================================================================== The gateway between this list and the sci.stat.edu newsgroup will be disabled on June 9. This list will be discontinued on June 21. Subscribe to the new list EDSTAT-L at Penn State using the web interface at http://lists.psu.edu/archives/edstat-l.html. ================================================================== .
> > > > No pauses were avoided by having participants repeat every time they > > produced a sentence with some sort of disfluency. > I trust you kept track of the number of such repetitions. I'm > not sure what "sense" it makes to compare duration of utterances > that were repeated several times with utterances that were > produced only once. Repetition must have a marked effect on > duration, and could easily be confounded with your factors (e.g., > complex utterances being repeated more often). You're right, there is a problem here. At the very best the repetition effect causes noise in the data, but there might be some unfortunate confounds. I chose to have subjects repeat sentences out of caution. The non-natives were more likely to hesitate in one way or the other (insert filled or unfilled pauses) than the natives. Since the hypothesis was that non-natives would be slower than natives, giving the non-natives a 2nd chance to produce a fluent sentence would work against my hypothesis. But I had admittedly not considered the problem in terms of coplexity. Thank you very much for bringing that up. Repeating probably works against my hypothesis again here, so I err on the side of caution. But your comment made it clear to me that I have to somehow find out what repetition does for sentence duration. Thanks, Anders
