) (Istanbul, Turkey).
ELAN. http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan World Trade Organization 2008. World Trade Report 2008:
Falkenheim, J. and Kannankutty, N. 2012. International Trade in a Globalizing World.
collaborations of scientists and engineers in the United World Trade Organization 2013. World Trade Report 2013:
States. InfoBrief, August 2012, NSF 12-323. Factors shaping the future of world trade.
Hosoda, Y. 2006. Repair and relevance of differential
language expertise, A pplied Linguistics, Vol. 27, pp. 25-20.
198