Wait Signals Predict Sarcasm in Online Debates

We examined the predictive value of wait signals for sarcasm in online debate forums.  In a corpus comparison we examined the word frequency of um and uh across six corpora.  In general, there were far more fillers in spoken corpora than written corpora.  We also found that the proportion of ums to uhs varied by corpus type.  In Experiment 1 we tested whether the inclusion of um or uh at the beginning of online debate forum posts led to higher probability of those posts being classified as sarcastic by Amazon Mechanical Turk workers.  We found that posts beginning with these items were twice as likely to be labeled sarcastic. In Experiment 2 we tested fillers and ellipses in the middle of posts.  We found that posts including these items were approximately three to five times more likely to be labeled sarcastic. We compared results to other signals like the word obviously and quotation marks.  Signals that indicate delay in written communication cue readers to non-literal meaning

Addressee backchannels steer narrative development

Brief addressee responses such as uh huh, oh, and wow, which are called backchannels, are typically considered reactive phenomena – devices that respond in various ways to what was just said. Addressees, in providing backchannels, actively shape story telling in spontaneous dialogue ( Bavelas et al., 2000). We contrasted generic backchannels with context-sensitive specific backchannels within a collection of face-to-face dialogues and in a narrative completion experiment. The analysis demonstrates that storytellers respond in distinct patterns to the two categories of backchannels. After generic backchannels, they provide discourse-new events. After specific backchannels, they provide elaborative information on previously presented events. Results from an experiment support this analysis, indicating that people reading transcripts of the conversation predict a similar pattern of story continuation following generic versus specific backchannels. We conclude that addressee responses are not only reactive, but proactive and collaborative in the shaping of narrative

Why so Few, Still? Challenges to Attracting, Advancing, and Keeping Women Faculty of Color in Academia

From its earliest beginnings, the university was not designed for women, and certainly not for women of color. Women of color in the United States are disproportionately underrepresented in academia and are conspicuous by their absence across disciplines at senior ranks, particularly at research-intensive universities. This absence has an epistemic impact and affects future generations of scholars who do not see themselves represented in the academy. What are the barriers to attracting, advancing, and retaining women faculty of color in academia? To address this question we review empirical studies that document disparities in the assessment of research, teaching, and service in academia that have distinct implications for the hiring, promotion, and professional visibility of women of color. We argue that meaningful change in the representation, equity, and prestige of women faculty of color will require validating their experiences, supporting and valuing their research, creating opportunities for their professional recognition and advancement, and implementing corrective action for unjust assessment practices

Addressee Backchannels Can Bias Third-Party Memory and Judgment

Information about audiences influence how speakers produce messages, biasing speakers’ own later recall (Higgins & Rholes, 1978), contingent on the creation of a shared reality between interlocutors (Echterhoff, Higgins, & Rholes, 2005). We tested for a similar effect within third party dialogue comprehension, in which overheard addressees displayed evaluative backchannel responses. Participants observed an interaction containing valenceambiguous personal information, and were later asked to recall the information and make related judgments. Addressees either responded positively or negatively to the speaker’s description. Across three experiments, we found that addressee responses biased recall when the responses were cues to a shared perspective, either due to the collaborative construction of the talk or prior shared knowledge between speaker and addressee. Addressee responses as cues to the addressee’s stance alone did not bias overhearer recall. These findings support the argument that perception of a shared reality is a central component of dialogue comprehension

Addressee backchannels steer narrative development

Brief addressee responses such as uh huh, oh, and wow, which are called backchannels, are typically considered reactive phenomena – devices that respond in various ways to what was just said. Addressees, in providing backchannels, actively shape story telling in spontaneous dialogue ( Bavelas et al., 2000). We contrasted generic backchannels with context-sensitive specific backchannels within a collection of face-to-face dialogues and in a narrative completion experiment. The analysis demonstrates that storytellers respond in distinct patterns to the two categories of backchannels. After generic backchannels, they provide discourse-new events. After specific backchannels, they provide elaborative information on previously presented events. Results from an experiment support this analysis, indicating that people reading transcripts of the conversation predict a similar pattern of story continuation following generic versus specific backchannels. We conclude that addressee responses are not only reactive, but proactive and collaborative in the shaping of narrative