Volume 14, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


and are generally considered to be indicative of dysfluency and uncertainty in speech production. However, analysis of the academic seminar indicates that the distribution of and is not random. In specific well-defined environments is used to indicate the underlying structure of the talk. Although Swerts (1998) has already suggested that fillers such as and could be treated as discourse markers in Dutch, the notion that such tokens are functioning as discourse markers has not been developed in detail. This paper analyses the role played by in a series of computer science seminars. Using traditional conversation analysis techniques, the paper focuses on the way in which indicates structure in the academic seminar by maintaining coherence across bits of talk. It thus argues that in specific well-defined environments functions as a discourse marker. This paper therefore addresses such issues as the role and function of in seminar talk, the environments in which it occurs, and its use in indicating the structure of the talk to the listening audience.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, J. Maxwell , and John Heritage
    (eds.) (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beach, Wayne
    (1990) Language as and in technology: Facilitating topic organisation in a videotex focus group meeting. In: M.J. Medhurst , A. Gonzalez , and T.R. Peterson (eds.), Communication and the Culture of Technology. Pullman,WA: Washington State University Press. pp.197-220.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics19: 325-352. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brennan, Susan , and Michael F. Schober
    (2001) How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language44: 274-296. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2753
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brennan, Susan E. , and 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: 383-398. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1017
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1017 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Gillian , and George Yule
    (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  7. Button, George
    (1987) Moving out of closings. In G. Button , and J.R.E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp.101-151.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1990) On varieties of closing. In G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction Competence: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp.93-147.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Button, George Lee , and R.E. John
    (eds.) (1987) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe, Wallace L
    (1979) The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax Vol 12. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaudron, Craig , and Jack C. Richards
    (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics7.2: 113-127. doi: 10.1093/applin/7.2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, Noam
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Christenfeld, Nicholas
    (1995) Does it hurt to say um?Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour19.3: 171-186. doi: 10.1007/BF02175503
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02175503 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, Herbert H
    (1994) Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communication15: 243-250. doi: 10.1016/0167‑6393(94)90075‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(94)90075-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark, Herbert H. , and Jean E. Fox-Tree
    (2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84: 73-111. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Condon, Sherri
    (1986) The discourse functions of OK. Semiotica60: 73-101. doi: 10.1515/semi.1986.60.1‑2.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.60.1-2.73 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cruttenden, Alan
    (1997) Intonation. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166973
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166973 [Google Scholar]
  18. Flowerdew, John , and Steve Tauroza
    (1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition17: 435-458. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014406
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fox-Tree, Jean E
    (1995) Effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language34: 709-738. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1995.1032
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1032 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2001) Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory and Cognition29.2: 320-326. doi: 10.3758/BF03194926
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194926 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) Interpreting pauses and ums at turn exchanges. Discourse Processes34.1: 37-55. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3401_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3401_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fox Tree, Jean E. , and Josef C. Schrock
    (1999) Discourse Markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language40: 280-295. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2613
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2613 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fraser, Bruce
    (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics14: 383-395. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90096‑V
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90096-V [Google Scholar]
  24. (1999) What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics31: 931-952. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00101‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Forms of Talks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, John
    (1984) A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: pp. 299-345.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1989) Current developments in conversational analysis. In D. Roger , and P. Bull (eds.), Conversation. Clevedon Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, pp.9-47.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. James, Deborah
    (1974) The syntax and semantics of some English interjections. University of Michigan dissertation. University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics 1.3.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jefferson, Gail
    (1974) Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society2: 181-199. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004334 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1990) List construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (ed.), Interaction Competence: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp.63-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jucker, Andreas H
    (1993) The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics19: 435-452. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Macaulay, Ronald
    (2002) You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics34: 749-767. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00005-4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Maclay, Howard , and Charles E. Osgood
    (1959) Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word15: 19-44.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Merritt, Marilyn
    (1984) On the use of O.K. in service encounters. In J. Baugh , and J. Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp.139-147.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Östman, Jan-Ola
    (1981) You know: A Discourse Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    (1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics22.2: 19-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2002) Talk and action in the computer science seminar. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
  38. (2003) So what does this show us: Analysis of the discourse marker ‘so’ in seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics26: 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Romaine, Suzanne , and Deborah Lange
    (1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66: 227-279. doi: 10.2307/455799
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sacks, Harvey
    (1984) On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.413-429.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language50.4: 695-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schachter, Stanley , Nicholas Christenfeld , Bernard Ravina , and Frances Bilous
    (1991) Speech dysfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology60.3: 362-367. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.60.3.362
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.362 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    (1979) The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax Volume 12New York: Academic Press, pp.261-286.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (1982) Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (ed.), Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp.71-93.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Harvey Sacks
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica8: 289-327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53.2: 361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schiffrin, Deborah
    (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schourup, Lawrence
    (1985) Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (1999) Discourse Markers. Lingua107: 227-265. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  50. Segel, Erwin M. , Judith F. Duchan , and Paula J. Scott
    (1991) The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes14: 27-54. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544773
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544773 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sinclair, John , and Malcolm Coulthard
    (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Stubbe, Maria , and Janet Holmes
    (1995)  You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication15: 63-88. doi: 10.1016/0271‑5309(94)00016‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(94)00016-6 [Google Scholar]
  53. Swerts, Marc
    (1998) Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics30: 485-496. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00014-9 [Google Scholar]
  54. Swerts, Marc , and Ronald Geluykens
    (1994) Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech37.1: 21-43.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Swerts, Marc , and Mari Ostendorf
    (1997) Prosodic and lexical indications of discourse structure in human-machine interactions. Speech Communication22: 25-41. doi: 10.1016/S0167‑6393(97)00011‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(97)00011-3 [Google Scholar]
  56. Underhill, Robert
    (1998)  Like is, like, focus. American Speech63: 234-246. doi: 10.2307/454820
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454820 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Academic monologue; Discourse markers; Institutional talk; Repair; Uh; Um
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