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

Abstract

Abstract

The present study aims to explore the status of filled pauses as pragmatic markers by taking into account their accompanying visual and gestural behavior. This aspect has not yet been widely explored, and the current study breaks new ground by demonstrating that the analysis of gaze and gesture can shed substantial light on the pragmatic functions of filled pauses and other pausing phenomena. Filled pauses (FPs) serve several pragmatic functions in speech, mainly planning but also turn-holding and emphasis, and their use is also highly determined by register and setting. This research explores the different pragmatic functions of FPs by analyzing their distribution in two different communication settings (conversation vs presentation setting), combining a quantitative and a qualitative methodology, following Kosmala & Crible’s (2021) study on the same data. Particular attention was paid to the co-occurring gestural activity of and gaze behavior. Analyses show that the pragmatic functions of FPs are also embodied in kinetic activities which differ according to the setting: more pragmatic and referential ones were found during FPs in conversation than in the presentation setting, as well as more eye-contact, which reflects their potential communicative role during interactional sequences.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21020.kos
2023-04-11
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allwood, Jens, Elisabeth Ahlsén, Johan Lund & Johanna Sundqvist
    2007 Multimodality in own communication management. InJuhani Toivanen & Peter Juel Henrichsen (eds.), Current trends in research on spoken language in the Nordic countries (vol.II1), 10–19. Oulu: Oulu University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, Jennifer E., Michael K. Tanenhaus, 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. Bavelas, Janet, Nicole Chovil, Linda Coates & Lori Roe
    1995 Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21(4). 394–405. 10.1177/0146167295214010
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beattie, Geoffrey & Rima Aboudan
    1994 Gestures, pauses and speech: An experimental investigation of the effects of changing social context on their precise temporal relationships. Semiotica99(3–4). 239–272. 10.1515/semi‑1994‑993‑402
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi-1994-993-402 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beňuš, Štefan
    2009 Variability and stability in collaborative dialogues: Turn-taking and filled pauses. Paper presented at the10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 796–799.
  6. 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 Speech44(2). 123–147. 10.1177/00238309010440020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan, Susan E., & Michael F. Schober
    2001 How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language44(2). 274–296. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2753
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 Language34(3). 383–398. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1017
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1017 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chawla, Purnima & Robert M. Krauss
    1994 Gesture and speech in spontaneous and rehearsed narratives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology30(6). 580–601. 10.1006/jesp.1994.1027
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1027 [Google Scholar]
  10. Christenfeld, Nicholas, Stanley Schachter & Frances Bilous
    1991 Filled pauses and gestures: It’s not coincidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research20(1). 1–10. 10.1007/BF01076916
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01076916 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cienki, Alan. J.
    2004 Bush’s and Gore’s language and gestures in the 2000 US presidential debates: A test case for two models of metaphors. Journal of Language and Politics3(3). 409–440. 10.1075/jlp.3.3.04cie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.3.04cie [Google Scholar]
  12. Cienki, Alan J.
    2012 Usage events of spoken language and the symbolic units we (may) abstract from them. InJanusz Badio & Krzysztof Kosecki (eds.), Cognitive processes in language, 149–158. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cienki, Alan. J.
    2015 Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition71. 499–514. 10.1017/langcog.2015.20
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.20 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree
    2002 Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84(1). 73–111. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crible, Ludivine, Amandine Dumont, Iulia Grosman & Ingrid Notarrigo
    2019 (Dis)fluency across spoken and signed languages: Application of an interoperable annotation scheme. InLiesbeth Degand, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Laurent Meurant & Anne Catherine Simon (eds.), Fluency and disfluency across languages and language varieties, 17–35. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Duez, Danielle
    2001 Signification des hésitations dans la parole spontanée. Revue Parole17–19. 113–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Esposito, Anna & Maria Marinaro
    2007 What pauses can tell us about speech and gesture partnership. InAnna Esposito, Maja Bratanić & Eric Keller (eds.), Fundamentals of verbal and non-verbal communication and the biometric issue, 45–58. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Finlayson, Ian R. & Martin Corley
    2012 Disfluency in dialogue: An intentional signal from the speaker?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review19(5). 921–928. 10.3758/s13423‑012‑0279‑x
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0279-x [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles
    1981Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2003 The body in action. InJustine Coupland & Richard Gwin (eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity, 19–42. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781403918543_2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403918543_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Marjorie & Charles Goodwin
    1986 Gesture and co-participation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica62(1–2). 51–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Graziano, Maria & Marianne Gullberg
    2013 Gesture production and speech fluency in competent speakers and language learners. InProceedings of the Tilburg Gesture Research Meeting. Available at: https://tiger.uvt.nl/pdf/papers/graziano.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2018 When speech stops, gesture stops: Evidence from developmental and cross-linguistic comparisons. Frontiers in Psychology91. 879–910. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00879
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00879 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gullberg, Marianne
    2011 Multilingual multimodality: Communicative difficulties and their solutions in second-language use. InJürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world, 137–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Heller, Vivien
    2021 Embodied displays of “doing thinking”: Epistemic and interactive functions of thinking displays in children’s argumentative activities. Frontiers in Psychology121. 369–400. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, John
    2014 Conversation analysis and institutional talk. InRobert Sanders & Kristine Fitch (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 103–146. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hieke, Adolf E.
    1981 A content-processing view of hesitation phenomena. Language and Speech24(2). 147–160. 10.1177/002383098102400203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098102400203 [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmes, Virginia
    1988 Hesitations and sentence planning. Language and Cognitive Processes3(4). 323–361. 10.1080/01690968808402093
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968808402093 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InGene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  31. Jehoul, Annelies, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts
    2016 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]
  32. Jucker, Andreas H.
    2015 Pragmatics of fiction: Literary uses of uh and um. Journal of Pragmatics861. 63–67. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kendon, Adam
    1967 Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica261. 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2004Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kjellmer, Göran
    2003 Hesitation: In defence of er and erm. English Studies84(2). 170–198. 10.1076/enst.84.2.170.14903
    https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.84.2.170.14903 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kosmala, Loulou
    2020 “Euh le saviez-vous ?” Le rôle des (dis)fluences en contexte interactionnel: Étude exploratoire et qualitative. SHS Web of Conferences781. 2–15. 10.1051/shsconf/20207801018
    https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207801018 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2021a On the specificities of L1 and L2 (dis)fluencies and the interactional multimodal strategies of L2 speakers in tandem interactions. Journal of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech3(1). 69–101. 10.1558/jmbs.15676
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jmbs.15676 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2021b Gestures in fluent and disfluent cycles of speech: What they may tell us about the role of (dis)fluency in L2 discourse. InProceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, 77–82. Paris 8 University, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2021c A multimodal contrastive study of (dis)fluency across languages and settings: Towards a multidimensional scale of inter-(dis)fluency. Paris: Sorbonne Nouvelle PhD dissertation.
  40. Kosmala, Loulou & Ludivine Crible
    2021 The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence. Language and Speech65(1): 216–239. 10.1177/00238309211010862
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211010862 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kosmala, Loulou & Aliyah Morgenstern
    2019 Should uh and um be categorized as markers of disfluency? The use of fillers in a challenging conversational context. InLiesbeth Degand, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Laurence Meurant & Anne Catherine Simon (eds.), Fluency and disfluency across languages and language varieties, 67–85. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. MacWhinney, Brian
    2000 The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Psychology Press11. 657–677.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. McNeill, David
    1985 So you think gestures are non-verbal?Psychological Review92(3). 350–380. 10.1037/0033‑295X.92.3.350
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.350 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mondada, Lorenza
    2007 Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies9(2). 194–225. 10.1177/1461445607075346
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2016 Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics20(3). 336–366. 10.1111/josl.1_12177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177 [Google Scholar]
  46. Morgenstern, Aliyah
    2014 Children’s multimodal language development. InChristiane Fäcke (ed.), Manual of language acquisition, 123–142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302257.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302257.123 [Google Scholar]
  47. Morgenstern, Aliyah & Dominique Boutet
    . forthcoming. The orchestration of bodies and artifacts in French family dinners.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Morita, Emi & Tomoyo Takagi
    2018 Marking “commitment to undertaking of the task at hand”: Initiating responses with eeto in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics1241. 31–49. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Müller, Cornelia
    1998Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte, Theorie, Sprachvergleich (vol.11). Berlin: Spitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2014 Gesture as “deliberate expressive movement”. InMandana Seyfeddinipur & Marianne Gullberg (eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon, 127–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.188.07mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.188.07mul [Google Scholar]
  51. Niebuhr, Oliver & Kerstin Fischer
    2019 Do not hesitate! – Unless you do it shortly or nasally: How the phonetics of filled pauses determine their subjective frequency and perceived speaker performance. InProceedings of the 10th International Conference of Spoken Language Processing (Interspeech), 544–548. 10.21437/Interspeech.2019‑1194
    https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2019-1194 [Google Scholar]
  52. Peltonen, Pauliina
    2019 Gestures as fluency-enhancing resources in L2 interaction: A case study on multimodal fluency. InPekka Lintunen, Maarit Mutta & Pauliina Peltonen (eds.), Fluency in L2 learning and use, 138–158. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788926317‑010
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788926317-010 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2005 Managing the transitions between talk and silence in the academic monologue. Research on Language and Social Interaction38(2). 179–218. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_3 [Google Scholar]
  54. Rose, Ralph
    1998The communicative value of filled pauses in spontaneous speech. Birmingham: University of BirminghamMA dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2008 Filled pauses in language teaching: Why and how. Bulletin of Gunma Prefectural Women’s University291. 47–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rossano, Federico
    2013 Gaze in conversation. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. 308–330Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    (2010) Some other uh(m)s. Discourse Processes47(2). 130–174. 10.1080/01638530903223380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903223380 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schnadt, Michael J. & Martin Corley
    2006 The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Language212(2). 8–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Seyfeddinipur, Mandana
    2006 Disfluency: Interrupting speech and gesture. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.
  61. Shriberg, Elizabeth E.
    1994 Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. California: University of California PhD dissertation.
  62. Sloetjes, Han & Peter Wittenburg
    2008 Annotation by Category-ELAN and ISO DCR. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 816–820.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 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]
  64. Sterponi, Laura & Alessandra Fasulo
    2010 “How to Gg on”: Intersubjectivity and progressivity in the communication of a child with autism. Ethos38(1). 116–142. 10.1111/j.1548‑1352.2009.01084.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01084.x [Google Scholar]
  65. Stivers, Tanya
    2015 Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?Research on Language and Social Interaction48(1). 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993837 [Google Scholar]
  66. Stivers, Tanya & Jack Sidnell
    2005 Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica 2005 1–20. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Streeck, Jürgen
    2009Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning (vol.21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.2 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2014 Mutual gaze and recognition. InMandana Seyfeddinipur & Marianne Gullberg (eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon, 35–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.188.03str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.188.03str [Google Scholar]
  69. Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron
    2011Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 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]
  71. Tottie, Gunnel
    2011Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics16(2). 173–197. 10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot [Google Scholar]
  72. 2014 On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language21(1). 6–29. 10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot [Google Scholar]
  73. 2015Uh and um in British and American English: Are they words? Evidence from co-occurrence with pauses. InNathalie Dion, André Lapierre & Rena Torres Cacoullos (eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory, 38–55. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2016 Planning what to say: Uh and um among the 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]
  75. 2019 From pause to word: Uh, um and er in written American English. English Language & Linguistics23(1). 105–130. 10.1017/S1360674317000314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000314 [Google Scholar]
  76. Voss, Sina & Niebuhr Oliver
    2022 Beautiful noise? The impact of filled pauses on the perception of speaker charisma. InBook of Abstracts of the 13th Nordic Prosody Conference, 14–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Yasinnik, Yelena, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Nanette Veilleux
    2005 Gesture marking of disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech. InProceedings of Disfluency in spontaneous speech, 173–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Yule, George
    1996Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21020.kos
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21020.kos
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): face-to-face interactions; filled pauses; gesture; multimodality; register variation
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