1887
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00025.bee
2023-04-11
2024-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2002English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2011 ‘Well I’m not sure I think…’. The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics16(2). 231–54. 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.04aij [Google Scholar]
  3. 2013Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748635511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748635511 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
    (eds.) 2006Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080480299
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080480299 [Google Scholar]
  5. Andersen, Gisle
    2001Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.84 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, Laurel
    1996Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beeching, Kate
    2015 Variability in native and non-native use of pragmatic markers: The example of well in role-play data. InKate Beeching & Helen Woodfield (eds.), Researching sociopragmatic variability. Perspectives from variational, interlanguage and contrastive pragmatics, 174–200. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137373953_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137373953_8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
    (eds.) 2015Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Butterworth, Brian
    1980 Evidence from pauses in speech. InBrian Butterworth (ed.), Language production (vol.11), 155–176. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Buysse, Lieven
    2020 ‘It was a bit stressy as well actually’: The pragmatic markers actually and in fact in spoken learner English. Journal of Pragmatics1561. 28–40. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, Herbert & Jean E. Fox Tree
    2002 Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition841. 73–111. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooper, William & Jeanne Paccia-Cooper
    1980Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674283947
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674283947 [Google Scholar]
  13. Corley, Martin & Oliver W. Stewart
    2008 Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um. Language and Linguistics Compass2(4). 589–602. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00068.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Corley, Martin & Robert Hartsuiker
    2011 Why um helps auditory word recognition: The temporal delay hypothesis. PLos ONE6(5): e19792. 10.1371/journal.pone.0019792
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019792 [Google Scholar]
  15. Crible, Ludivine
    2018Discourse markers and (dis)fluency: Forms and functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.286
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.286 [Google Scholar]
  16. Denke, Annika
    2009Native-like performance: Pragmatic markers, repair and repetition in native and non-native English speech. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr Müller.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fedriani, Chiara & Andrea Sansó
    (eds.) 2017Pragmatic markers, discourse markers and modal particles: New perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.186
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fischer, Kerstin
    (ed) 2006Approaches to discourse particles. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fung, Loretta & Ronald Carter
    2007 Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics28(3). 410–39. 10.1093/applin/amm030
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm030 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1961 Hesitation and information in speech. InColin Cherry (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th London Symposium on Information Theory, 162–174. London: Butterworths.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1968Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Graham, Lamar A.
    2018 Variation in hesitation: The case of este vs. eh in Latin American Spanish. Spanish in Context15(1). 1–26. 10.1075/sic.00001.gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00001.gra [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasselgren, Angela
    1994 Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics4(2). 1313–28. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1994.tb00065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Henderson, Alan, Frieda Goldman-Eisler & Andrew Skarbek
    1965 Temporal patterns of cognitive activity and breath control in speech. Language and Speech81. 236–242. 10.1177/002383096500800405
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096500800405 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1966 Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech91. 207–216. 10.1177/002383096600900402
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096600900402 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jehoul, Annelies, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts
    2017 Gaze patterns and filled pauses: Empirical data on the difference between Dutch euh and euhm. InProceedings of the 4th European and 7th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM2016), 43–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible & Kate Beeching
    2022 Can filled pauses be represented as linguistic items? Investigating the effect of exposure on the perception and production of um. Language and Speech65(2). 263–289. 10.1177/00238309211011201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211011201 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lauwers, Peter, Gudrun Vanderbauwhede & Stijn Verleyen
    (eds.) 2012Pragmatic markers and pragmaticalization: Lessons from false friends. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.44 [Google Scholar]
  29. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1983 Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition141. 41–104. 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1989Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Liao, Silvie
    2009 Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics411. 1313–1328. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.026 [Google Scholar]
  32. Merlo, Sandra & Plínio A. Barbosa
    2010 Hesitation phenomena: A dynamical perspective. Cognitive Processing11(3). 251–261. 10.1007/s10339‑009‑0348‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0348-x [Google Scholar]
  33. Müller, Simone
    2005Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.138
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  34. Petrie, Helen
    1987 The psycholinguistics of speaking. InJohn Lyons, Richard Coates, Margaret Deuchar & Gerald Gazdar (eds.), New horizons in linguistics (vol.21), 336–366. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pichler, Heike
    (ed.) 2016Discourse-pragmatic variation and change in English: New methods and insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107295476
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295476 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  37. Speer, Shari R., Paul Warren & Amy J. Schafer
    2011 Situationally independent prosodic phrasing. Laboratory Phonology2(1). 35–98. 10.1515/labphon.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Swerts, Marc
    1998 Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics30(4). 485–496. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00014-9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tonetti Tübben, Ilenia & Daniela Landert
    2022Uh and um as pragmatic markers in dialogues: A contrastive perspective on the functions of planners in fiction and conversation. Contrastive Pragmatics. 1–32. 10.1163/26660393‑bja10049
    https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10049 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tottie, Gunnel
    2019 From pause to word: Uh, um and er in written American English. English Language and Linguistics23(1). 105–130. 10.1017/S1360674317000314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000314 [Google Scholar]
  41. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zaides, Kristina Denisovna
    2022 Hesitative markers eto and eto samoe: Structural and temporal aspects. Коммуникативные исследования9 (1). 49–66.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00025.bee
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error