Pragmatic cues to deception survive translation

Esperanza Ramos Badaya, Hannah Rohde, Martin Corley

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstractpeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Listeners commonly associate disfluencies such as filled pauses with deception (e.g., Arciuliet al., 2010; Loy et al., 2017, 2018). As pervasive as this bias is, listeners appear to consider to some extent alternative reasons for the speaker to be disfluent: Eye-tracking data shows a delay in the emergence of this bias when such reasons are given (e.g., a speaker being distracted, King et al., 2018) - what might be taken as evidence of speaker modelling (Barr & Seyfeddinipur, 2010). However, this integration of who speaks with how they sound may be challenging under cognitively costly conditions, such as second language (L2) processing (Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005). Here, we explore whether and how L2 listeners of a language integrate different cues to interpret filled pauses pragmatically. To do so, we extended Loy et al.’s (2017) eye-tracking treasure-hunt task to a sample of L2 English participants (different L1s, residing in the UK, average LoR = 1.3 years). In the original study, L1 English participants heard a potentially deceitful English-speaking speaker refer either fluently or disfluently to a treasure hidden behind one of two items depicted on a screen (a referent and a distractor) and they had to click on the item they thought hid the treasure. In the present study, we additionally manipulated the speaker’s linguistic background: Half of our participants heard an L1 British English speaker, and the other half heard an L2 English speaker (L1: Spanish).
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2022
EventAmLaP 2022 - University of York, York, United Kingdom
Duration: 7 Sept 20229 Sept 2022
https://amlap2022.york.ac.uk/programme

Conference

ConferenceAmLaP 2022
Country/TerritoryUnited Kingdom
CityYork
Period7/09/229/09/22
Internet address

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pragmatic cues to deception survive translation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this