J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127 DOI 10.

1007/s10936-008-9088-9

Gender Differences in Speech Temporal Patterns Detected Using Lagged Co-occurrence Text-Analysis of Personal Narratives
Shuki J. Cohen

Published online: 29 November 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract This paper describes a novel methodology for the detection of speech patterns. Lagged co-occurrence analysis (LCA) utilizes the likelihood that a target word will be uttered in a certain position after a trigger word. Using this methodology, it is possible to uncover a statistically significant repetitive temporal patterns of word use, compared to a random choice of words. To demonstrate this new tool on autobiographical narratives, 200 subjects related each a 5-min story, and these stories were transcribed and subjected to LCA, using software written by the author. This study focuses on establishing the usefulness of LCA in psychological research by examining its associations with gender. The application of LCA to the corpus of personal narratives revealed significant differences in the temporal patterns of using the word I between male and female speakers. This nding is particularly demonstrative of the potential for studying speech temporal patterns using LCA, as men and women tend to utter the pronoun I in comparable frequencies. Specifically, LCA of the personal narratives showed that, on average, men tended to have shorter interval between their use of the pronoun, while women speak longer between two subsequent utterances of the pronoun. The results of this study are discussed in light of psycholinguistic factors governing male and female speech communities. Keywords Text-analysis Speech patterns Gender differences Auto-correlation

S. J. Cohen (B ) Psychology Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 445 W 59th St rm# 2402, New York, NY 10019, USA e-mail: shcohen@jjay.cuny.edu S. J. Cohen Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park St. Suite #B-38, New Haven, CT 06519, USA

123

112

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

Introduction Gender differences have long been the focus of extensive psychological as well as linguistic research. Differences in behavior, attitudes, symptoms and other psychological and sociological characteristics have been extensively documented and debated (for reviews see Kessler et al. 1994; Brannon 2002). Considering language as one such behavior, gender differences in naturally-occurring speech have long been discussed in the linguistic research literature (for reviews see Haas 1979; Mulac and Lundell 1986; Lakoff 1990; Palomares 2004). Gender differences in language use and comprehension have even become a popular topic of discussion in the non-professional media as well (Tannen 1991, Tannen 1994a,b; Pease and Pease 2001). Empirical research examining the differences in language use across the gender line may mostly fall into two major categories: studies that focus on form, style and grammar, and those focusing on content and lexical choice. The latter studies usually involve content or text analysis, whether computerized or manualized. Research on the different speech style characteristic of women has found differences in the way in which women express authority (e.g. Levenston 1969; Tannen 1994a,b; Mott and Petrie 1995), uncertainty (e.g. Lakoff 1975, 1977; McMillan et al. 1977; Mulac et al. 1988), politeness (e.g. Brown and Levinson 1987; Holmes 1990) and disagreements (e.g. Carli 1990; McLachlan 1991), as well as other complex social speech acts. Content analysis studies, on the other hand, rely on systematic categorization of content words uttered by the speaker. This is usually achieved either by using a computer software (e.g. Stone et al. 1966), or trained raters (e.g. Gottschalk 1969). Only a few studies have quantitatively examined gender differences through the content analysis of speech (e.g. Gleser et al. 1959; Mulac and Lundell 1986; Ries 1999). These studies have reported, for example, that women tend to use more emotion words (e.g. Mulac et al. 1990; Anderson and Leaper 1998), adverbs (Mondorf 2002; for the particular case of intensive adverbs see e.g. McMillan et al. 1977; Mulac and Lundell 1986); hedges and questions (Crosby and Nyquist 1977; Fishman 1990; Holmes 1990; Macaulay 2001), including tag questions (for review see Haas 1979; Thorne et al. 1983; Cameron et al. 1989), among other ndings. Research concerning both the form and the content of gendered speech has used the term genderlect to reect the preferential use of sundry linguistic features by one gender over the other (Lakoff 1975; Mulac et al. 2001). However, most studies of the genderlect have not focused on individual differences in lexical choice as reecting an enduring predisposition such as personality or identity, but rather as stemming from external and social determinants such as socio-economic status (Labov 1966, 1990), gender composition of the dyads (e.g. Mulac et al. 1988; Bilous and Krauss 1988), level of familiarity of informants (McLachlan 1991; Fitzpatrick et al. 1995), and status differential between the speakers (e.g. Mott and Petrie 1995)to name a few. Thus, psycholinguistic research to date has mainly studied gendered speech as it utilizes different syntactic structures, different lexical choices or different pragmatic tools within a conversational and dyadic study setting. Fewer studies have examined individual differences in the patterns of uninterrupted speech, i.e. speech outside the context of conversation. Studies that examined individual differences in monologs or personal narratives mostly related them to personality or psychopathology, but rarely focused on gender differences in autobiographical narratives (e.g. Cope 1969; Gumperz 1976; Darby 1981; Tannen 1984; Chaika 1990; Jeanneau and Armelius 1993; Rieber and Vetter 1994; Pennebaker and King 1999; Covington et al. 2005).

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

113

Most of this research effort can be broadly categorized to those studies that found individual difference in global indices of speech such as cohesion, coherence, clarity and related constructs (e.g. Rutter 1985; Morice and McNicol 1986; Ragin and Oltmanns 1986; King et al. 1990), those that attempted to nd a pattern of word preference using either factor analysis or discriminant functions (e.g. Andreasen and Pfohl 1976; Fraser et al. 1986; Oxman et al. 1988; Schnurr et al. 1992; Wojtkowski 1993; Taylor et al. 1994; Lott et al. 2002), and those that sought temporal speech patterns of pauses and hesitations (e.g. Siegman and Feldstein 1979, 1987; Welkowitz et al. 1990a; Jaffe et al. 2001). In fact, Lagged-Correlation Analysis, as described in this paper, treats the occurrence of words or other lexical items in a way that is largely mathematically equivalent to ways in which the temporal sequence of pauses was treated (e.g. Lounsbury 1954; Schwartz and Jaffe 1968; Jaffe and Feldstein 1970) Attempts to capture the sequential regularity of speech have been carried out within both the computational linguistics and the cognitive psychology elds. The eld of computational linguistics, although largely not focusing on individual differences in the sequential structure of words, has nonetheless developed useful indices to capture, assess and systematically analyze sequential dependence. A variety of statistical measures have been utilized to this aim: cluster analysis, collocation detectors, conditional probabilities, Markov chain estimates, and Mutual Information of word occurrenceto name a few (e.g. Sharkey 1992; Seidenberg 1997; Christiansen and Chater 1999, 2001; Pothos and Juola 2007; Roland et al. 2007). More closely related to this report, several previous studies have attempted to uncover individual organization of cognitive content and link them to individual psychological states. Typically, these attempts looked at sequential dependency between category of words rather than single words, and have rarely tied the uncovered organizational structure to individual differences (for a rare and largely ignored exception see Baldwin 1942). Since Shuells (1969) review of these studies, very few mentions were made to the study of sequential dependency of speech content vis-a-vis individual differences. A set of studies carried out by Tramow et al. (1991, 1997) represent more recent attempts to establish sequential linkage between verbalized cognitive categories. In these studies, consecutive completion of self-identity sentences were evaluated for clustering of personal or collective attributes. This clustering was seen as evidence to the unique cognitive representation of personal and private aspects of the self in the mind of the respondent. Conceptually similar approach was envisioned and reviewed by Cacioppo et al. (1997), whereby a measure of sequential association between thought content categories was proposed, and individual differences in the structure of thought listing categories were hypothesized, albeit not tested. The present study, therefore, attempts to ll a void in the psycholinguistic research to date. Unlike studies that focused on the differences in speech content, the present study is concerned with differences in the temporal speech patterns that distinguish male from female speakers. The premise of this study is that linguistic markers can appear in the same frequency in male and female speech, and yet have different temporal pattern of appearance. This difference in temporal patterns may be uncovered using computerized lagged co-occurrence analysis (LCA), a method that calculates the likelihood that a word will appear in a certain position downstream after an identical word was uttered. Thus, the LCA is a measure of the temporal association between two words as a function of their distance in the stream of verbal production. Lagged co-occurrence analysis is a simple and fairly popular statistical method for detecting temporal patterns. When LCA is used to nd the temporal pattern of a single series it is usually known as auto-correlation histogram (ACH) Analysis. Auto-correlation analysis was used extensively to detect temporal patterning in a wide range of domains, such as neuronal activity, cardiovascular dynamics, seismology and electrical engineering, to name a

123

114

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

few. Apart from its computational simplicity and elegance, Auto Correlation Analysis offers several additional advantages. First, unlike Markov Chain analysis (also used in similar contextssee for example Schwartz and Jaffe 1968), the method is relatively assumption-free, and does not require an a priori assumptions regarding the number of theoretical states that the speaker may exhibit. Second, the theoretical value of the ACH baseline under the assumption of serial independence between words is theoretically calculable. Third, the technique is conceptually compatible with psycholinguistic theories that postulate spearding activation of semantic network as a necessary component in constructing autobiographical narratives (e.g. Anderson 1983; Dell 1986; Dell et al. 1999) Using LCA, it is possible to evaluate separately the frequency and the temporal pattern or word use. For example, LCA may show that females tend to utter a certain token in bursts whereas males utter the same token in a steady rate throughout the narrative, although the overall frequency of this token may be equal in the speech of males and females. Thus, this method has the potential of adding a new dimension of analysis to the body of studies (cited above) that sought and reported only differences in the proportion of lexical items between genders, or across other psychological construct. In this sense, this method attempts to add to our understanding of temporal patterns in gender-bound lexical choice what previous studies have added to our knowledge of psychological constructs, such as psychopathology or gender, beyond lexical choice (e.g. Welkowitz et al. 1990b; Alpert et al. 2000; Jaffe et al. 2001). An extensive literature review has failed to nd any studies concerning gender difference in the temporal organization of lexical choice in personal narratives. Unlike gender difference in the frequency word use (e.g. Lakoff 1977; Mulac and Lundell 1986; Palomares 2004), and speech-silence patterning (e.g. Jaffe and Feldstein 1970; Siegman and Feldstein 1979), no study to date has attempted to characterize the gender difference in the temporal pattern in which specic words are uttered, especially those whose frequency of use if similar across gender. This study, therefore, is arguably the rst one to establish such gender difference in the temporal sequence of individual tokens, especially those that show no base rate gender difference.

Method Speakers Sample Two-hundred undergraduates from a large, urban northeastern university were recruited for the study. The students were all enrolled in an introductory course in psychology and participated in the study for a course credit. The sample included of 155 women and 45 men, with roughly the same ethnic distribution. Sixty-one per cent 61% were Caucasians (61.3% of females), 14% Asians (14.2% of females), 8% of Spanish descent (7.74% of women), 5% African-Americans (5.2% of females), 4.5% Indian (5.2% of females) and 7.5% other or mixed ethnicity (6.4% of females). All subjects were native speakers of North American English and were either born in the US or immigrated to the US before they were 12 years of age. Procedure Each subject was asked to tell in their own words the details of a recent disagreement they had with somebody who is emotionally close to them. The subjects were told in advance that they

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

115

have 5 min to talk and that they should make an effort to speak for the entire time, without the help or the lead of the experimenter. The narratives were recorded and transcribed using a transcription manual popular in the eld of psychological transcriptions (Mergenthaler and Stinson 1992). Each narrative was proofread twice by two different associates, all of whom were native speakers of North American English LCA computation Lagged co-occurrence analysis was performed using software developed by the author. The software converts each narrative into binary series for each target word of interest. For each target word the series assumes the value of 1 in positions in which the any subsequent word matches the target word, or zero if there is no match. In this report, LCA was computed for the rst person pronoun I as the target word. To compute the LCA graph describing the sequential dependence between two identical words (also called auto-correlogram in the statistical or engineering literature), the correlation coefcient between the two identical binary series shifted by a particular lag was computed. Formally, the equation for calculating the ACH of a discrete (i.e. non-continuous) series at lag l is:
n

X i X il
n 2

Xi n

X il

i=l+1

i=l+1

AC H (l) =
n i=l+1

i=l+1 Xi n i=l+1

X il 2 X il
i=l+1

X i2

i=l+1

For a series (i.e. narrative) X containing n tokens. The equation utilizes the form of the correlation coefcient formula that does not require deviation scores. This formula is computationally simpler to program on a computer. Essentially, the correlogram represents the likelihood that the word I will appear in a particular lag after it was rst uttered. In the current study, lags were measured in tokens, and therefore a significant peak when the lag equals 2 signies a statistically significant likelihood that in a certain narrative the word I will be uttered two words downstream after it was rst uttered. Normally, once the shape of the auto-correlogram is determined, the statistical significance of its peaks or troughs is estimated on the premise that the theoretical cross-correlation between two random series (i.e. series in which the words do not co-occur consistently at any lag) is a at horizontal line. In a strict statistical sense, the value of the ACH is 0 for any lag except lag 0, where it is a unity. For ease of computation, the graphs in this report were not normalized, and thus the at horizontal line in high lags (representing approximately statistical independence) is proportional to the respective frequency of the lexical item in question. Both statistical theory and grammatical constraints predict that the farther the two words are apart the lower is their sequential dependence on each other (Miller 1967; Blauberg and Braine 1974; Bock 1986; Rohde 2002; Goldrick 2007). Thus, the auto-correlogram is expected to hover around a at line in its edges, where the lags involved are the highest (see Fig. 1). As mentioned above, only auto-correlation results will be presented in the present study, in which the sequential structure of uttering the rst person pronoun is examined. After computing the auto-correlation for each individual, an average auto-correlogram was obtained for males and females. Any significant difference between the two average

123

116

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

correlograms was taken to signify a different pattern of uttering the words under examination between male and female spontaneous speech.

Results Frequency of First Person Singular Pronoun in the Narrative Corpus Content-analysis of the rst person singular (I) marker in our corpus did not show any statistically significant difference between its use by males and females. The mean proportion of the word I in males narratives was 0.048 (N = 72), and that of women was 0.051 (N = 221). Two-tailed t-test (under the assumption of unequal variance) did not reveal any statistically significant difference between males and females in their proportion of use of I (t = 1.493; p < 0.14; df = 292). LCA Analysis of the First Person Singular Pronoun In contrast to the statistically indistinguishable proportion of I in the narratives of males and females, an examination of the auto-correlogram of the pronoun showed significant deviations from randomness in the occurrence of the pronoun in the narratives. Further, distinct differences were found also in the auto-correlogram shapes of the pronoun between male and female narratives. In the auto-correlogram of female narratives, there is a general and consistent decrease in the likelihood to utter the pronoun I within three words downstream after it was rst uttered. For male narratives, in contrast, the dispreference for uttering an I could be established only in the second position, while the average male narrative points to a consistent increase in the likelihood of uttering another I in the third and fourth position after it was rst uttered. Thus, the auto-correlogram of both males and females narratives shows a trough in lag 1, although this trough was deeper for the females, denoting lower likelihood to utter the word right after it was rst uttered. For males, the auto-correlogram shows a noticeably smaller (albeit significant) trough in lag 1, while in positions 2 and 3 there is some evidence of a peak, signifying an elevated likelihood of saying I 2 or 3 words downstream after it was rst uttered. Figure 1 shows the average auto-correlogram for both males and females. Distribution of the LCA Features in Male and Female Narratives The results discussed so far represented the population average of the correlogram for male and female narratives. However, the mean correlation coefcient may represent spuriously high or low correlations rather than an actual feature of the correlogram. To further investigate the consistency of the central trough in the correlogram, a population distribution of its area was constructed. This was done by subtracting the average correlation coefcients of lags 14 (roughly the area of the trough for most subjects) from the background level of lags 1015 (in which the correlation level is considered incidental as explained above) for each subject. The distribution presented in Fig. 2 shows that most subjects (70%) exhibited a trough in their auto-correlogram, while some (mainly males) exhibited a peak in lags 24, as explained previously.

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

117

Fig. 1 The auto-correlogram of the word I in narratives of males and females. The correlation coefcient is given on the y-axis and the lag in words is given in the x-axis. Female data points are represented by the diamond symbols, while that of males by circles. Lag 0 was eliminated, as it equals 1 by definition and does not confer any statistical information

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

males females

Area of Auto-Correlogram Central Trough (Lag x Corr. Coefficient)

Fig. 2 Distribution of the average decrease in the likelihood of saying I 14 words after it was rst uttered. The y-axis represents the number of subjects, while the x-axis represents the average correlation in the range of 1 to 4 words downstream

A Case Study of a Modal Female Narrative and its Corresponding LCA Correlogram In the following excerpt of a prototypical female narrative, the word I appears in bold and underlined typeface to facilitate the perception of its temporal structure. The auto-correlation of this subject (computed for the entire narrative) is presented in Fig. 3 following the excerpt. Note the complete absence of any subsequent I within two words after an I was rst uttered: I cant just get up and leave, especially after knowing whats required of me, I was trying to explain to her that I cant do that even though I am very popular, people like me at the job, I still have to show a good example as a manager in training, so Im not going (snap) to be able

123

118

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

0
-15 -5 5 15
Fig. 3 The auto-correlogram associated with the female subject whose speech excerpt is presented in the example above. Note the complete lack of any I I, I I structures in lags 1 and 2 of the auto-correlation

to do that. that brought up other issues, Im lying, this that and the other, brought up issues about boyfriends, and I didnt even see why that had anything to do with planning a trip to *Miami_Florida. and I didnt understand why they couldnt just go without me because they can do that. its not like Im never going to see them again. I know theyll come back, I can spend as much time with them when they come back, its not a big deal, and me going to *Miami_Florida is not a priority for me right now. I have bills to pay, I have rent to pay so I just really, you know cant just forget my job for like a week or so all because of spring break, its not really a big deal for me. A Case Study of a Modal Male Narrative and its Corresponding LCA Correlogram Similarly to the previous section, a prototypical male narrative can be demonstrated using the following excerpt: I thought like he was choking me and thats not like, um I didnt think that was fair either. so uh he, I shhooked him and like I pulled real hard and he let go and he was like, he, he, he like stood up and right now like I, I guess I have a pretty bad temper and I, my uh adrenaline was going pretty well now. and we stood like face to face and he was uh oh that was so cheap. and like I ca-, I was like catching my breath rst because uh (sniff) I still had like,still like loss of breath and like, (sniff) so uh, so he said that was cheap and then uh, and then like, and I go, I, I really just, I just like,I didnt say anything and I walked into the room and I was like real mad and so I just sat down and started like typing on my computer The auto-correlogram associated with this subject (computed for the whole narrative, which is about three times longer than the excerpt) is presented Fig. 4 in the next page. Note how autocorrelated is this subjects use of the word Iafter uttering the word, the likelihood of uttering it within 1 or 3 words is greater than chance level. This is due to both false starts (e.g. I, I really just, I just like) as well as grammatical choices (e.g. I guess I have a pretty bad temper).

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

119

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12

lag in tokens
Fig. 4 Auto-correlation of a prototypical male subject. A speech sample of this narrative is given in the previous page. Note the higher variability in the correlation. This is largely a result of a shorter narrative than the female example, which led to higher variability, due to the smaller sample size

Exploring the Gender Difference in Emotional Words Temporal Pattern Using LCA Correlograms Similar to the case of single words, LCA can be used to track the temporal patterns in the utterance of words presumed to belong to the same semantic category. Similarly to pronouns, emotion words have been the focus of numerous genderlect studies (e.g. Mulac and Lundell 1986; Carli 1990; Tannen 1994a; Crawford 1995; Anderson and Leaper 1998; Mulac et al. 2001; Pennebaker et al. 2003; Palomares 2004). LCA analysis of the Corpus-Based Positive Emotion Dictionary (Cohen 2008), showed gender differences in the temporal patterns by which men and women utter emotional words. Figure 5 shows the auto-correlogram of positive emotion words for male and female subjects. As can be seen in the graph, both men and women refrain from saying another positive emotion word once the rst one was uttered. This may well be a result of syntactic constraints common for both men and women. However, men tend to avoid saying emotional words to a larger extent and over a higher number of words downstream. This can be inferred from the deeper and wider trough in the auto-correlogram. Similar to the case of the rst person pronoun discussed above, there was no significant difference in the proportion of positive emotion words in mens and womens narratives. Mens proportion of positive emotion words was 0.016 (N = 75) and that of women was 0.014 (N = 224), and the difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.28; p > 0.2; df = 298; unequal variance assumed).

Discussion This study sought to add the search for temporal patterns of lexical items, uncovered using LCA, to the extant armamentarium of methods of inquiry into gender differences in free

123

120

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

Fig. 5 Auto-correlogram of positive emotion words for male and female narratives. Note how the error bars of men are larger than those of womenthis is due to the fact that there are more women in the sample combined with the fact that the occurrence frequency of positive emotion words in spontaneous narratives is not high

speech. The study found statistically significant, consistent and robust differences in the temporal pattern of both rst person pronoun and emotion words across the gender lines. The most consistent feature in the temporal structure of these lexical items for both men and women was a refractory period, in which there was a sharp decrease in a likelihood of uttering the same word (or a word of a similar semantic category) in close proximity. This decrease had different shape and size for men and women. In the case of the rst person pronoun, men had a shallower dip in the correlogram, while women had a deeper deep. This denotes a stronger tendency of women to avoid saying I within several words downstream after the word I was rst use. Mens avoidance of using Is in close proximity is less pronounced than that of women, and is a slight increase of the likelihood to say I after this brief period of lower probability is overapproximately 23 words downstream from the rst I in the sentence. In the case of positive emotion words, the refractory period, while still apparent, is reversed. Men have a stronger tendency to avoid uttering a positive emotion word after they have already used one earlier in the sentence, while women have less signs of such tendency. The usefulness of LCA is further underscored in the case of both lexical items by considering that the proportions of both personal pronouns and positive emotion words was indistinguishable between male and female narratives. Thus, traditional genderlect studies, relying mostly on frequency differences in word choice, would have glossed over the robustly different temporal pattern. This study is possibly the rst to demonstrate temporal patterns in word choice. However, patterns of temporal or sequential dependence of pauses and hesitations had used conceptually similar or mathematically equivalent methods, and was shown to have considerable psychological relevance (e.g. Siegman and Feldstein 1979, 1987; Welkowitz et al. 1990b;

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

121

Jaffe et al. 2001). The examination of temporal sequential patterns of pauses in normal, developmental and psychopathological populations represents one of the most rigorously statistical endeavors for establishing sequential dependence, including Cumulative Distribution of Pauses (e.g. Henderson et al. 1966), Two-State Stochastic Modeling (Jaffe and Feldstein 1970), Bayesian Analysis (Narayanan and Jurafsky 1998, 2002), Transitional Probabilities (Lounsbury 1954; Maclay and Osgood 1959) and Markov Chains (Schwartz and Jaffe 1968)to name a few. It is surprising, therefore, that similar efforts were not done with semantic lexical items. Unfortunately, even within the tradition of paralinguistic markers study, these sophisticated approaches to speech patterning fell out of favor during the 70s, perhaps because of their reliance on mathematical models that are largely inaccessible to linguists. Some studies cite the popularization of the Chomskian paradigm, with its invalidation of statistics as a means to explore language, as another reason for the dearth in statistical studies of language (Chomsky 1957; Seidenberg 1997). In recent years, increasing attention has been directed to cognitive theories of the organization of knowledge in the brain and its relation to verbal patterns detection and production. According to most connectionistic theories of mental organization and architecture, the sequential dependence of words in a stream of speech is related to their semantic proximity or equivalency (brought about by spreading activation in the appropriate areas in the brain), and will affect both the expectation of the reader or listener to encounter and utter them (Anderson 1983; Bock 1986; Shastri 1988; Levelt 1989; Seidenberg 1997; Christiansen and Chater 1999, 2001; Dell et al. 1999; Gordon and Dell 2003). Some of the features of the correlograms presented in this study can be understood using connectionist theories. For example, the trough around the zero, representing the tendency of a speaker not to utter the same word (or a word of the same semantic category), is between 5 and 7 words downstream. After that, the likelihood that another word will be uttered is hovering around a baseline level. This drop in the sequential dependence between words to a chance-level was found in several other studies of temporal patterns in speech (e.g. Miller 1967; Baddeley 1994; Pothos and Juola 2007), and is most probably related to the role of short-term memory in language production in general and constraints on clause length in particular. The attening of the ACH outside the boundaries of the average clause length in spoken English and the average short-term memory provides furtherand independentsupport for the validity of the technique in capturing speech temporal patterns. Another set of theories that can help understand in part the temporal speech patterns found in this study is the theories of hesitations, false starts and their role in sentence production. The narratives composing the corpus upon which this study is based are replete with hesitations and repetitions, in almost all clause sizes. For example in the case of the rst person pronoun: (1) I actually, I was talking to my father (2) I, I kind of like feel bad about it (3) I mean, um, I, I dont know, I accused However, approximately half of the I words that were uttered in close proximity could not be readily recognized as repetitions of false starts, but rather were part of colloquially acceptable statements. Examples include: (1) I think I was probably still mad at him (2) I knew I was going to college (3) I actually applied and I .

123

122

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

The average male narratives showed a lower tendency to avoid uttering succession of Is, which stands in accord with the case examples presented in the results section, where the male speech exhibited a higher proportion of hesitations and false starts. This characteristic of male speech has been observed in several other studies of gendered stylistics (Haas 1979; Mulac et al. 1988, 2001). While the trough in the correlogram of the rst person pronoun could be inuenced, at least in part, by repetition and hesitation phenomena, the shape of the correlogram based on positive emotion words is less likely to be governed by these phenomena (Clark and Wasow 1998; Campbell and Pennebaker 2003; Bybee 2006; Chung and Pennebaker 2007). In the correlograms of positive emotion words, the trough is even deeper than that of the personal pronoun, suggesting that the likelihood of nding two positive emotion words in close proximity is even smaller. Unlike the pronouns, the trough is deeper for male speech, suggesting that men avoid uttering emotion words in succession more than women. This is not surprising considering the fact that coordinated affective adjectives are rare in spoken English, and that male speech has traditionally been socialized to avoid emotional tokens. Perusal of the narratives that exhibited relatively short intervals between emotion words reveal that this mild clustering was mostly used to stress the expressed affect. For example (positive emotion words are underlined): (1) And then at times he was very calm and loving (2) She is very into being popular and, and being liked by the guys (3) That was very sentimental and very um nice that I still treasure Lastly, statistical characteristics of the sample are also a major contributor to the shape of the correlogram. One of the advantages of the LCA technique is its reliance of the whole narrative (or the binary train of data, as it is referred to in the engineering and physics literature), rather than tallying the occurrences of the two target words when they appear in a certain lagas the Markovian, Bayesian and Mutual Information techniques usually do (cf. Maclay and Osgood 1959; Gregory et al. 1999; Manning and Schtze 1999a,b; Pothos and Juola 2007; Roland et al. 2007). This methodological strategy confers a particular stability to the estimates of the correlogram shape, but also enhances the signal-to-noise ratio. Using neuronal binary series, which are equivalent to the stream of narrative as coded in this study, this methodology was used to successfully detect temporal patterns in the electrical activity of the brain in response to visual or tactile stimuli (Aertsen et al. 1989; Abeles 1991; Shulz et al. 1997). Consistent with the statistical properties described above, the variability in the baseline regions of the correlograms is visibly proportional to the frequency of the markers in questions. Thus, while the frequency of the rst person pronoun was over 3.5 times that of positive emotion words for female narratives, the variability of the correlogram in its baseline range (lags 4 and up for the pronouns and 7 and up for positive emotions) is also significantly smaller for the pronouns correlogram than that of positive emotions. The corpus size in this study is one of its main limitations. As demonstrated above, similarly to other methods of co-occurrence estimation, the accuracy in the baseline estimation of the LCA correlogram is strongly dependent on the number of markers found in the individual narrative. This, in turn, is a product of the markers frequency and the narrative length (in words). The number of rst person pronouns in the narratives included in this study ranged from 8 to 107 (Median = 41), while the number of positive emotion words ranged from 4 to 118 (Median = 26). Although smoother, more consistent baseline is still desired, Fig. 1 shows an adequate level of baseline variability, while Fig. 5 seem to be adequate for uncovering the large trough, but may still mask features with smaller effect size. The narratives in the current

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

123

corpus were about 5 min in length, which is somewhat above the average of a typical spontaneous narrative as told to an unfamiliar experimenter (Prurting and Kirchner 1987; Harvey and Bryant 1998; Wang 2001). Therefore, a combination of several spontaneous stories from the same speaker may be benecial in increasing the detectability of correlogram features derived from their narratives. Another notable shortcoming of this paper is the lack of data regarding the gender of the experimenter who elicited the narrative. Numerous socio-linguistic studies have established an effect that the gender of the listener has on the speech of the informant. These studies were conducted under various conceptual models, such as speech accommodation theory (e.g. Giles et al. 1987), politeness theory (Brown and Levinson 1987; Holmes 1990), and socio-linguistic strategies (e.g. Tannen 1991, 1994a)to name a few. Further studies may be needed to better characterize the male speech pattern. The current study has a significant paucity of males (72 males versus 221 females), which poses limitations on the reliability of the LCA histograms. Beyond the obvious shortage of males, a larger corpus size may offer better characterization of the male and female speech patterns. As mentioned above, despite their statistical advantages, LCA histograms are highly variable, as evidenced by the large variability around the baseline in the higher lags of Figs. 1 and 5. Beyond expanding the sample size and increasing the reliabilities of the LCA histogram estimates for all subjects but especially for men, further studies could shed light on crucial aspects of this preliminary study. For example, multiple narratives taken from the same speaker in different times can shed light on the testretest reliability of the measure and on the temporal stability of speech patterns in general. This stability can then be compared to those of personality traits in an effort to nd a correlate of stable character dimensions. Similarly, narratives can be elicited following psychologically meaningful events (such as mood induction, conceptual priming, politeness stress or even traumatic events) in order to further elucidate the relationships between temporal speech patterns and the personality system.

References
Abeles, M. (1991). Neural codes for higher brain function. In H. J. Markowitsch (Ed.), Information processing by the brain: Views and hypotheses from a physiological-cognitive perspective. Hans Huber. Aertsen, A. M. H. J., Gerstein, G. L., Habib, M. K., & Palm, G. (1989). Dynamics of neuronal ring correlation: Modulation of effective connectivity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 61, 900919. Alpert, M., Rosenberg, S. D., Pouget, E. R., & Shaw, R. J. (2000). Prosody and lexical accuracy in at affect schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 97, 107118. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press. Anderson, K. J., & Leaper, C. (1998). Emotion talk between same- and mixed-gender friends: Form and function. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(4), 419448. doi:10.1177/0261927X980174001. Andreasen, N. J., & Pfohl, B. (1976). Linguistic analysis of speech in affective disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33(11), 13611367. Baddeley, A. D. (1994). The magical number seven: Still magic after all these years? Psychological Review, 101, 353356. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.353. Baldwin, A. L. (1942). Personal structure analysis: A statistical method for investigation of the single personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37, 163183. doi:10.1037/h0061697. Bilous, F. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviours of same- and mixed-gender dyads. Language & Communication, 8(34), 183194. doi:10.1016/ 0271-5309(88)90016-X. Blauberg, M. S., & Braine, M. D. S. (1974). Short-term memory limitations on decoding self-embedded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 745748. doi:10.1037/h0036091. Bock, J. K. (1986). Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 575586. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.575. Brannon, L. (2002). Gender: Psychological perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

123

124

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness : Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The minds response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711733. doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0186. Cacioppo, J. T., von Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content: The thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 249262. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.928. Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., & OLeary, K. (1989). Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In J. Coates, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities : New perspectives on language and sex. London, UK: Longman. Campbell, R. S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in writing style and physical health. Psychological Science, 14, 6065. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.01419. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language and inuence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 941951. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.941. Chaika, E. O. (1990). Understanding psychotic speech: beyond Freud and Chomsky. Springeld, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton Press. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Connectionist natural language processing: The state of the art. Cognitive Science, 23, 417437. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(2), 8288. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01600-4. Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). The psychological function of function words. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication: Frontiers of social psychology (pp 343359). New York: Psychology Press. Clark, H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201242. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0693. Cope, C. S. (1969). Linguistic structure and personality development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, (5, pt. 2), 119. Covington, M. A., He, C., Brown, C., Naci, L., McClain, J. T., Fjordbak, B, S., Semple, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Schizophrenia and the structure of language: The linguists view. Schizophrenia Research, 77, 8598. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2005.01.016. Crawford, M. E. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoffs hypothesis. Language in Society, 6(3), 313322. Darby, J. K. (1981). Speech evaluation in psychiatry. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton, Inc. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in language production. Psychological Review, 93, 283321. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283. Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Grifn, Z. M. (1999). Connectionist models of language production: Lexical access and grammatical encoding. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 517542. Fishman, P. (1990). Conversational insecurity. In D. Cameron (Ed.), The feminist critique of language (pp. 126). London, UK: Routledge. Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(12), 1839. doi:10.1177/ 0261927X95141002. Fraser, W. I., King, K. M., Thomas, P., & Kendell, R. E. (1986). The diagnosis of schizophrenia by language analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 275278. doi:10.1192/bjp.148.3.275. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accomodation theory: The rst decade and beyond. Communication Yearbook, 10, 1348. Gleser, G. C., Gottschalk, L. A., & Watkins, J. (1959). The relationship of sex and intelligence to choice of words: A normative study of verbal behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15,182191. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(195904)15:2<182::AID-JCLP2270150219>3.0.CO;2-7. Goldrick, M. (2007). Connectionist principles in theories of speech production. In M. Gareth Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon, J., & Dell, G. (2003). Learning to divide the labor: An account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Cognitive Science, 27, 140. Gottschalk, L. A. (1969). The measurement of psychological states through the content analysis of verbal behavior. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gregory, M., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society, 35, 151166. Gumperz, J. J. (1976). Language, communication and public negotiation. In P. Sanday (Ed.), Anthropology and the public interest (pp. 273292). NewYork: Academic Press.

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

125

Haas, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences: Stereotypes and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 616626. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.616. Harvey, A. G., & Bryant, R. A. (1998). The relationship between acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder: A prospective evaluation of motor vehicle accident survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 507512. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.3.507. Henderson, A., Goldman-Eisler, F., & Skarbek, A. (1966). Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 9, 207216. Holmes, J. (1990). Women, men and politeness. New York, NY: Longman. Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., Feldstein, S., Crown, C. L., & Jasnow, M. D. (2001). III. Method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(2), 3951. doi:10.1111/1540-5834.00139. Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. (1970). Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press. Jeanneau, M., & Armelius, B. A. (1993). Linguistic characteristics of neurotic, borderline and psychotic personality organization. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 34(1), 6475. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1993. tb01101.x. Jucker, A. H., & Smith, S. W. (1998). And people just you know like wow: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In A. H. Jucker, & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 171201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C. B., Caplan, P. J., & Caplan, J. B. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States. Results for the National Comorbidity Survey. King, K., Fraser, W. I., Thomas, P., & Kendell, R. E. (1990). Reexamination of the language of psychotic subjects. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 211215. doi:10.1192/bjp.156.2.211. Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2(2), 205254. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratication of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and womans place. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lakoff, R. T. (1977). Womens language. Language and Style, 10(4), 222247. Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York: Basic Books. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Levenston, E. A. (1969). Imperative structures in English. Linguistics, 50, 3843. Lott, P. R., Guggenbuhl, S., Schneeberger, A., Pulver, A. E., & Stassen, H. H. (2002). Linguistic analysis of the speech output of schizophrenic, bipolar, and depressive patients. Psychopathology, 35, 220227. doi:10. 1159/000063831. Lounsbury, F. G. (1954). Transitional probability, linguistic structure, and systems of habit-family hierarchies. In C. E. Osgood, & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems (pp. 93101). Baltimore: Waverly Press Macaulay, M. (2001). Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 293316. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00129-0. Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 1944. Manning, C. D., & Schtze, H. (1999a). Collocations. In C. D. Manning, & H. Schtze (Eds.), Foundations of statistical natural language processing (pp. 151189). Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Manning, C. D., & Schtze, H. (1999b). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press. McLachlan, A. (1991). The effects of agreement, disagreement, gender and familiarity on patterns of dyadic interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3), 205212. doi:10.1177/ 0261927X91103004. McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., & McGrath, D. (1977). Womens language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, 3(6), 545559. doi:10.1007/BF00287838. Mergenthaler, E., & Stinson, C. H. (1992). Psychotherapy transcription standards. Psychotherapy Research, 2, 125142. Miller, G. A. (1967). The psychology of communication. Penguin. Mondorf, B. (2002). Gender differences in English syntax. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(2), 158180. doi:10.1177/007242030002005. Morice, R., & McNicol, D. (1986). Language changes in schizophrenia: A limited replication. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 12, 239251. Mott, H., & Petrie, H. (1995). Workplace interactions: Womens linguistic behavior. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 324336.

123

126

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 121 152. doi:10.1093/hcr/27.1.121. Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5(2), 81101. doi:10.1177/0261927X8652001. Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 23(910), 439469. doi:10.1007/BF00289762. Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 315335. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. University of WisconsinMadson. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). A Bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading time in sentence processing. In T. G. Dietterich, S. Becker, & Z. Ghahramani (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing 14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oxman, T. E., Rosenberg, S. D., Schnurr, P. P., & Tucker, G. J. (1988). Diagnostic classication through content analysis of patients speech. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 464468. Palomares, N. (2004). Gender schematicity, gender identity salience, and gender-linked language use. Human Communication Research, 30, 556588. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00745.x. Pease, B., & Pease, A. (2001). Why men dont listen and women cant read maps: How were different and what to do about it. Broadway Books. Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 12961312. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296. Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547577. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601. 145041. Pothos, E. M., & Juola, P. (2007). Characterizing linguistic structure with mutual information. The British Journal of Psychology, 98, 291304. doi:10.1348/000712606X122760. Prurting, C. A., & Kirchner, D. M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105119. Ragin, A. B., & Oltmanns, T. F. (1986). Lexical cohesion and formal thought disorder during and after psychotic episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 181183. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.95.2.181. Rieber, R. W., & Vetter, H. (1994). The problem of language and thought in schizophrenia: A review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 149195. doi:10.1007/BF02143921. Ries, K. (1999). Towards the detection and description of textual meaning indicators in spontaneous conversations. Paper presented at the European Conference On Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH 99), September 59, Budapest, Hungary. Rohde, D. L. T. (2002). A connectionist model of sentence comprehension and production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348379. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002. Rutter, D. R. (1985). Language in schizophrenia. The structure of monologues and conversations. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 399404. doi:10.1192/bjp.146.4.399. Schnurr, P. P., Rosenberg, S. D., & Oxman, T. E. (1992). Comparison of TAT and free speech techniques for eliciting source material in computerized content analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(2), 311325. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5802_10. Schwartz, J., & Jaffe, J. (1968). Markovian prediction of sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 11, 2730. Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 27, 15991603. doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1599. Sharkey, N. (1992). Connectionist natural language processing. Oxford: Intellect Books. Shastri, L. (1988). A connectionist approach to knowledge representation and limited inference. Cognitive Science, 12(3), 331392. Shuell, T. J. (1969). Clustering and organization in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 353374. doi:10. 1037/h0028141. Shulz, D., Cohen, S., Haidarliu, S., & Ahissar, E. (1997). Differential effects of acetylcholine in the auditory cortex of the Guinea Pig. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 9, 396409. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568. 1997.tb01409.x. Siegman, A. W., & Feldstein, S. (Eds.). (1979). Of speech and time: Temporal speech patterns, in interpersonal contexts. New York: Wiley.

123

J Psycholinguist Res (2009) 38:111127

127

Siegman, A. W. E., & Feldstein, S. E. (1987). Nonverbal behavior and communication. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., Ogilvie, D. M., et al. (1966). The general inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. The MIT Press. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, D. (1991). You just dont understand: Women and men in conversation. (1st ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. Tannen, D. (1994a). Gender and discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. (1994b). Talking from 9 to 5: How womens and mens conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. (1st ed.). New York: W. Morrow. Taylor, M. A., Reed, R., & Berenbaum, S. (1994). Patterns of speech disorders in schizophrenia and mania. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 182, 319326. doi:10.1097/00005053-199406000-00002. Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (1983). Language, gender and society: Opening a second decade of research. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 723). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Tramow, D., Silverman, i. S., Fan, R. M., & Law, J. S. F. (1997). The effects of language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 107123. doi:10.1177/0022022197281007. Tramow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. H. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649655. doi:10.1037/0022-3514. 60.5.649. Wang, Q. (2001). Culture effects on adults earliest childhood recollection and self-description: Implications for the relation between memory and the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 220233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.220. Welkowitz, J., Bond, R., & Zelano, J. (1990a). An automated system for the analysis of temporal speech patterns: Description of the hardware and software. Journal of Communication Disorders, 231, 347364. doi:10.1016/0021-9924(90)90009-N. Welkowitz, J., Bond, R. N., Feldman, L., & Tota, M. E. (1990b). Conversation time patterns and mutual inuence in parentchild interactions: A time series approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 221243. doi:10.1007/BF01077258. Wojtkowski, S. (1993). Linguistic indicators of introversion and extraversion: A study of the relationship between linguistic and personological styles. PhD Thesis

123