This paper introduces a conversational speech corpus collected during the completion of a map-matching task that is available for research purposes via the Montclair State University Digital Commons Data Repository. The Montclair Map Task is a new, role-neutral conversational task that involves paired iconic maps with labeled landmarks and a path drawn from a start point, around various landmarks, to a finish mark. One advantage of this task-oriented corpus is the ability to derive independent objective measures of task performance for both members of a conversational pair that can be related to aspects of communicative style. A total of 96 native English speakers completed the task in 16 same-sex female, 16 same-sex male, and 16 mixed-sex pairings. Conversations averaged 32 minutes in duration, yielding approximately 217,000 words. The transcription protocol delineates events such as speaking turns, inter-turn intervals, landmark phrases, fillers, pauses, overlaps, and backchannels, making this corpus a useful tool for investigating dynamics of conversational interaction. Analyses of communication efficacy and efficiency reveal that male pairs of talkers were less efficient than female and mixed-sex pairs with respect to partner map-matching task performance.
AndersonA. H.BaderM.BardE. G.BoyleE.DohertyG.GarrodS.…WeinertR. (1991). The H.C.R.C. Map Task Corpus. Language & Speech, 34, 351–366. Retrieved from https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC93S12
2.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory & Language, 68, 255–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
5.
BatesD. M.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
6.
BatesD. M.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.DaiB. (2016). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 classes. R package version 1.1–12. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4//index.html
7.
BilousF. R.KraussR. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviours of same-and mixed-gender dyads. Language and Communication, 8, 183–194.
8.
BrennanS. E.ClarkH. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.
9.
BrennanS. E.GalatiA.KuhlenA. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 53 (pp. 301–344). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/S0079–7421(10)53008–1
10.
BrennanS. E.SchuhmannK. S.BatresK. M. (2013). Entrainment on the move and in the lab: The walking around corpus. In KnauffM.PauenM.SebanzN.WachsmuthI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1934–1939). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
11.
CanavanA.GraffD.ZipperlenG. (1997). CALLHOME American English Speech LDC97S42. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Retrieved from https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/ldc97s42
12.
CashdanE. (1998). Smiles, speech, and body posture: How women and men display sociometric status and power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 209–228.
13.
CieriC.MillerD.WalkerK. (2004). The Fisher Corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.61.8327
14.
ClarkH. H.Wilkes-GibbsD. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.
15.
FisherW.DoddingtonG.Goudie-MarshallK. (1986). The DARPA speech recognition research database: Specifications and status. Proceedings of the DARPA Workshop on Speech Recognition. Palo Alto, CA. pp. 93–99.
16.
GodfreyJ.HollimanE. (1993). Switchboard-1 Release 2 LDC97S62 Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Retrieved from https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/ldc97s62
17.
KraussR. M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 81–98.
18.
KraussR. M.BrickerP. D. (1967). Effects of transmission delay and access delay on the efficiency of verbal communication. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 286–292.
19.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2016). Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0–33.
20.
LabovW.AshS.BobergC. (2006). Atlas of North American English: phonetics, Phonology, and sound change. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
21.
LabovW.RosenfelderI.FruehwaldJ. (2013). One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis. Language, 89, 30–65. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0015
22.
LeaperC.AyresM. M. (2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363. DOI: 10.1177/1088868307302221
23.
McMillanJ. R.CliftonA. K.McGrathD.GaleW. S. (1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.
24.
MulacA. (1989). Men’s and women’s talk in same-gender and mixed-gender dyads: Power or polemic?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 249–270.
25.
PardoJ. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2382–2393. DOI: 10.1121/1.2178720
26.
PardoJ. S. (2017). Parity and disparity in conversational interaction. In FernándezE.CairnsH. S. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 131–152). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
27.
PardoJ. S.Cajori JayI.HoshinoR.HasbunS. M.Sowemimo-CokerC.KraussR. M. (2013). The influence of role-switching on phonetic convergence in conversation. Discourse Processes, 50, 276–300. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.778168
28.
PardoJ. S.Cajori JayI.KraussR. M. (2010). Conversational role influences speech imitation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2254–2264. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.8.2254
29.
PardoJ. S.UrmancheA.GashH.WienerJ.MasonN.WilmanS.…DeckerA. (2018). The Montclair Map Task corpus of conversations in English. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/mmt_corpus
30.
PardoJ. S.UrmancheA.WilmanS.WienerJ.MasonN.FrancisK.WardM. (submitted). A comparison of phonetic convergence in conversational interaction and speech shadowing. Journal of Phonetics.
31.
PittM.JohnsonK.HumeE.KieslingS.RaymondW. (2005). The Buckeye corpus of conversational speech: Labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability. Speech Communication, 45, 89–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2004.09.001. Retrieved from http://buckeyecorpus.osu.edu
32.
QuenéH.van den BerghH. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory & Language, 59, 413–425.
33.
R Development Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.3.2. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
34.
SacksH.SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
35.
SchoberM. F.BrennanS. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In GraesserA. C.GernsbacherM.GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
SchoberM. F.ClarkH. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.
37.
Simkins-BullockJ. A.WildmanB. G. (1991). An investigation into the relationships between gender and language. Sex Roles, 24, 149–160.
38.
Van EngenK. J.Baese-BerkM.BakerR. E.ChoiA.KimM.BradlowA. R. (2010). The Wildcat Corpus of native- and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 53, 510–540. Retrieved from http://groups.linguistics.northwestern.edu/speech_comm_group/wildcat/
39.
Wilkes-GibbsD.ClarkH. H. (1992). Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 183–194.
40.
WoodM. (1966). The influence of sex and knowledge of communication effectiveness on spontaneous speech. Word, 22, 112–137.
