Introduction published In:
Discourse-pragmatic markers, fillers and filled pauses: Pragmatic, cognitive, multimodal and sociolinguistic perspectives
Edited by Kate Beeching, Grant Howie, Minna Kirjavainen and Anna Piasecki
[Pragmatics & Cognition 29:2] 2022
► pp. 181194
Aijmer, Karin
2002English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 ‘Well I’m not sure I think…’. The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2). 231–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Understanding pragmatic markers. A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
(eds.) 2006Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
1996Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2015Variability in native and non-native use of pragmatic markers: The example of well in role-play data. In Kate Beeching & Helen Woodfield (eds.), Researching sociopragmatic variability. Perspectives from variational, interlanguage and contrastive pragmatics, 174–200. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
(eds.) 2015Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian
1980Evidence from pauses in speech. In Brian Butterworth (ed.), Language production (vol. 11), 155–176. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven
2020 ‘It was a bit stressy as well actually’: The pragmatic markers actually and in fact in spoken learner English. Journal of Pragmatics 1561. 28–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Jean E. Fox Tree
2002Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 841. 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William & Jeanne Paccia-Cooper
1980Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corley, Martin & Oliver W. Stewart
2008Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um . Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4). 589–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corley, Martin & Robert Hartsuiker
2011Why um helps auditory word recognition: The temporal delay hypothesis. PLos ONE 6(5): e19792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denke, Annika
2009Native-like performance: Pragmatic markers, repair and repetition in native and non-native English speech. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr Müller.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara & Andrea Sansó
Fischer, Kerstin
(ed) 2006Approaches to discourse particles. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fung, Loretta & Ronald Carter
2007Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28(3). 410–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda
1961Hesitation and information in speech. In Colin Cherry (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th London Symposium on Information Theory, 162–174. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
1968Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Lamar A.
Hasselgren, Angela
1994Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2). 1313–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Alan, Frieda Goldman-Eisler & Andrew Skarbek
1965Temporal patterns of cognitive activity and breath control in speech. Language and Speech 81. 236–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 91. 207–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jehoul, Annelies, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts
2017Gaze patterns and filled pauses: Empirical data on the difference between Dutch euh and euhm . In Proceedings of the 4th European and 7th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM2016), 43–50.Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible & Kate Beeching
2022Can 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, Peter, Gudrun Vanderbauwhede & Stijn Verleyen
Levelt, Willem J. M.
1983Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 141. 41–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liao, Silvie
2009Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics 411. 1313–1328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlo, Sandra & Plínio A. Barbosa
2010Hesitation phenomena: A dynamical perspective. Cognitive Processing 11(3). 251–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Simone
Petrie, Helen
1987The psycholinguistics of speaking. In John Lyons, Richard Coates, Margaret Deuchar & Gerald Gazdar (eds.), New horizons in linguistics (vol. 21), 336–366. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike
(ed.) 2016Discourse-pragmatic variation and change in English: New methods and insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speer, Shari R., Paul Warren & Amy J. Schafer
2011Situationally independent prosodic phrasing. Laboratory Phonology 2(1). 35–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, Marc
1998Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4). 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonetti Tübben, Ilenia & Daniela Landert
2022 Uh and um as pragmatic markers in dialogues: A contrastive perspective on the functions of planners in fiction and conversation. Contrastive Pragmatics. 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
2019From pause to word: Uh, um and er in written American English. English Language and Linguistics 23(1). 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaides, Kristina Denisovna
2022Hesitative markers eto and eto samoe: Structural and temporal aspects. Коммуникативные исследования 9 (1). 49–66.Google Scholar