Optional word omission, such as that omission in complement and relative clauses, has been argued to be driven by produc-tion pressure (rather than by comprehension). One particularly strong production-driven hypothesis states that speakers insert words to buy time to alleviate production difficulties. I present evidence from the distribution of disfluencies in non-subject-extracted relative clauses arguing against this hypothesis. While word omission is driven by production difficulties, speakers may use that as a collateral signal to addressees, informing them of anticipated production difficulties. In that sense, word omission would be subject to audience design (i.e. catering to addresseesÂ’ needs).