Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Even though hesitations (e.g., ) were historically perceived as involuntary non-linguistic items (e.g., Maclay & Osgood 1959), more recently, a number of scholars have suggested that hesitations can behave like (a) lexical items (e.g., Clark & Fox Tree 2002), and (b) at least in some contexts and with some functions as grammatical items like suffixes/clitics (Kirjavainen, Crible & Beeching 2022Tottie 2017). The current study contributes to this body of work and presents two spoken language corpus analyses (frequency analysis; network analysis) investigating the nature of the Finnish planning particle Our results suggest that is more similar to grammatical items than lexical items.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aller Media ltd
    Aller Media ltd 2014 The Suomi 24 Sentences Corpus (2016H2) [text corpus]. Kielipankki. Retrieved fromurn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:lb-2017021505
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, Jennifer E., Michael K. Tanenhouse, Rebecca J. Altmann & Maria Fagnano
    2004 ‘The old and thee, uh, new’: Disfluency and reference resolution. Psychological Science15(9). 578–582. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2004.00723.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, Dale J. & Mandana Seyfeddinipur
    2010 The role of fillers in listener attributions for speaker disfluency. Language and Cognitive Processes251. 441–455. 10.1080/01690960903047122
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903047122 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software671. 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beattie, Geoffrey & Brian Butterworth
    1979 Contextual probability and word frequency as determinants of pauses in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech221. 201–211. 10.1177/002383097902200301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200301 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boomer, Donald. S. & Allen T. Dittmann
    1962 Hesitation pauses and juncture pauses in speech. Language and Speech5(4). 215–220. 10.1177/002383096200500404
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096200500404 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bortfeld, Heather, Silvia D. Leon, Jonathan E. Bloom, Michael F. Schober & Susan E. Brennan
    2001 Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role and gender. Language and Speech441. 123–147. 10.1177/00238309010440020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bosker, Hans R., Hugo Quené, Ted Sanders & Nivja H. de Jong
    2014 Native ums elicit prediction of low-frequency referents, but non-native ums do not. Journal of Memory and Language751. 104–116. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brennan, Susan E. & Michael F. Schober
    2001 How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language441. 274–296. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2753
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brennan, Susan E. & Maurice Williams
    1995 The feeling of another’s knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language341. 383–398. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1017
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1017 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan
    1998 The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society34(2). 421–435.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006 From usage to grammar: The minds response to repetition. Language82(4). 323–355. 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, Joan & Dan. I. Slobin
    1982 Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language58(2). 265–289. 10.2307/414099
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414099 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, Jiahua & Zehua Chen
    2008 Extended Bayesian information criteria for model selection with large model spaces. Biometrika95(3). 759–771. 10.1093/biomet/asn034
    https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asn034 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, Herbert H. & 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]
  17. Clark, Herbert H. & Thomas Wasow
    1998 Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology371. 201–232. 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693 [Google Scholar]
  18. Corley, Martin, Lucy MacGregor & David I. Donaldson
    2007 ‘It’s the way that you, er, say it’: Hesitations in speech affect language comprehension. Cognition1051. 658–668. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Corley, Martin & Oliver W. Stewart
    2008 Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um. Language and Linguistics Compass21. 589–602. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00068.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Crible, Ludivine, Liesbeth Degand & Gaëtanelle Gilquin
    2017 The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses: A corpus-based French-English study of (dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast171. 69–95. 10.1075/lic.17.1.04cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.04cri [Google Scholar]
  21. Cross, Emily. S. & Deborah M. Burke
    2004 Do alternative names block young and older adults’ retrieval of proper names?Brain and Language89(1). 174–181. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00363‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00363-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Epskamp, Sacha, Denny Borsboom & Eiko I. Fried
    2018 Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods50(1). 195–212. 10.3758/s13428‑017‑0862‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1 [Google Scholar]
  23. Etelämäki, Marja & Minna Jaakkola
    2009Tota ja puhetilanteen todellisuus. Virittäjä113(2). 188–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Firth, John R.
    1957 A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. InStudies in linguistic analysis1–32. Oxford: Blackwell. 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fox Tree, Jean
    1995 The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language341. 709–738. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1032
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1032 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2001 Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory & Cognition291. 320–326. 10.3758/BF03194926
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194926 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fox Tree, Jean E.
    2002 Interpreting pauses and ums at turn exchanges. Discourse Processes34(1). 37–55. 10.1207/S15326950DP3401_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3401_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gentner, Dedre & José Medina
    1998 Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition65(2–3). 263–297. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00002‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00002-X [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, Adele
    2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1968Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Götz, Sandra
    2013Fluency in native and non-native English speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.53 [Google Scholar]
  32. Green, David W.
    1998 Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Language and Cognition11. 67–81. 101017S1366728998000133
    https://doi.org/101017S1366728998000133 [Google Scholar]
  33. Haakana, Markku & Laura Visapää
    2014 Eiku – korjauksen partikkeli?Virittäjä118(1). 41–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja R. Heinonen & Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi. SKS:n toimituksia 950. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Harris, Zellig S.
    1954 Distributional structure. Word10(2–3). 146–162. 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 [Google Scholar]
  36. Irvine, Christina A., Inge-Marie Eigsti & Deborah A. Fein
    2016Uh, um, and autism: Filler disfluencies as pragmatic markers in adolescents with optimal outcomes from autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders46(3). 1061–1070. 10.1007/s10803‑015‑2651‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2651-y [Google Scholar]
  37. Janková, Jana & Sara van de Geer
    2018 Inference for high-dimensional graphical models. InMarloes Maathuis, Mathias Drton, Steffen Lauritzen & Martin Wainwright (eds.), Handbook of graphical models, 325–350. Florida: CRC Press. 10.1201/9780429463976‑14
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429463976-14 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jansson-Verkasalo, Eira, Maarit Silvén, Iris Lehtiö & Kurt Eggers
    2021 Speech disfluencies in typically developing Finnish-speaking children: Preliminary results. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics351. 707–726. 10.1080/02699206.2020.1818287
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2020.1818287 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible & Kate Beeching
    2022 Are filled pauses represented as linguistic items? Investigating the effect of exposure on the perception and production of um. Language and Speech651. 263–289. 10.1177/00238309211011201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211011201 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kjellmer, Göran
    2003 Hesitation. In defence of er and erm. English Studies841. 170–198. 10.1076/enst.
    https://doi.org/10.1076/enst. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kosmala, Loulou & Ludivine Crible
    2022 The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence. Language and Speech651. 216–239. 10.1177/00238309211010862
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211010862 [Google Scholar]
  42. Laakso, Minna & Marjo Lehtola
    2003 Sanojen hakeminen afaattisen henkilön ja läheisen keskustelussa. Puhe ja Kieli231. 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Langacker, Ronald
    2000 A dynamic usage-based model. InMichael Barlow, Suzanne Kemmer (eds.) Usage-based models of language, 1–36. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. Loy, Jia E., Hannah Rohde & Martin Corley
    2017 Effects of disfluency in online interpretation of deception. Cognitive Science411. 1434–1456. 10.1111/cogs.12378
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12378 [Google Scholar]
  46. Loy, Jia. E., Hannah Rohde & Martin Corley
    2018 Cues to lying may be deceptive: Speaker and listener behaviour in an interactive game of deception. Journal of Cognition1(1). 42. 10.5334/joc.46
    https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.46 [Google Scholar]
  47. Maclay, Howard & Charles E. Osgood
    1959 Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word151. 19–44. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659682 [Google Scholar]
  48. McGregor, Karla K. & Rex R. Hadden
    2020 Brief report: Um fillers distinguish children with and without ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders50(5). 1816–1821. 10.1007/s10803‑018‑3736‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3736-1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Menn, Lise & Loraine K. Obler
    1990 Cross-language data and theories of agrammatism. InLise Menn & Loraine K. Obler (eds.), Agrammatic aphasia: A cross-language narrative sourcebook (vol.21), 1369–1389. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.39.32men
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.39.32men [Google Scholar]
  50. Mitchell, Melanie
    2019Artificial intelligence: A guide for thinking humans. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Newman, Mark E. J.
    2010Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Norrick, Neal R.
    2015 Interjections. InKarin Aijmer & Christoph Rühlemann (eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook, 291–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Penttilä, Nelly & Anna-Maija Korpijaakko-Huuhka
    2019 Disfluencies in typical Finnish-speaking adults. The Phonetician1161. 28–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Penttilä, Nelly, Anna-Maija Korpijaakko-Huuhka & Judit Bona
    2022 Disfluency clusters in typical and atypical Finnish adult speech: A pilot study. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics361. 1–16. 10.1080/02699206.2021.1924861
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2021.1924861 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2004 Showing structure: Using um in the academic seminar. Pragmatics141. 479–498.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Reynolds, Allan & Allan Paivio
    1968 Cognitive and emotional determinants of speech. Canadian Journal of Psychology22(3). 164–175. 10.1037/h0082757
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082757 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2010 Some other uh(m)s. Discourse Processes471. 130–174. 10.1080/01638530903223380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903223380 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schnadt, Michael J. & Martin Corley
    2006 The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Language212(2). 8–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schneider, Ulrike
    2014 Frequency, hesitations and chunks: A usage-based study of chunking in English. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität PhD dissertation.
  60. Shriberg, Elizabeth E.
    1994 Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. California: University of California at Berkeley PhD dissertation.
  61. Smith, Vicki L. & Herbert H. Clark
    1993 On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language321. 25–38. 10.1006/jmla.1993.1002
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena & Minna Laakso
    2005 Katko vai eiku? Itsekorjauksen aloitustavat ja vuorovaikutustehtävät. Virittäjä109(2). 244–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Swerts, Marc
    1998 Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics301. 485–496. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00014-9 [Google Scholar]
  64. Swerts, Marc & Emiel Krahmer
    2005 Audiovisual prosody and feeling of knowing. Journal of Memory and Language53(1). 81–94. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tannenbaum, Percy H., Frederick Williams & Carolyn S. Hillier
    1965 Word predictability in the environments of hesitations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior4(2). 134–140. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(65)80097‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80097-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tibshirani, Robert
    1996 Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)58(1). 267–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Tottie, Gunnel
    2011Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics161. 173–197. 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot [Google Scholar]
  69. 2015Uh and um in British and American English: Are they words? Evidence from co-occurrence with pauses. InRena Torres Cacoullos, Nathalie Dion & André Lapierre (eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory, 38–54. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2016 Planning what to say: Uh and um among pragmatic markers. InGunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 97–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.04tot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.04tot [Google Scholar]
  71. 2017 From pause to word: Uh, um and er in written American English. English Language & Linguistics231. 105–130. 10.1017/S1360674317000314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000314 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ullman, Michael
    2001 The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research301. 37–69. 10.1023/A:1005204207369
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005204207369 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2004 Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition921. 231–270. 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2016 The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. InGregory Hickok & Steven Small (eds.), The neurobiology of language, 953–968. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑407794‑2.00076‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6 [Google Scholar]
  75. University of Turku, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages
    University of Turku, Department of Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages 2017 ArkiSyn Database of Finnish Conversational Discourse, Helsinki Korp Version [speech corpus]. Kielipankki. Retrieved fromurn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:lb-2017022801
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Watanabe, Michiko, Keikichi Hirose, Yasuharu Den & Nobuaki Minematsu
    2008 Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of upcoming phrases for native and non-native listeners. Speech Communication501. 81–94. 10.1016/j.specom.2007.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Finnish discourse particles; hesitations; planning particles; tota
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