1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 29, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

© 2022 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21019.kir
2023-04-11
2025-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.21019.kir
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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
    1999 Longman 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
    2009 Tota 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
    2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
    1968 Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Götz, Sandra
    2013 Fluency 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
    2004 Iso 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
    2016 Uh, 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.84.2.170.14903
     https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.84.2.170.14903 [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
    2019 Artificial intelligence: A guide for thinking humans. London: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Newman, Mark E. J.
    2010 Networks: 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
    2003 Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Tottie, Gunnel
    2011 Uh 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. 2015 Uh 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]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21019.kir
Loading
Investigation into the linguistic category membership of the Finnish planning particle tota
Pragmatics & Cognition 29, 370 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21019.kir
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21019.kir
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21019.kir
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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

Most Cited

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