Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 14:4 (2004) ► pp.479–498

Showing structure

Using um in the academic seminar

Um and uh are generally considered to be indicative of dysfluency and uncertainty in speech production. However, analysis of the academic seminar indicates that the distribution of um and uh is not random. In specific well-defined environments um is used to indicate the underlying structure of the talk. Although Swerts (1998) has already suggested that fillers such as um and uh 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 um in a series of computer science seminars. Using traditional conversation analysis techniques, the paper focuses on the way in which um indicates structure in the academic seminar by maintaining coherence across bits of talk. It thus argues that in specific well-defined environments um functions as a discourse marker. This paper therefore addresses such issues as the role and function of um in seminar talk, the environments in which it occurs, and its use in indicating the structure of the talk to the listening audience.
Keywords: Discourse markers, Academic monologue, Uh, Um, Institutional talk, Repair
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 December 2004
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.14.4.04ren
References (56)
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage (eds.) (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
(1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 325-352. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan, and Michael F. Schober (2001) How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 441: 274-296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Language 341: 383-398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
(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
Button, George Lee, and R.E. John (eds.) (1987) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
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
Chaudron, Craig, and Jack C. Richards (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics 7.2: 113-127. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christenfeld, Nicholas (1995) Does it hurt to say um? Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour 19.3: 171-186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. (1994) Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communication 151: 243-250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox-Tree (2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 841: 73-111. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Condon, Sherri (1986) The discourse functions of OK. Semiotica 601: 73-101. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan (1997) Intonation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and Steve Tauroza (1995) The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 171: 435-458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox-Tree, Jean E. (1995) Effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 341: 709-738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001) Listeners’ uses of um and uh in speech comprehension. Memory and Cognition 29.2: 320-326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002) Interpreting pauses and ums at turn exchanges. Discourse Processes 34.1: 37-55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Language 401: 280-295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 383-395. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1999) What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 311: 931-952. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1981) Forms of Talks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1989) Current developments in conversational analysis. In D. Roger, and P. Bull (eds.), Conversation. Clevedon Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9-47.Google Scholar
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
Jefferson, Gail (1974) Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 21: 181-199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Jucker, Andreas H. (1993) The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 435-452. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald (2002) You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 749-767. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Maclay, Howard, and Charles E. Osgood (1959) Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 151: 19-44.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Östman, Jan-Ola (1981) You know: A Discourse Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna (1999) When ‘okay’ is okay in computer science seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22.2: 19-33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Talk and action in the computer science seminar. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, ANU.
(2003) So what does this show us: Analysis of the discourse marker ‘so’ in seminar talk. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Speech 661: 227-279. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1974) A simplest semantics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50.4: 695-735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Stanley, Nicholas Christenfeld, Bernard Ravina, and Frances Bilous (1991) Speech dysfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60.3: 362-367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979) The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax Volume 12 New York: Academic Press, pp. 261-286.Google Scholar
. (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
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 81: 289-327. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53.2: 361-382. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence (1985) Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
(1999) Discourse Markers. Lingua 1071: 227-265. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
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 Processes 141: 27-54. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
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 Communication 151: 63-88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, Marc (1998) Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 301: 485-496. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Swerts, Marc, and Ronald Geluykens (1994) Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech 37.1: 21-43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, Marc, and Mari Ostendorf (1997) Prosodic and lexical indications of discourse structure in human-machine interactions. Speech Communication 221: 25-41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Underhill, Robert (1998) Like is, like, focus. American Speech 631: 234-246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible & 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 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Sawyer, R. Keith
2022. Teaching creative thinking: how design professors externalize their creative thinking in studio classroom talk. Mind, Culture, and Activity 29:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2019. Chapter 2. Local vs. global scope of discourse markers. In Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 305], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Jucker, Andreas H.
2015. Pragmatics of fiction: Literary uses of uh and um. Journal of Pragmatics 86 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Perera, Kaushalya & Susan Strauss
2015. High-focus and time-immediate indexicals: A study of Sinhala discourse markers me: ‘this’ and dæn ‘now’. Journal of Pragmatics 85 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Hall, Joan Kelly & Tetyana Smotrova
2013. Teacher self-talk: Interactional resource for managing instruction and eliciting empathy. Journal of Pragmatics 47:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Oak, Arlene
2012. ‘You can argue it two ways’: The collaborative management of a design dilemma. Design Studies 33:6 ► pp. 630 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 286], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.