Same, same, but erm sort of different? Comparing three kinds of fluencemes across Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealand English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.13.02.04Keywords:
fluency, filled pauses, unfilled pauses, discourse markers, spoken English, inner-circle varieties of EnglishAbstract
Although L1-English fluency has been extensively studied from many angles, few contrastive studies examine whether fluency develops similarly or differently across L1-varieties while taking sociolinguistic variation into consideration. This paper aims to close this research gap and examines the use of three core strategies of fluency (or fluencemes), i.e. discourse markers, filled pauses and unfilled pauses, across Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealand English. These fluencemes were extracted and manually disambiguated from the private conversation sections of the respective components of the International Corpus of English (ICE-AUS, ICE-GB, ICE-CAN, and ICE-NZ). The data were normalised per speaker and linked with the sociobiographic metadata of the speakers. Analysis using random forests revealed a consistent fluenceme distribution across the four varieties, with unfilled pauses being the most common, followed by discourse markers, and then filled pauses. This pattern suggests a ‘common fluenceme core’ among L1-English varieties. The influence of sociolinguistic variables —gender, age, education, and occupation— was modest across varieties and exhibited diverse trends. Male speakers tend to use filled pauses more frequently but fewer unfilled pauses compared to female speakers. Increasing age did not significantly affect the frequency of these strategies; however, older speakers tend to use discourse markers less frequently. Both education and occupation showed a slight positive correlation with overall fluency.
Downloads
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Albert, Martin L. 1980. Language in normal and dementing elderly. In Lauraine K. Obler and Martin L. Albert eds. Language and Communication in the Elderly. Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Co, 145–150.
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beier, Eleonora J., Suphasiree Chantavarin and Fernanda Ferreira. 2023. Do disfluencies increase with age? Evidence from a sequential corpus study of disfluencies. The Psychology of Aging 38/3: 203–218.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johannson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Börjars, Kersti and Kate Burridge. 2010. Introducing English Grammar (second edition). London: Hodder Education.
Bortfeld, Heather, Silvia D. Leon, Jonathan E. Bloom, Michael F. Schober and Susan E. Brennan. 2001. Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role and gender. Language and Speech 44/2: 123–147.
Brand, Christiane and Sandra Götz. 2011. Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16/2: 255–275.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Burke, Isabelle and Kate Burridge. 2023. From a bit of processed cheese to a bit of a car accident and a little bit of ‘oh really’ – The journey of Australian English a bit (of). Journal of Pragmatics 209: 15–30.
Burridge, Kate. 2014. Cos – A new discourse marker for Australian English? Australian Journal of Linguistics 34/4: 524–548.
Burridge, Kate and Margaret Florey. 2002. ‘Yeah-no He’s a Good Kid’: A discourse analysis of Yeah-no in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 22/2: 149–171.
Butcher, Alan. 1980. Pause and syntactic structure. In Hans-Werner Dechert and Manfred Raupach eds. Temporal Variables in Speech: Studies in Honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 85–90.
Buysse, Lieven and Meghan Blanchard. 2022. L1 and non-L1 perceptions of discourse markers in English. Pragmatics & Cognition 29/2: 222–245.
Chafe, Wallace L. ed. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chambers, Francine. 1997. What do we mean by fluency? System 25/4: 535–544.
Clark, Herbert. H. and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84: 73–111.
Corley, Martin, Lucy J. MacGregor and David I. Donaldson. 2007. It’s the way that you, er, say it: Hesitations in speech affect language comprehension. Cognition 105/3: 658–668.
Crible, Ludivine. 2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crible, Ludivine, Lisbeth Degand and Gaëtanelle Gilquin. 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.
Drommel, Raimund H. 1980. Towards a subcategorization of speech pauses. In Hans-Werner Dechert and Manfred Raupach eds. Temporal Variables in Speech: Studies in Honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mouton, 227–238.
Dumont, Amandine. 2018. Fluency and Disfluency. A Corpus Study of Non-native and Native Speakers (Dis)fluency Profiles. PhD Thesis: Université Catholique de Louvain.
Foster, Pauline and Parvaneh Tavakoli. 2009. Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning 59/4: 866–896.
Fox, Jon and Sanford Weisberg. 2019. An R Companion to Applied Regression (third edition). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Fruehwald, Josef. 2016. Filled pause choice as a sociolinguistic variable. In Helen Jeoung ed. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 22 (second edition). Pennsylvania: Penn Graduate Linguistics Society, 41–49. https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/45126 (2 January, 2025.)
Fuller, Janet M. 2003. Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Multilingua 22: 185–208.
Fung, Loretta and Ronald Carter. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28/3: 410–439.
Ganzeboom, Harry B.G. 2010. A new International Socio-Economic Index (ISEI) of occupational status for the International Standard Classification of Occupation 2008 (ISCO-08) constructed with data from the ISSP 2002–2007. Paper presented at Annual Conference of International Social Survey Programme, Lisbon, May 1 2010.
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1961. A comparative study of two hesitation phenomena. Language and Speech 4/1: 18–26.
Götz, Sandra. 2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grant, Lynn E. 2010. A corpus comparison of the use of I don’t know by British and New Zealand speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 42/8: 2282–2296.
Greenbaum, Sidney and Gerald Nelson. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes 15/1: 3–15.
Greenwell, Brandon M. 2017. pdp: An R package for constructing partial dependence plots. The R Journal 9/1: 421–436.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2020. On classification trees and random forests in corpus linguistics: Some words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16/3: 617–647.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2021. Statistics for Linguistics with R (third edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2024. Against level-3-only analyses in corpus linguistics. ICAME Journal 48/1: 1–25.
Hasselgren, Angela. 2002. Learner corpora and language testing: Smallwords as markers of learner fluency. In Sylviane Granger, Joseph Hung and Stephanie Petch-Tyson eds. Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 143–173.
Kachru, Brach. B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson eds. English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–30.
Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible and Kate Beeching. 2022. Can filled pauses be represented as linguistic items? Investigating the effect of exposure on the perception and production of um. Language and Speech 65/2: 263–289.
Kjellmer, Göran. 2003. Hesitation. In defence of ER and ERM. English Studies 84/2: 170–198.
Laserna, Charlyn M., Yi-Tai Seih and James W. Pennebaker. 2014. Um ... who like says you know: Filler word use as a function of age, gender, and personality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33/3: 328–338.
Leuckert, Sven and Sofia Rüdiger eds. 2021. World Englishes 40/4: Special Issue on Discourse Markers and World Englishes.
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1954. Transitional probability, linguistic structure and systems of habit-family hierarchies. In Charles E. Osgood and Thomas A. Sebeok eds. Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 93–101.
Loy, Jia E., Hannah Rohde and Martin Corley. 2017. Effects of disfluency in online interpretation of deception. Cognitive Science 41/6: 1434–1456.
Maclay, Howard and Charles E. Osgood. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. WORD: Journal of the International Linguistics Association 15: 19–44.
Manhire, Laura. 2021. Yeah nah she’ll be right: An attitudinal study of ‘yeah nah’ in New Zealand English. MA Thesis. Canterbury: University of Canterbury dissertation.
Miller, Jim. 2009. Like and other discourse markers. In Pam Peters, Peter Collins and Adam Smith eds. Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315–336.
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Sabine Kowal. 2005. Uh and Um revisited: Are they interjections for signaling delay? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34/6: 555–576.
OECD. 1999. Classifying Educational Programmes: Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/education/1841854.pdf (23 May, 2024.)
Osborne, John. 2013. Fluency, complexity and informativeness in native and non-native speech. In Gaëtanelle Gilquin and Sylvie De Cock eds. Errors and Disfluencies in Spoken Corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 140–161.
Pawley, Andrew and Frances H. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Jack Richards and Richard W. Schmidt eds. Language and Communication. London: Longman, 191–226.
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 2018. The combination of discourse markers in spontaneous conversations: Keys to undo a gordian knot. Revue Romane 53/1: 121–158.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reichelt, Susan. 2021. Recent developments of the pragmatic markers kind of and sort of in spoken British English. English Language and Linguistics 25/3: 563–580.
Revis, Melanie and Tobias Bernaisch. 2020. The pragmatic nativisation of pauses in Asian Englishes. World Englishes 39/1: 135–153.
Riggenbach, Heidi. 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14/4: 423–441.
Scheuringer, Andrea, Ramona Wittig and Belinda Pletzer. 2017. Sex differences in verbal fluency: The role of strategies and instructions. Cognitive Processing 18/4: 407–417.
Schow, Ronald L., John M. Christensen, John M. Hutchinson and Miachael Nerbonne. 1978. Communication Disorders of the Aged: A Guide for Health Professionals. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Schweinberger, Martin. 2018. The discourse particle eh in New Zealand English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38/3: 395–420.
Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. Cognitive Bases of Second-Language Fluency. London: Routledge.
Shriberg, Elizabeth. 1996. Disfluencies in switchboard. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP ’96), Volume addendum, 11–14. Philadelphia.PA, 3–6 October. http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp/cdrom/vol3/1031/a1031.pdf (2 January, 2025.)
Sokołowski, Andrzej, Ernest Tyburski, Anna Sołtys and Ewa Karabanowicz. 2020. Sex differences in verbal fluency among young adults. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 16/2: 92–102.
Strobl, Carolin, James D. Malley and Gerhard Tutz. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychological Methods 14/4: 323–348.
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 & Communication 15/1: 63–88.
Svartvik, Jan. 1990. The TESS project. In Jan Svartvik ed. The London Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 203–218.
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37/11: 1896–1915.
Tottie, Gunnel. 2011. Uh and Um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16/2: 173–197.
Tottie, Gunnel. 2015. Uh and um in British and American English: Are they words? Evidence from co-occurrence with pauses. In Rena Torres Cacoullos, Nathalie Dion and André Lapierre eds. Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory. New York: Routledge, 38–55.
UNESCO. 2006. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 1997). Paris: UNESCO. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-1997-en_0.pdf (2 January, 2025.)
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2010. An Introduction to the Grammar of English: Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vine, Bernadette. 2016. Pragmatic markers at work in New Zealand. In Lucy Pickering, Eric Friginal and Shelley Staples eds. Talking at Work: Communicating in Professions and Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–25.
Weiss, Elisabeth M., Daniel Ragland, Colleen M. Brensinger, Warren B. Bilker, Eberhard A. Deisenhammer and Margarete Delazer. 2006. Sex differences in clustering and switching in verbal fluency tasks. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 12/4: 502–509.
Wolk, Christoph, Sandra Götz and Katja Jäschke. 2021. Possibilities and drawbacks of using an online application for semi-automatic corpus analysis to investigate discourse markers and alternative fluency variables. Corpus Pragmatics 5/1: 7–36.
Wright, Marvin N. and Andreas Ziegler. 2017. ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software 77/1: 1–17.
Wright, Marvin N., Andreas Ziegler and Inke R. König. 2016. Do little interactions get lost in dark random forests? BMC Bioinformatics 17: article 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-016-0995-8 (2 January, 2025.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Research in Corpus Linguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.
