The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses

Abstract

This article presents a corpus-based contrastive study of (dis)fluency in French and English, focusing on the clustering of discourse markers (DMs) and filled pauses (FPs) across various spoken registers. Starting from the hypothesis that markers of (dis)fluency, or ‘fluencemes’, occur more frequently in sequences than in isolation, and that their contribution to the relative fluency of discourse can only be assessed by taking into account the contextual distribution of these sequences, this study uncovers the specific contextual conditions that trigger the clustering of fluencemes in the two languages. First, the contexts of appearance of DMs and FPs are described separately, both in English and French, focusing on their distribution, position and co-occurrence patterns. Then, the combination of DMs and FPs in sequences and their different configurations (DM+FP, FP+DM, etc.) are investigated. Overall, it appears that FPs function differently depending on whether they are clustered with DMs or not, and this difference consists in either maintaining or erasing inter- and intra-linguistic contrasts.

Beyond stuttering: Speech disfluencies in normally fluent French-speaking children at age 4

“…A previous study in English showed a larger proportion of interjections in adult French speakers compared to English-speaking adults (Crible et al, 2017). The authors gave a cultural interpretation to this result: interjections are more frequent in French, even in formal situations, and are thus probably less stigmatized than in English.…”

“…Concerning French, Crible et al (2017) showed that filled pauses (which we call interjections, such as 'euh' ['uh']) display a higher frequency in French than in English among adults. Based on the fact that filled pauses occur more often in French, even in very formal situations, the authors suggest that they could be less stigmatized than in English.…”

(Dis)fluencies and their contribution to the co-construction of meaning in native and non-native tandem interactions of French and English

“…However, other studies have also pointed out their discourse and interactional functions and the fact that they can contribute to the fluency of discourse (Tottie 2014;Holmes 1988), which makes the use of the term disfluency questionable (Tottie 2014). This has motivated our use of the term (dis)fluency with dis in brackets (in line with Götz, 2013;Crible et al 2017) which is grounded in a functionally ambivalent approach to these phenomena. This approach points out the ambivalent aspect of (dis)fluencies as they can in fact show two sides of the same coin (Crible, et al, 2017).…”

“…This has motivated our use of the term (dis)fluency with dis in brackets (in line with Götz, 2013;Crible et al 2017) which is grounded in a functionally ambivalent approach to these phenomena. This approach points out the ambivalent aspect of (dis)fluencies as they can in fact show two sides of the same coin (Crible, et al, 2017). The same forms, depending on their distribution in the micro and macro context can show signs of fluency and/or disfluency.…”

“…Smith & Clark, 1993) tandis que des études plus récentes défendent l'idée qu'ils ont également avoir des fonctions discursives et communicatives en interaction(Tottie 2014;Kjellmer 2003;Tellier, et al, 2013). Cette opposition, ou ce conflit reflété dans la littérature souligne l'aspect polyvalent des (dis)fluences : les mêmes formes, selon leur distribution locale et globale en contexte peuvent à la fois être des signes de fluence et de disfluence(Crible, et al, 2017). Cetarticle vise donc à dépasser l'opposition binaire traditionnelle entre « fluence » et « disfluence », et d'analyser ces phénomènes sur un continuum où l'on trouve plusieurs degrés de (dis)fluence.…”