Uh and Um in the Native and Non-Native Speech of Guests on a Saudi English-Language Podcast
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1307.03Keywords:
filled pauses, fillers, podcast, Praat, Saudi contextAbstract
Filled pauses (FPs), uh and um, are an inherent characteristic of impromptu spoken English. However, despite the ubiquity of FP studies across languages and their impacts on speech production and comprehension, they have not been thoroughly examined in the context of second language learners of English whose mother tongue is Arabic. Hence, this study analyzed FPs in the speech of female and male non-native speakers of English and those of an American speaker who were guests on a popular English-language podcast. Combining Praat (speech analysis software), and manual coding of FPs and fillers based on previous studies, native and non-native speech was overall peppered with FPs. Although uh was more frequent than um, their frequencies among speakers and characteristic positions varied greatly. Whereas the majority comprised standalone FPs, the remaining FPs co-occurred with fillers (and, but, so, well, and you know) or were aspirated. The average length of the FPs was slightly longer for the native speaker. There were more FPs in the samples taken from early in the podcast episodes than around the middles and sometimes the endings. Regarding gender, male speakers uttered more FPs than the female speaker, whether they are native or non-native speakers.
References
Blau, E., (1991). More on comprehensible input: The effect of pauses and hesitation markers on listening comprehension. Annual Meeting of the Puerto Rico Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Retrieved November 10, 2022, from Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED340234
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.2.09) [computer program], http://www.praat.org (access 01.01.23)
Carney, N. (2022). L2 comprehension of filled pauses and fillers in unscripted speech. System, 105, (102726), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102726
Christenfeld, N., & Creager, B. (1996). Anxiety, alcohol, aphasia, and ums. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.451
Clark, H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
Corley, M., & Stewart, O. W. (2008). Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x
Crible, L., Degand, L., & Gilquin, G. (2017). The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses: A corpus-based French-English study of (dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast, 17(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.04cri
Cutting, J. (2006). Spoken grammar: Vague language and EAP. In Spoken English, TESOL and applied linguistics: Challenges for theory and practise, R. Hughes (ed.), (pp. 159–181). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
de Boer, M. M., & Heeren, W. F. L. (2020). Cross-linguistic filled pause realization: The acoustics of uh and um in native Dutch and non-native English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(6), 3612-3622.
de Boer, M. M., Quené, H., & Heeren W. F. L. (2022). Long-term within-speaker consistency of filled pauses in native and non-native speech. JASA Express Letters, 2(3), 035201. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0009598
Fischer, K. (2006). Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In Approaches to discourse particles, K. Fischer (ed.), (pp. 427–447). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Foster, P. & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896.
Gilquin, G. (2008). Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 119–149). De Gruyter Mouton.
Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. John Benjamins Publishing.
Griffiths, R. (1991). The paradox of comprehensible input: Hesitation phenomena in L2 teacher talk. JALT Journal, 13(1), 23–38.
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Islam, M. (Host). (2020–present). The Mo Show Podcast [audio and video podcast]. Retrieved November 1, 2022, from https://www.themopodcast.com/
Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64(4), 809-854. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084
Kjellmer, G. (2003). Hesitation. In defence of er and erm. English Studies, 84(2), 170–198. https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.84.2.170.14903
Kosmala, L., & Crible, L. (2022). The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence. Language and Speech, 65(1), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211010862
Jessen, M. (2008). Forensic phonetics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 671–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00066.x
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (2005). Uh and Um revisited: Are they interjections for signaling delay? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(6), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9164-3
Schneider, U. (2014). Frequency, hesitations and chunks. A usage-based study of chunking in English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/9793/
Swerts, M. (1998). Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00014-9
Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.02tot
Tottie, G. (2014). On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language, 21(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot
Tottie, G. (2016). Planning what to say: Uh and um among the pragmatic markers. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. (pp. 97–122). John Benjamins.
Tottie, G. (2017). Word-search as word-formation? The case of uh and um. In Crossing linguistic boundaries: Systemic, synchronic and diachronic variation in English, P. Núñez-Pertejo, M. J. López-Couso, B. Méndez-Naya, J. Pérez-Guerra (ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
