MASARYK UNIVERSITY Fillers in Academic Spoken English

MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

Fillers in Academic Spoken English

Bachelor Thesis

Brno 2014

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Renata Povolná, Ph.D. Author: Jan Gryc

2

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that I have worked on this bachelor thesis independently and

that I have used only the sources mentioned in the references.

Brno, 16th

April 2014 ………………………..

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my supervisor doc. PhDr. Renata Povolná, Ph.D., for her

valuable and expert advice and also for her patience.

Brno, 16th

April 2014 ………………………..

4

Contents

CONTENTS..................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 6

1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 7

1.1 VARIETIES OF ENGLISH ...................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Dialect variation ........................................................................................... 7

1.1.2 Register variation.......................................................................................... 9

1.2 CORPUS IN ENGLISH ......................................................................................... 11

1.2.1 Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English .......................................... 12

1.3 SPOKEN AND WRITTEN ENGLISH ...................................................................... 13

1.3.1 Functions of speech and writing ................................................................. 15

1.3.2 Writing ........................................................................................................ 16

1.3.3 Speech ......................................................................................................... 16

1.3.4 Non-linguistic features of speech and writing ............................................ 17

1.3.5 Linguistic features of speech and writing ................................................... 18

1.4 ACADEMIC ENGLISH ........................................................................................ 20

1.4.1 The linguistic dimension of academic English............................................ 21

1.5 FILLERS ............................................................................................................ 24

2 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 29

2.1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 30

2.1.1 Psychology - Lecture................................................................................... 30

2.1.2 (Bio)psychology - Lab ................................................................................. 34

2.1.3 Anthropology - Lecture ............................................................................... 37

2.1.4 Anthropology – Discussion section ............................................................. 39

2.2 SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 42

2.3 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 43

2.3.1 Discourse markers ...................................................................................... 43

2.3.1.1 Actually ................................................................................................... 44

2.3.1.1 Basically .................................................................................................. 45

2.3.1.2 I guess ..................................................................................................... 45

2.3.1.3 I mean...................................................................................................... 46

2.3.1.4 In fact ...................................................................................................... 46

2.3.1.5 I think ...................................................................................................... 47

2.3.1.6 Kind of (kinda), sort of (sorta) ................................................................ 47

2.3.1.7 Like .......................................................................................................... 48

2.3.1.8 Now ......................................................................................................... 49

2.3.1.9 So............................................................................................................. 49

2.3.1.10 Well ......................................................................................................... 50

2.3.1.11 You know ................................................................................................. 50

2.3.2 Interjections ................................................................................................ 51

2.3.2.1 Aaahh, nah .............................................................................................. 51

2.3.2.2 Mhm, hm, mm .......................................................................................... 52

2.3.2.3 Oh, ooh .................................................................................................... 53

2.3.2.4 Oop, ugh .................................................................................................. 53

2.3.2.5 Uh, uh?, uhuh .......................................................................................... 54

2.3.2.6 Um ........................................................................................................... 55

2.3.2.7 Whew ....................................................................................................... 55

5

2.3.2.8 Wow......................................................................................................... 56

2.3.3 Response getters.......................................................................................... 56

2.3.4 Response forms ........................................................................................... 58

2.3.5 Polite forms ................................................................................................. 61

2.3.6 Expletives .................................................................................................... 63

2.3.7 Greetings/farewells ..................................................................................... 65

2.3.8 Attention getters .......................................................................................... 66

2.4 SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................ 67

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 68

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 69

SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 69

6

Introduction

Spoken language plays an essential role in language as such. Speech goes

hand in hand with another very important component of language, writing. These

two create a very important complex which is inseparable for my bachelor thesis.

Each language in the world, and English is no exception, had a slow

development. We can still see this development in certain words, for example open

and closed words. Speech developed first via various sounds which later changed

into first words. Written language has a slower development but, on the other hand,

was more easily recorded, simply with a pen and a piece of paper. Nowadays

technologies provide almost the same opportunity for spoken language, since we can

record our own voice.

A very important role in spoken English is played by the so-called fillers,

which are basically words that help us to form our ideas. The current state of

English brings evidence on this phenomenon, especially in American English. The

most prominent authors that deal with fillers are Biber et al. and their publication

Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English (2004) and Stenström's

An Introduction to Spoken Interaction (1999).

This is the reason why I have chosen fillers as the topic for my bachelor

thesis. Fillers are becoming more and more popular and we often even do not notice

this since they are something common and natural for each of us. They are an

inherent component of speech.

The main source of data for my thesis is the Michigan Corpus of Academic

Spoken English (MICASE), from which I have chosen several texts representing

different speech event situations, (e.g. lectures and seminars), in which I identified

and analyzed all fillers they included.

In my work, there will be three different parts concerning fillers. The very

first one is theoretical and deals with varieties of English, spoken and written

language, fillers and also with some information about my corpus. The second one

is a quantitative part where the frequency of fillers used in academic spoken

environment is studied. The last part of my work is qualitative and offers my

classification and analysis of fillers according to their discourse functions.

7

1 Theoretical framework

1.1 Varieties of English

English is, without a doubt, the most widespread language in the world. But

on the other hand, English has no stable form. We may find many varieties of

English all across the world, most of them depending on cultural or regional factors.

The English language is not homogenous and, as a result, there are many varieties.

According to Biber et al. (2002: 4) we can distinguish two main types of

language varieties: dialect and register variation which “interact with each other”

(Leech 1982: 10).

1.1.1 Dialect variation

“Dialects are varieties according to identity of speaker(s) or writer(s) - their

geographic area, gender, socio-economic class, and so on” (Biber et al. 2002: 5).

a) Standard English – Leech (1975: 21) calls it “the common core”

and in a different publication expresses his belief that standard

English is “in fact just another variety or dialect” (1982: 7). Biber

et al. (2002.: 6) claim that “there is no official academy that

regulates usage of the English language, but there is still a

prevailing world-wide view that there is “standard English”. Since

my bachelor thesis is focused on (American) academic spoken

English, it can be expected that (non-codified) standard English

will be used most widely in academic environment since society

consider standard English as the most appropriate one.

b) Geographical and national varieties – Leech and Svartvik

(1975: 22) hold the view that “English is spoken as a native

language by nearly three hundred million people (the United

States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland,

Australia, the Caribbean, and many other places).” The heaviest

influence on our lives has probably American English (AmE) and

8

British English (BrE). Leech et al. (ibid.) provide examples of

differences between American and British English, e.g. the

“difference in the repeated subject after one, the use of subjunctive

after verb such as demand, require, insist, suggest, etc.” For

illustration, cf. the examples below. These differences also affect

written and spoken language as such.

One cannot succeed unless he tries hard. – AmE (ibid.)

One cannot succeed unless one tries hard. – BrE (ibid.)

They suggested Smith be dropped from the team. – AmE (ibid.)

They suggested Smith should be dropped from the team. – BrE

(ibid.)

c) Regional dialects – Leech et al. (1982: 7) call it “regional origin”

in their work. According to this, it can be told where a person

comes from by the way he or she speaks. This, however, depends

on “how familiar we are with the variety of a given region”. That

is certainly true, since the more one knows a given region, the

easier it is to accommodate to its (language) environment. Czech

learners of English, though, are very often unfamiliar with

different accents. I completely agree with Leech et. al (ibid.) that

“vocabulary and grammar are the most important levels for

describing a dialect, since regional pronunciation, or a regional

accent, can be used when speaking standard English as well as

when speaking a regional dialect”. As a result, one must be very

cautious in order to identify standard English grammatical

structures in an accent.

d) Social dialects – Leech (1982: 8) calls it “social-class

membership”. Social dialects are varieties according to age,

gender, social class, etc. That basically means that people are

affected by these factors since the early childhood and their

language depends on a social group they are involved in. For

9

example, as Leech et al. (ibid.) mention, “in Britain, there is an

interesting relationship between social class and the use of

standard and non-standard speech in that the “higher” you are up

the social scale, the less likely you are to use non-standard or

regionally identifiable speech”. I agree with this statement, since

in Britain, there is a prevailing tendency to conservatism and, as a

result, people from the “higher” social scale are more likely to use

standard English. This, however, changes. For example, in

London, there are new Indian and China towns and the so-called

standard English has a new competitor. Hence, in my opinion,

standard English will never be replaced in order to keep British

language tradition. Halliday and Hasan (1989: 43) say that

“members of community often hold strong attitudes towards its

dialects, owing to the function of dialect in the expression and

maintenance of social hierarchy.” They also state that “one dialect

may acquire special status as symbolizing the values as a whole”

(ibid.). This might seem to be discriminating but, in fact, it is not.

Each social group has its own standards, rules and its language

environment, each unique in its own way. Sometimes, it is

important to accommodate oneself to a current cultural and

language environment.

1.1.2 Register variation

“Registers are varieties of language that are associated with different

circumstances and purposes” (Biber et al. 2002: 4). Leech et al. (1982: 9) name

this variation as “variation according to use” or “style”. Registers can be divided

into three basic categories – tenor, mode and domain.

Halliday and Hasan (1989: 43) provide another definition: “registers are

the semantic configurations that are typically associated with particular social

contexts (defined in terms of tenor, mode and field)”. Halliday and Hasan (ibid.)

also added an attribute to tenor, mode and field. Sometimes, they call it tenor of

discourse, mode of discourse and field of discourse.

10

These terms create an inseparable complex which is essential for me,

since the bachelor thesis is mostly focused on speech and its components.

However, the shorter terms are used here, i.e. tenor, mode and domain.

a) Tenor – According to Leech et al. (1982: 9) tenor “has to do with

the relationship between the speaker and the addressee(s) in a

given situation, and is often characterized by greater or lesser

formality”. In other words, every situation is unique and requires a

different approach to a person we communicate with, and also a

different degree of formality. That is very important to realize

since environment described in this work is mainly academic

where some principles are different from those used daily outside

college. Leech et al. (ibid.) add that “a speaker has to know which

is the right kind of language to use in which circumstances, though

sometimes the wrong choice may be made deliberately, for

humorous or sarcastic effect”. Leech et al. (ibid.: 145-146) state

that tenor is formal or informal, depending on a situation. Other

aspects he submits are politeness and impersonality, depending on

how well the speaker knows the addressee.

In what country was he born? – Formal (Leech et al. 1975: 25)

What country was he born in? – Informal (ibid.)

b) Mode – Leech et al. (ibid.: 9) hold the view that “mode has to do

with the effects of the medium in which the language is

transmitted”. Halliday and Hasan (1989: 34) describe mode “as

spoken language, spontaneous speech alternating between

monologue and dialogue. It is strongly pragmatic and task

oriented.” Leech et al. (ibid.) also mention that “spoken language

used in face-to-face situations makes use of many “non-verbal”

movements such as gestures and facial expressions.” This is very

important since the texts from the Michigan Corpus of Academic

Spoken English are transcribed and we may not always understand

their context. Many situations are accompanied by movements,

11

gestures and facial expressions which cannot be captured in the

texts. More on that in the next sections. Leech et al. (ibid.) believe

that in writing, one may convey “only graphic means such as

exclamation- and question-marks”.

c) Domain – “domain (field) has to do with how language varies

according to the activity in which it plays a part” (ibid.: 9). In

other words, each field of study has its own terms, vocabulary and

context. We may expect technical terms and vocabulary in

psychology and historical terms and vocabulary in history. This

probably one of the reasons why learners usually focus on two

fields of study. It is not very possible to study more than two fields

at college. Leech et al. (ibid.: 150) express belief that “the main

function of language is communication”. That is without doubt

true. Thus, he divides functions into several groups according to

function they play, i.e.: referential, expressive, conative, phatic,

poetic and metalinguistic. These were originally described by

Jakobson from the Prague linguistic circle. On the other hand,

Leech et al. (ibid.) claim that language “is often used to fulfil more

than one function simultaneously”. As a result, differences

between these functions may be sometimes confusing.

1.2 Corpus in English

“A corpus is basically a collection of texts which is stored in a computer. The

texts can be both written and spoken language. Written texts such as newspapers and

magazines can be entered into the computer from a scanner or the Internet. Spoken

texts, like conversations, are recorded and then the recordings are transcribed; that is,

they are written down word for word, so that the texts of these conversations can be fed

into the computer database. It is then possible to analyze the language in the corpus with

corpus software tools to see how people really speak or write” (McCarten 2007: 2). This

is one of the many extensive definitions of the corpus. I have chosen McCarten‟s

definition since I find it logical and thorough. Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken

English is based on the exact principles which McCarten in her work describes.

12

In other words, nowadays technologies allow us to detect and record our own

voice which can be transcribed into a computer. That can be applied also for written

texts that can be stored in a corpus database within seconds. This is very useful, since

we can analyze conversations and texts in various circumstances, conditions and in

various environment, i.e. various speech event situations.

McCarten (ibid.: 3) claims that “corpus tools help us analyze the huge amount of

data in the corpus, which can consist of millions of words”. This is essential, as the

bachelor thesis present a quantitative and qualitative analysis of transcribed texts taken

from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In other words, a corpus can

tell us how frequent particular collocations, phrases, words, phrasal verbs, etc. are in

different situations such as lectures, seminars, clubs. McCarten (ibid.: 6) calls it

“grammar of vocabulary”.

1.2.1 Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English

There are many corpora to be found on the Internet, e.g. British National

Corpus, Cambridge English Corpus, Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English

(MICASE) is only one of them. I have chosen this corpus after recommendation of my

supervisor. Several bachelor and also diploma theses from Masaryk University, Faculty

of Education have already been based on MICASE.

The project Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English began in 1997. Its

main purpose was to create a huge database which could contain transcribed texts from

both written and spoken language. This project was successful and we may work with

MICASE ever since.

There are totally 152 transcripts and more than 1.8 million words available in the

corpus. The corpus is divided into several sections, according to various aspects, such as

gender, age, academic position/role, native speaker status, first language, transcript

attributes, academic division, academic discipline, participant level and interactivity

rating according to which it is possible to search or browse.

MICASE has become an indispensable tool for this work. Thanks to MICASE, I

have been able to analyze fillers in academic spoken environment and provide a

quantitative as well as a qualitative analysis.

13

1.3 Spoken and written English

Both spoken and written form of the English language is vital. In the previous

sections, some information concerning corpus and its use in English has been discussed.

Corpora are mostly connected with written English but as I have already mentioned,

many dialogues or conversations are transcribed and used in various corpora,

accompanied by non-verbal expressions.

This section tries to discuss contrasts between spoken and written varieties of

English. The following section is based on several publications, namely A

Communicative Grammar of English (Leech et al. 1975), English Grammar for Today

(Leech et al. 1982) and Investigating English Style (Crystal et al. 1969) and Longman

Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al. 2004). All of them are

crucial in order to depict differences between spoken and written English.

Leech et al. (1975: 23) believe that “the English of speech tends to be different

from the English of writing in some fairly obvious ways”. They state that, for example,

“in writing, we usually have time to plan our message, to think about it carefully while

writing, and to revise it afterwards if necessary” (ibid.). Personally, I completely agree

with this idea. In writing, we usually have an idea what we would like to write about.

Thus, we avoid using fillers since they are semantically unimportant and unacceptable

in written discourse, for example letters, postcards, motivation letters. But on the other

hand, I believe that we might come across fillers in an informal written discourse, for

example, a letter to a friend, e-mails, text messages, etc.

Leech and Svartvik (ibid.: 23) also state that “in speech (unless it is, e.g. a

lecture prepared in advance), we have no time to prepare our message in advance and

we must shape our message just at the moment we speak.” This is very important since I

believe that this is the main reason why people use fillers while speaking. I would also

add that psychological state of mind plays a very important role here. People may

experience various states of mind, such as nervousness, shyness, but they can also be

impolite or simply informal. These states of minds contribute to the factor of using

fillers in speech.

14

Leech and Svartvik (ibid.: 23) also mentioned this in their publication. They

state that “we also often use words and phrases like well, you see and kind of which add

little information, but tell us something of the speaker‟s attitude to his/her audience and

to what he/she is saying.” (ibid.). They also state that “we often hesitate, or fill in gaps

with „hesitation fillers‟ like er and um while we think of what next to say. We may fail

to complete a sentence, or lose a track of our sentence and mix up one grammatical

construction with another. All these features do not normally occur in writing” (ibid.).

More will be discussed in the next section, which concerns fillers.

The last feature Leech and Svartvik (ibid.: 23) pointed out was that “in general

the grammar of spoken sentences is simpler and less strictly constructed than the

grammar of written sentences”. They believe that “it is difficult to divide a spoken

conversation into separate sentences, and the connections between one clause and

another are less clear because the speaker relies more on the hearer‟s understanding of

context and on his ability to interrupt if he fails to understand”. I agree with them that

“the speaker is also able to rely on features of intonation which tell us a great deal that

cannot be given in written punctuation” (ibid.). In other words, we must not forget to

feel and indicate phonetics features of the speaker as well as the semantics and

grammatical features.

Leech et. al (1982) in their English Grammar for Today provide a slightly

different set of information concerning written and spoken language. As already

mentioned in sections above, Leech et al. (ibid.: 133) believe that “the category of mode

is very important since it is related to the distinction between speech and writing”.

Leech et al. (ibid.) state that “writing is intrinsically no “better” or “worse” than

speech, but each performs different functions in society, uses different forms and

exhibits different linguistic characteristics”. Both of them are linguistically equal. They

also stress that “in the history of the human race, spoken language certainly came before

writing. We have no evidence of the existence of a writing system of any kind before

about 3500 BC, whereas we assume that spoken language existed well before then”

(ibid.: 134). Of course, we know that spoken language consisted only from various

sounds. It is important to add that the term “Prehistory” indicates time before any

writing system was invented.

15

Leech et al. (1982: 134) stress that “in societies which do have writing system

(such as the Roman alphabet, used for English and many other languages), the written

language is very important from social and educational points of view”. They believe

that “it would be impossible to imagine our own society functioning as we know it

without the advantage that writing gives” (ibid.). That is, without doubt, true. Nowadays

society got used to its convenience and, in general, it would not be possible to go back

into those times when modern technologies did not exist, i.e. the 19th

century when the

Industrial Revolution took place for the first time.

They also state that “written language is often viewed as more “correct” than

spoken language, and as more worthy of study” (ibid.). This work is based on spoken

language analysis and, as a result, this myth or language superstition can be dispelled.

Leech et al. (ibid.) add that “from a legal point of view, written language takes

precedence: a written contract, for example, is more binding than a verbal or spoken

agreement”. On the other hand, they disprove this statement when they believe that

“from a linguistic point of view we can only say that speech and writing are different;

we cannot say that one is superior to the other” (ibid.). In other words, both written and

spoken form of language are equal to one another, though, nowadays society feels that

everything, for example contracts or acknowledgements must be written and signed by

someone superior. A spoken agreement usually works only between friends and family

members, i.e. people worth our trust.

1.3.1 Functions of speech and writing

Both written and spoken language have their advantages and disadvantages.

Leech et al. (1982: 134) provide a short list concerning pros and cons of both and stress

that “speech and writing are complementary in function, and we cannot say that one is

more important than the other. Ideally we need to be able to use both appropriately as

members of an English-speaking (and writing) society.” With writing and speaking,

there go hand in hand two other disciplines, i.e. reading and listening. All of them are

linguistically equal and necessary in order to study languages in general.

16

1.3.2 Writing

Leech et al. (ibid.: 134) hold the view that writing “has the advantage of relative

permanence which allows for record-keeping in the form independent of the memories

of those who keep records”. It also allows for communication over a great distance (by

letters, newspapers, etc.). Moreover, in my opinion nowadays technologies such as TV,

computer, the Internet allow us to communicate in both written and spoken form. We

must also be aware of the consequences that these modern technologies accompany, i.e.

e-mail spam, tabloids, cyberbullying, etc. Modern technologies are easily abused and, as

a result, one must be very careful in order to protect privacy.

Leech et al. (ibid.) point out other advantages of writing: “another advantage of

written language is that it is not only permanent, but also visible”. I agree with them that

“it can be carefully planned and revised by the writer in a way that spoken language

cannot” (ibid.: 134-135). They state that “for the reader, written language can be

processed at leisure, with parts of the text re-read and others omitted at will. Written

language makes possible the creation of literary works of art in ways comparable with

the creation of paintings or sculpture” (ibid.). Finally, writing system fulfil the more

formal function of language.

1.3.3 Speech

According to Leech et al. (ibid.: 135) “speech retains the function which writing

will never be able to fulfil, such as quick, direct communication with immediate

feedback from the addressee”. In general, speech‟s great advantage is the quick

feedback which may be, on the other hand, spontaneous and rushed. Leech et al. (ibid.)

state that “speech is particularly important in integrating an individual into a social

group, and those who cannot speak, even though they may be able to write (e.g. deaf

people), often experience severe social isolation”. And as a result, “speech is used far

more than writing: speech is an everyday activity for almost everyone, whereas writing

may not be” (ibid.). In other words, speech is an everyday activity and its lack may be

disastrous, although there are other options of (non-verbal) communication, e.g. sign

language.

17

In other words, we must use both forms, written and spoken, but the spoken

form of English always prevails. As already mentioned, modern technologies can also

be applied to the spoken form of a language. Speech can be easily recorded via various

media, e.g. voice recorder, computer, mobile phone. On the one hand, these

technologies provide us a great service, on the other, they can be easily abused; hence,

we must always be cautious what we are actually saying (or writing).

Biber et al. (2002: 430) state that “conversation is typically carried out in face-

to-face interaction with others. Speakers usually share a lot of contextual background,

especially a large amount of specific social, cultural and institutional knowledge.” He

also points out that “this is one major reason why transcriptions of conservations are

often difficult to understand” (ibid.). This is very important since this work is based on

the MICASE corpus and a reader whose intention is to analyze corpus‟ content might be

confused, especially without the so-called „shared knowledge‟. As a result, one must be

very careful and attentive.

1.3.4 Non-linguistic features of speech and writing

In order to outline other features of speech and writing, I have divided them into

non-linguistic and linguistic features. Leech et al. (1982: 135), hold the view that

“speech and writing are different in both function and form as a result of the difference

of medium”. They state that “features of speech which are absent in writing include

rhythm, intonation and non-linguistic noises such as sighs and laughter” (ibid.) In

general, they are linguistically important and they are more pivotal for the context of the

message, e.g. sighs may represent despair or sadness. “Writing, on the other hand, has

several features that speech lacks, including punctuation, paragraphing and the

capitalization of letters” (ibid.). This might cause some problems, especially to children

who are not used to use capital letters, punctuation, etc. In my opinion, this is not such a

problem in the English language since English does not contain so many punctuation

rules as opposed in the Czech language where capitalization and punctuation is tested

since early school years. Leech et al. (ibid.) add that “written language can be spoken

probably more easily than spoken language can be written, but features of speech such

as intonation have to be introduced by the speaker” in order not to confuse the

addressee. The addressee must respond adequately, though.

18

1.3.5 Linguistic features of speech and writing

Leech et al. (1982: 136) provide a list of features concerning linguistic features

of speech and writing. The most important features for this work are the following:

a) Inexplicitness – Leech et al. (ibid.) claim that “speech is generally

used in face-to-face situations, so that both the auditory and visual

media are available”. In my opinion, it is always better to have the

direct contact between the speaker and the addressee. For some people

it is even necessary, for example for people who can read from the

speaker‟s lips, i.e. usually deaf people. Some people have problems to

understand clearly via phone or other media device. Face-to-face

contact is then absolutely indispensable. As a result, Leech et al. hold

the view that “speech can be much explicit than writing” (ibid.) and

“tends to make frequent use of pronouns such as it, this and that, all of

which reflect its inexplicitness” (ibid.). Crystal et al. (1969: 103)

believe that “the more one knows somebody, the more one can rely on

abbreviated forms, in-slang, subtle references, family jokes, and so

on”. This is a very important statement since, in general, every

situation has its own context that should be obvious for each

participant of a conversation. Without it, one may feel stressed and as

a result, fillers or hesitation markers are more likely to appear.

b) Lack of clear sentence boundaries – According to Leech et al.

(ibid.), “in written language, a grammatically correct sentence is

expected to begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop and it is

the expected norm for people to write in sentences. The same applies

to scripted speech”. This is something generally called a “convention”.

It is the basic principle of writing and it is expected from everyone

that this norm will be accepted in order to keep standards in writing.

Leech et al. (ibid.) add that, on the other hand, “in spontaneous

speech, the sentences boundaries are often difficult to delimit: they

may simply be unfinished, because the knowledge of the addressee

19

makes completion unnecessary, or they may not be discernable as

units at all”.

c) Repetitiveness – Leech et al. (ibid.: 138-139) state that “because of

the lack of permanence of speech, it is more repetitive than writing.

Important information has to be repeated since the addressee cannot

refer back to what has gone before”. That is certainly true and some

people might feel this as a waste of their time. As a result, the more

permanent (non-repetitive) form of language is applied – writing. It is

important to notice that repetitiveness may also serve as a form of art,

e.g. in literature, especially in the poetry.

d) Normal non-fluency – According to Leech et al. (ibid.: 139), “this

results from the unprepared nature of speech and refers to phenomena

such as hesitation, unintended repetitions, false starts, fillers (e.g. um,

er), grammatical blends and unfinished sentences”. The most

important feature of this category are the so-called fillers since they

are studied in this work. Crystal et al. (1969: 104) state that “informal,

spontaneous conversation is characterized by a very high proportion of

„errors‟, compared with other spoken varieties, involving hesitation

features of all kinds, slips of the tongue and a substantial amount of

overlapping or simultaneous speech”. He adds that “hesitancy is

strongly influenced by periods of creative thinking, i.e. the more one

is thinking what to say, the more likely hesitation features are to

appear” (ibid.). It is always better to have time to prepare speech in

advance in order to avoid use of hesitation features, i.e. fillers.

e) Monitoring and interaction features – Leech et al. (ibid.) state that

“these features indicate the speaker‟s awareness of the addressee‟s

presence and reactions, and include adverbs and adverbials such as

well, I mean, sort of, you know”. These features cannot be found in

writing. An exception is, for example an informal letter or chatting, as

stated in sections above. Interaction features are from the Leech et

al.‟s (ibid.) point of view those features that “invite the active

20

participation of the addressee, as in questions, imperatives, second-

person pronouns, etc.” Finally, they believe that “writing, which is

rarely used in dialogue, usually lacks these features” (ibid.).

f) Informality – The last feature is the so-called informality. Leech et al.

(ibid.). claim that “the situations in which speech is used are generally

less formal than those in which writing is used”. That is definitely true

and I completely agree with this statement. “Therefore, the linguistics

characteristics of informality more typically appear in speech, while

those reflecting formality appear in writing” (ibid.). Writing in general

will always be more formal than speaking.

1.4 Academic English

In the previous section, there was some general information connected with

spoken and written English. This section discusses academic English as the bachelor

thesis concerns the analysis of academic spoken English. Academic environment is one

of the many. As already stated in the previous sections, every speech event situation

(and environment) requires different approach or point of view both from the speaker,

the addressee and in general, from all participants.

Scarcella (2003: 9) defines academic English as “a variety or a register of

English used in professional books and characterized by specific linguistic features

associated with academic disciplines”. In other words, academic English can be defined

as a specific variation of English with its typical features that arise from the specific

academic, intellectual environment. Scarcella (ibid.) also holds the view that academic

English tasks “include reading abstracts, getting down the key ideas from the lectures,

and writing critiques and summaries, annotated bibliographies, case studies, reports,

research projects, expository essays”. Scarcella (ibid.) believes that in order to “do” a

field of study, one must master its language, its specific terms; ordinary, everyday

language cannot be applied in its full form.

Scarcella (ibid.) stresses that “English is not monolithic” (as discussed in this

section) and “varies with respect to such factors as topic, purpose and situation as well

21

as with respect to region, social class and ethnicity” (ibid.). She states that “academic

English is more useful in institutes of higher education” (ibid.) and claims that

“academic English is ranked highly in the United States, where it is used by the

educated and those in power in academic and business settings as well as in courts of

law” (ibid.). Academic English is, without doubt, language of intellectuals as the nature

of the whole academic environment requires.

“Academic English is dynamic in the sense that is continually evolving, shaping

meaning in education contexts that are themselves ever-changing” (ibid.). “Changes in

educational contexts reflect new advances in technology and research discoveries.

Academic English is not, then, acquired once and for all” (Scarcella 2003: 9). This is the

fact that all college teachers and students must be aware of. Without progress in

technology and languages as well, academic environment would lack its typical features

that are described by Scarcella.

Sarcella (ibid.: 10) points out that everyday academic situations lead all learners

to develop “advanced levels of proficiency in each of the following language skills -

reading, writing, speaking and listening”. She believes that “academic English requires

not only the development of those advanced reading skills which enable learners to

access complex words, but also the advanced skills which enable learners to understand

and use these words both in spoken and written communication” (ibid.). This is very

important since learners need to master all areas which are described in Common

European Framework of Reference for Languages.

1.4.1 The linguistic dimension of academic English

In the publication mentioned above, Scarcella (2003: 11) stresses the so-called

linguistic dimension of academic English. She believes that these dimensions are

essential in learning academic English and states that “within each skill”, i.e. reading,

writing, listening, speaking, learners must evolve proficiency in diverse, often

overlapping linguistic components” (ibid.). Thus she divided these components into

twelve complex sub-categories which are briefly described below.

22

a) The phonological component – ”All learners must know the English

sounds and the ways these sounds are combined” (ibid.). “In speech,

the phonological component encompasses knowledge of the

pronunciation of consonants, vowels and consonant clusters, as well as

stress and intonation patterns” (ibid.) In other words, in order to

understand English fluently via phonetics and its symbols, learners

need to know this field of study into details.

b) The lexical component - Learners must also have knowledge of the

vocabulary that is used in a variety of frequently occurring, everyday

situations. (ibid.) They need to know how and when to use these

words and they must learn how these words are formed (e.g. roots,

prefixes, suffixes) (ibid.) The importance of vocabulary is widely-

known. Without vocabulary, no communication would be possible.

c) The grammatical component – “Participating in situations on a daily

basis also requires the knowledge of English grammar” (ibid.:14).

Without it, learners produce senseless sentences and the whole process

of communication would be weakened. Among the most important

proficiency in English grammar is “the knowledge of the English

noun“ (ibid.).

d) The sociolinguistic component - This component “enables learners to

understand the extent to which sentences are produced and understood

appropriately” (ibid.: 17). This component is very similar to register

variation described in this section.

e) The discourse component - This is the most important component for

studying fillers. “It enables students to use linguistic forms and

meanings to communicate coherently and in an organized way” (ibid.:

19). ”In speech, it enables students to start a conversation by using

appropriate greetings and to keep a conservation going by using pause

fillers (e.g. ya know, um, er)” (ibid.). and “in writing, it enables

students to use appropriate introductory and closing remarks” (ibid.).

23

It is important to add that fillers are unacceptable in academic writing,

e.g. in essays. Their use is connected with slight informality.

f) The cognitive dimension - Academic English “involves cognition”

(ibid.: 22) but that is not the case of academic English only. Each

variety of English requires cognition. I agree with Scarcella that

“readers must think about text in order to interpret it” (ibid.). Thinking

is one of the crucial requirements at college. She also stresses the

importance of critical thinking, which is essential for education.

g) The knowledge component - Knowledge plays a crucial part in

academic English. It is the basic requirement that students must prove.

According to Scarcella, “students who have acquired academic

English have extensive knowledge of the world that is primarily built

on their previous reading and also on their personal experience and

opinions.” (ibid.: 22).

h) The higher order thinking component - It plays a very important

role in academic English and “it is not absent in everyday

conversation” (ibid.: 23). It is “involved in interpreting, evaluating,

and synthesizing the claims and citations in reading” (ibid.).

i) The strategic component – According to Scarcella, this component

“includes those strategies that may be called into action to enhance the

effectiveness of communication” (ibid.: 24). They are “completely

controlled by the learner to achieve desired goals and objectives”

(ibid.). In other words, the strategic component is a way or strategy

that helps students pass their exams, write essays, etc. It is one of the

most essential skills. Without it, students‟ academic life would be very

complicated.

j) The metalinguistic awareness component – Scarcella holds the view

that this “is the ability to think about language use” (ibid.: 25). It is

one of the six functions described by Jakobson and modified by Leech

24

et al. (1982). Scarcella holds the view that “learners cannot function

effectively without metalinguistic awareness, which allows them to

improve their linguistic performance” (ibid.). Study of English syntax

and other fields of linguistics would be almost impossible without the

metalinguistic awareness component.

k) The sociocultural/psychological component - Is described as a

package of “social and cultural norms, values beliefs, attitudes,

motivations, interests, behaviors, practices and habits” (ibid.: 29). In

other words, students need to be aware of cultural and social problems

and norms that surround them but they need to take into account their

personal beliefs as well.

Biber et al. (2002: 425) add that “marked word order and passive constructions

are more common in academic prose”, whereas “existential there, prefaces, noun phrase

tags, and demonstrative wh-clefts” (ibid.) are more likely to appear in conversation.

1.5 Fillers

In the present work, the term “fillers” is used due to its specific meaning that

precisely describes the true purpose of fillers - filling the gaps and forming the

(speaker‟s) ideas.

„Fillers‟ is not the only term used in literature. For example, Biber et al. (2004:

449) use the label „inserts‟, which is also acceptable but not so widely used.

According to Biber et al. (ibid.), “fillers make an important contribution to the

interactive character of speech, because they signal relations between speaker, hearer(s),

and discourse”. They state that fillers are “peripheral to grammar” (ibid.). Biber et al.

(ibid.) hold the view that “they occur as „stand alone‟ elements or loosely attached to a

clause or non-clausal structure, in which case they occur mainly in an initial position”.

“An exception of this is hesitators, they typically occur in the middle of an utterance”

(ibid.). This is very important since most of the fillers can be seen as stand alone

elements. If that is the case, a context is needed in order to understand its use.

Biber et al. (ibid.) also provide a short list of fillers and their discourse functions.

This will be studied later in the analysis. Biber et al. divide fillers into eight categories:

25

Interjections (e.g. oh, er)

Greetings/farewells (e.g. hi, hello)

Discourse markers (e.g. well, so, you know)

Response getters (e.g. okay?, alright?)

Attention getters (e.g. hey)

Response forms (e.g. right, absolutely)

Polite forms (e.g. thank you, you are welcome)

Expletives (e.g. damn, blimey, f-words) – “usually taboo words” (ibid.), which

can cause offense.

Biber et al. (ibid.) warn about ambiguities of fillers. “Individual items may be

used for more than one function; for example, okay can be a discourse marker, a

response form, or a response getter (okay?)” (ibid.). As a result, one must be very

careful while dividing fillers into particular categories. They state that “the boundaries

between inserts” (i.e. fillers) “and other categories can also be fuzzy” (ibid.). “Some

items like well, now, I mean, and you know often appear to be on the borderline between

fillers and adverbials” (ibid.). In others words, in order to analyze and list fillers into

categories, it is necessary to distinguish context from grammatical patterns.

Biber et al. (ibid.) also show that American English tends to use fillers more than

British English. Since this work is based on fillers in (academic) American English, a

high proportion of fillers is expected both in lectures and seminars analyzed.

Stenström (1994: 64-65) uses her own terminology, she divides lexical items

into four categories:

Empathizers (e.g. you see, you know)

Hedges (e.g. actually, I think, really, sort of)

Stallers – “are those items which are followed by a long pause when speaker is

at a loss” (ibid.) (normally, they are hedges)

Fillers – “In some cases, it is not at all obvious what the items are doing” (ibid.)

She also divides them according to their discourse function into seven categories

(ibid.: 67):

26

Appealer (e.g. you know)

Acknowledge (e.g. mhm, oh, I see)

Evaluate (e.g. gosh)

Uptake (e.g. yes, well)

Answer (e.g. yes, no, sure, OK)

Frame (e.g. right, now)

Staller (e.g. well)

Stenström (1994: 209) stresses that “discourse markers are better described in

pragmatic than in grammatical terms”.

McCarten (2007: 8) holds the view that “vocabulary items that contain more

than one word are sometimes called „chunks‟, „lexical bundles‟, or „clusters‟”, which

are basically fillers. She also calls them „fragments‟, or “bits of language that do not

have a meaning as expressions in their own right” (ibid.). She believes that some fillers

“are much more frequent than every-day basic, single words. Fillers such as I mean, I

don‟t know, and or something are more frequent than words like woman, six, and black”

(ibid.: 9). She strongly stresses that one must take fillers “seriously as vocabulary items”

(ibid.). This is important since she claims that lexically, fillers are equal to others words,

used in every-day situations.

According to their discourse function she divides fillers (ibid.: 11-14), into:

Responses (e.g. exactly, great!, uh huh)

Monitoring expressions (e.g. you know what I mean, you see, let me tell you,

actually)

Vague expressions (e.g. or something, and things like that, and stuff, and

everything, or whatever, and that kind of thing, and so on, etcetera)

Hedging expressions (e.g. kind of, sort of, just, I guess, a little, in a way)

Expressions of stance (e.g. personally, I think, from my point of view, I don't

know)

27

It is very important to note that McCarten„s work is based on the Cambridge

International Corpus. Her work is very inspirational and similar in several ways with

the present work.

Croucher (2004: 38) calls discourse markers „vocal hiccups‟, which are basically

fillers. In his work, he studies interjections um, uh and the discourse markers like and

you know. He tries to find out, whether they are used more frequently by men or

women. His work is based on the analysis of 150 transcribed texts. Also, he focuses on

non-verbals such as “twitching of fingers and hands, biting of the lip, hand gesturing

without an apparent purpose, and rolling of the eyes” (ibid.: 42).

Croucher (ibid.: 38) expresses his surprise that so many people from college

environment tend to use fillers. It was the very reason that convinced him to work on a

study concerning discourse markers. In his work, he gathered students from University

of Oklahoma and observed their spoken performance. There were 42 males and 28

females in extemporaneous speaking and 36 males and 44 women in impromptu

speaking. Their age was from 19 to 24. Croucher‟s students “were notified before

giving their speech that they were being recorded for a linguistic study” (ibid.: 42).

Croucher also states that “during the speeches, the researcher kept track of the non-

verbals used by speakers when they utilized a discourse marker such as um, uh, like and

you know” (ibid.: 42). In order to keep authenticity of their speeches, the students did

know that their speech was recorded for a linguistic study but they did not know that

discourse markers are to be analyzed. Croucher divides students into three groups: male,

female and combined gender (ibid.).

Croucher‟s conclusions (ibid.: 42-44) are that both men and women tend to use

interjections um and uh equally. But discourse markers like and you know are more

frequently used by women. He believes that “the primary reason is cultural” (ibid.: 43)

and holds the view that women in the 1980‟s were affected by TV culture. He claims

that “adolescent television programs and films in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly Fast

Times at Ridgemonth High, Melrose Place, Beverly Hills 90210 and Buffy the Vampire

Slayer fueled the “Valley Girl” phenomenon and in turn the negative stigma placed on

“Valley Girls” diminished as many “Valley Girl” terms became an acceptable part of

communal lexicon” (ibid.). This is very important since in my study, the students were

28

usually born in 1980‟s or 1990‟s, as evidenced by the fact that every single file in the

corpus (e.g. lecture, seminar) has been dated. My work is not based on gender

differences but on different speech event situations. Also, it is not possible to recognize

gender of the speakers since they are marked as S1, S2, etc. in the MICASE. The only

characteristic sign of gender are pronouns, e.g. personal or possessive pronouns of 3rd

person singular.

Croucher also mentions that “as for non-verbals, all speakers, male and female

uses non-verbal device while uttering a discourse marker in 97.8 percent of all cases"

(ibid.). He stresses that "the typical non-verbals for urn and um included: twitching of

the fingers, biting of the lips, and rolling of the eyes” (ibid.). This information is also

very important because, as mentioned in sections above, non-verbals create an

inseparable part of spoken communication. It is unfortunate that it is unable to depict

students‟ non-verbals in the corpus. Instead, they can be transcribed into the corpora

texts in a very limited way. The only way of capturing non-verbals in their natural way

is to record every single speech event situation on a CD/DVD and analyze them.

However, presence of such recording devices may result into unnatural gestures and

behaviour. Authenticity of such records may be then distorted.

29

2 Analysis

My analysis is divided into two sections – a qualitative analysis and quantitative

analysis. First, I have used simple statistics methods and counted fillers from The

Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English in different speech event situations,

namely lectures and seminars/labs. For my classification, I have decided to use Biber‟s

terminology of fillers, i.e. fillers are divided into interjections, greetings/farewells,

discourse markers, response getters, attention getters, response forms, polite forms and

expletives. I have chosen Biber‟s terminology since I find it logical, complex and

sufficient.

During my analysis, I have noticed a lack of typography in the corpus. In

general, all transcripts in the corpus are transcribed without any format, e.g. no capital

letters. In other words, the corpus lacks most typographic rules used, for example, in the

MLA style. Owing to this, my work with the corpus has become more time-consuming

and in some places rather complicated. In order to make this work more lucid, some

changes in the examples were made, for example “i mean” was transcribed in the

examples as “I mean” (cf. Subsection 2.3.1.3). Also, it is impossible to recognize gender

of both speakers and students. As a result, gender can be identified only via pronouns.

For further study, the analysis can include also non-verbals, or so-called non-

verbal expressions (cf. „non-verbals‟ in Croucher: 2004) since they create an inseparable

part of speech. All non-verbals were indicated via capital letters in the corpus, e.g.

<SMILE(S)>. As already stated in the previous section, non-verbals complete data or

information produced by the speaker to the addressee. Their importance is stressed by

Leech et al. (1982) where they describe mode (cf. Section 1.1.2). This is the very reason

why I have decided to analyze them and add them into my analysis as well.

My analysis describes only American English environment with American English,

i.e. American native speakers. In terms of tenor (cf. Subsection 1.1.2), the relationship

between the speaker and the addressee(s) is more formal in lectures than in

seminars/labs. As for interactivity, its higher degree is expected in seminars/labs since

there are usually more opportunities to talk. In other words, more speakers can be found

30

in the seminars/labs as the nature of this specific speech event situation requires. As a

result, a higher proportion of fillers is expected in seminars/labs than in lectures.

Although the age of students is unknown, both lectures and anthropology seminars

are intros to their disciplines (e.g. the intro psychology lecture), so it is assumed that the

age of the participants does not exceed 25 years.

2.1 Quantitative analysis

The first analysis which has been conducted is a quantitative analysis. There are

two lectures and two seminars/labs, all taken from The Michigan Corpus of Academic

Spoken English. I have decided to analyze two different fields of study, namely

psychology and anthropology, since I am keen on psychology. I have wanted to analyze

history lectures and seminars as history is my second field of study but the corpus does

not provide adequate materials for my study. Thus I have decided to analyze

anthropology, which is very similar to history, especially in terms of the Prehistory

times, i.e. before the invention of writing system where anthropology plays a crucial

role. It is important to stress that both psychology and anthropology use different terms

that are typical for them, i.e. domain (cf. Subsection 1.1.2.).

2.1.1 Psychology - Lecture

For the analysis of the texts from the area of psychology, I have chosen one

lecture and one lab, both representing different speech event situations – the intro

psychology lecture and the biopsychology lab. The lecture was highly monologic, there

was only one speaker and 250 students. It took place on September 22, 1998, at Faculty

of Social Sciences and Education, University of Michigan. The lecture was 47 minutes

with total 7,266 words.

The intro psychology lecture was about the basic principles commonly used in

psychology, e.g. Darwin‟s evolution theory. This theory was widely discussed and

accompanied with various non-verbal signals which are a very good way how to hold

students‟ attention.

31

Table 1: Overview of fillers in the intro psychology lecture

FILLERS TOTAL %

uh 65 24.25

so 52 19.4

um 30 11.19

right? 27 10.07

like 17 6.34

well 12 4.48

now 10 3.73

sort of 7 2.61

okay? 7 2.61

I mean 7 2.61

sorta 6 2.24

basically 4 1.49

gee 3 1.12

okay 3 1.12

I think 3 1.12

oh 3 1.12

good afternoon 2 0.75

ugh 2 0.75

you know 2 0.75

actually 1 0.37

aaahh 1 0.37

in fact 1 0.37

kind of 1 0.37

oop 1 0.37

thanks 1 0.37

TOTAL: 25 TOTAL: 268 TOTAL: 99.97%

Intro psychology lecture contained 25 types of fillers which were used in total

268 cases. Their discourse function will be discussed in the next section concerning a

qualitative analysis. As already stated, the lecture contained overall 7,266 words, from

32

which 268 were fillers. The most common filler was the interjection uh, which was used

65 times. The second place holds the discourse marker so, used 52 times, mostly in

initial position. The third most common filler was again an interjection, namely um,

which was used in 30 cases.

Table 2: Discourse functions of fillers in the intro psychology lecture

CATEGORY TOTAL FILLERS %

Discourse markers 13 52

Interjections 6 24

Response getters 2 8

Greetings/farewells 1 4

Expletives 1 4

Polite forms 1 4

Response forms 1 4

TOTAL: 7 TOTAL: 25 TOTAL: 100%

It can be stated that in general, both interjections and discourse markers are the

most frequent types of fillers, although the interjection oh has been used only three

times. In my data, the lecture did not contain any greetings or farewells, as seen from

the table above. Also, some expletives occurred in the corpus, viz. gee, which was used

three times. I believe that this expletive is acceptable in the academic environment,

although a professional college teacher should avoid its use since it is not polite. There

was only one polite form in the whole lecture, namely thanks. The lecture began with

the greeting good afternoon.

An interesting category is that of the so-called response getters. Some of them

were used in the lecture, namely right? and okay? Right? holds the fourth place in order

of frequency in my analysis. In general, in order to hold attention of the listeners, the

more frequent response getters are, the better. Response getters seem to be great

instruments in holding students‟ attention.

The rest of the fillers were mostly the so-called discourse markers, for example,

kind of, sort of, actually, you know, etc. Also, their transcriptions appear in the lecture,

e.g. kinda and sorta. They were used less likely than kind of and sort of, but they are

linguistically equal, yet, less formal.

33

Table 3: Overview of non-verbals in the intro psychology lecture

NON-VERBALS TOTAL %

Points to

powerpoint slide

4

19.05

Angry facial

expression

4

19.05

Audience laugh 3 14.29

Disgusted facial

expression

2

9.52

Threatening facial

expression

2

9.52

Laugh 1 4.76

Smile(s) 1 4.76

Scowl(s) 1 4.76

Relaxed facial

expression

1

4.76

Surprised and

pleased facial

expression

1

4.76

Nonchalant facial

expression

1

4.76


Since the lecture was highly monologic, with only one speaker, a lot of non-

verbal expressions might be found in the text.

The most frequent non-verbal expression was pointing to powerpoint slides. It

has nothing to do with the nature of the lecture since it is important to show important

or key information in the powerpoint slides from time to time. The second place is held

by angry facial expressions that were performed by the teacher in order to bring both

himself/herself and students closer to the current topic. As a result, the audience laughed

three times, which is an acceptable amount. Personally, I believe that laugh is a great

way of teaching, although limits must be set. If the lecture contained only funny

34

situations, the students would learn nothing. Thus I believe that the amount of laugh in

this particular lecture was appropriate.

There were some other facial expressions presented by the teacher. The reason

was the same as for the angry facial expression. It is a great method of teaching. A

special attention deserves the category of smile since a smiling teacher affects students

better than a frowning one.

2.1.2 (Bio)psychology - Lab

In order to analyze a different speech event situation, I have decided for the

biopsychology lab, since it was the only other option available, the others transcripts

being lectures only. Biopsychology is a subcategory of psychology, a very important

and inseparable discipline of psychology, whose main purpose is to find biological

connection between body (i.e. biology) and soul (i.e. psychology).

The biopsychology lab took place on October 28, 1999 at Biological and Health

Sciences Faculty, University of Michigan. The lab session was highly interactive due to

the presence of 22 students and nine speakers. The lab was 52 minutes long and

contained 8,847 words.

Students had an interesting task given by their teacher. The task was to do an

autopsy of a sheep‟s brain in order to find the most important biological components

which are similar to human brain.

Table 4: Overview of the biopsychology lab fillers

FILLERS TOTAL %

yeah 87 12.95

uh 82 12.2

okay 81 12.05

like 78 11.61

so 53 7.89

um 35 5.21

oh 31 4.61

alright 27 4.02

well 25 3.72

right 24 3.57

35

okay? 13 1.93

right? 13 1.93

actually 11 1.64

I think 11 1.64

kinda 9 1.34

mhm 9 1.34

I guess 7 1.04

alright? 6 0.89

kind of 6 0.89

now 6 0.89

you know 6 0.89

wow 6 0.89

I mean 5 0.74

sort of 5 0.74

uhuh 5 0.74

basically 4 0.6

nah 4 0.6

hey 4 0.6

whew 3 0.45

mkay? 2 0.3

mm 2 0.3

ooh 2 0.3

really? 2 0.3

bullshit 1 0.15

exactly 1 0.15

hm 1 0.15

mkay 1 0.15

shit 1 0.15

sorta 1 0.15

uh? 1 0.15

thank you 1 0.15


36

The biopsychology lab contains 672 fillers, i.e. by 404 more fillers than the intro

psychology lecture. Thus, the assumption brought up at the beginning of this section

seems to be true, i.e. the lab was more interactive than the lecture and, as a result, more

fillers can be found. The lab contained overall 8,847 words from which 672 were fillers

representing 41 types of fillers.

Table 5: Discourse functions of fillers in the biopsychology lab


Discourse markers 14 34.15

Interjections 12 29.27

Response forms 7 17.1

Response getters 4 9.76

Expletives 2 4.88

Attention getters 1 2.44

Polite forms 1 2.44


The most frequent filler is a response form yeah, which occurred 87 times. The

second place holds an interjection uh, used 82 times. The third place is again a response

form okay, which occurred exactly 81 times. In other words, interjections and response

forms are the most frequent fillers gathered from the biopsychology lab. I understand

this phenomenon as a result of higher requirements, i.e. students‟ work was manual,

demanding and requiring more attention than in the case of the lecture.

As for expletives, there were two expletives, namely shit and bullshit. It is

unacceptable to use these words in the academic environment, especially during a

session. But on the other hand, the use of these expletives brings evidence of higher

interactivity and less formal environment in the lab session.

Table 6: Overview of non-verbals in the biopsychology lab

NON-VERBALS TOTAL %

Laugh 43 97.73

Sighs 1 2.27

37


There are only two non-verbal expressions in the lab session. It is laugh and

sighs. Laugh occurred 43 times, whereas sighs occurred only once. This brings the

evidence of the higher interactivity and more relaxed atmosphere of the whole lab

session.

2.1.3 Anthropology - Lecture

As already stated, the second field of study that is analyzed in this work is

anthropology – one lecture and one seminar, which is called discussion section in the

corpus.

The lecture took place on March 14, 2000 at Social Sciences and Education

Faculty, University of Michigan. There were 400 students and only two speakers. The

lecture was 74 minutes long and contained 11,206 words. The lecture was highly

monologic. There was one break in the middle of the lecture, which was three minutes

long. The break is also transcribed in the corpus and analyzed as part of the whole

lecture in my analysis.

The lecture was about the basic anthropology methods and terminology used in

this field of study. The main purpose of the lecture was to discuss economy systems in

the world and the purpose of money. This was discussed and, as an example, applied on

people of Africa where their economy system is very different from the American one.

Table 7: Overview of fillers in the intro anthropology lecture

FILLERS TOTAL %

so 165 46.61

um 55 15.54

uh 20 5.65

you know 17 4.8

like 16 4.52

now 13 3.67

well 12 3.39

I mean 9 2.54

38

okay 8 2.26

sort of 8 2.26

oh 5 1.41

actually 3 0.85

I think 3 0.85

indeed 3 0.85

in fact 3 0.85

excuse me 2 0.56

mhm 2 0.56

right? 2 0.56

okay? 2 0.56

excuse me? 1 0.28

hey 1 0.28

kind of 1 0.28

please 1 0.28

right 1 0.28

yeah 1 0.28


There are 25 types of fillers and 354 occurrences in the overall 11,206 words.

The most prominent filler in the intro anthropology lecture is the discourse marker so,

which had 165 occurrences. The second and third places hold interjections, namely um

and uh, which occurred in 55 and 20 cases respectively. No expletive is present, which

brings evidence of high consciousness and awareness of the academic role of the

teacher.

Table 8: Discourse functions of fillers in the intro anthropology lecture


Discourse markers 11 44

Interjections 4 16

Response forms 4 16

Polite forms 3 12

39

Response getters 2 8

Attention getters 1 4


There are some polite forms, for example, excuse me?, which indicate the

teacher‟s personality. The rest of the fillers are mostly discourse markers, interjections

and response getters, very important and typical for every lecture.

Table 9: Overview of non-verbals in the intro anthropology lecture

NON-VERBALS TOTAL %

Laugh 8 57.14

Grunts 5 35.71

Showing overhead

during talk

1

7.14


There are only 14 non-verbal expressions in the intro anthropology lecture. As

seen from the table above, the most frequent non-verbal expression is laugh. The

teacher‟s goal was to make the lecture as much friendlier as possible. The second place

is held by grunting, which is an unacceptable sound in an academic environment,

although the teacher tried to imitate some features of African culture which were

discussed in the lecture. In this case, grunting is acceptable as part of illustration. The

last non-verbal expression is showing overhead during talk, similar to pointing to a

powerpoint slide, as in the lecture on psychology (cf. Subsection 2.1.1).

2.1.4 Anthropology – Discussion section

The intro anthropology section was a seminar, which took place on March 9,

1999 at Social Sciences and Education Faculty, University of Michigan. The seminar‟s

interactivity was mixed, i.e. the teacher stressed discussion and opinions of each student

and adequately responded to them. The seminar was supplemented by the teacher‟s

explanations. There were 22 students and 18 speakers. The seminar was 51 minutes

40

long with total 7,893 words. The seminar contained 459 more fillers than the intro

anthropology lecture.

The main topic of the seminar was to discuss the main norms of society, ethical

and moral standards and criminality of today‟s young people connected with its

prevention.

Table 10: Overview of fillers in the intro anthropology discussion section

FILLERS TOTAL %

um 205 25.22

I mean 120 14.76

like 120 14.76

yeah 75 9.23

you know 57 7.01

so 54 6.64

I think 34 4.19

kind of 27 3.32

well 17 2.09

right? 15 1.85

uh 14 1.72

sort of 11 1.35

basically 10 1.23

okay 9 1.11

right 7 0.86

oh 6 0.74

actually 5 0.62

yeah? 5 0.62

I‟m sorry 4 0.49

alright 3 0.37

I guess 3 0.37

definitely 2 0.25

kinda 2 0.25

sorry? 2 0.25

41

cool 1 0.12

hi 1 0.12

now 1 0.12

please 1 0.12

sorta 1 0.12

uhuh 1 0.12


Since this seminar was of mixed interactivity, a high proportion of fillers was

expected from the very beginning. From the total 7,839 words, there are 813 words

divided into 30 types of fillers. The most prominent category is the category of

interjections. The most frequent interjection is um, which occurred 205 times. The

second place share the discourse markers I mean and like, with the number of 120. The

third place is held by the response form yeah, which occurred in 75 cases.

Table 11: Discourse functions of fillers in the intro anthropology discussion

section



Response forms 6 20


Polite forms 3 10


Greetings/farewells 1 3.33


The discussion does not contain any expletives. I believe that this is a good sign

of strong moral standards among students, especially when discussing moral and ethical

rules of the society.

The rest of the fillers are mostly discourse markers, (e.g. I think, kind of, well)

and other interjections, (e.g. uh, oh) and polite forms (e.g. please, I‟m sorry).

42

This seminar is the most relevant for my analysis of fillers since there are so

many of them. In other words, in order to analyze the speech event situation of

seminars, this seminar is the best one for its high proportion of fillers.

Table 12: Overview of non-verbals in the intro anthropology discussion section

NON-VERBALS TOTAL %

Laugh 13 76.5

Writing on the board 4 23.5


There are 17 non-verbal expressions that occurred in the intro anthropology

discussion section. The majority of them, i.e. 13, are laughs. The minority are writing on

the board. Laughter was performed mostly by the students and writing on the board

primarily by the teacher in order to summarize key ideas of the session.

2.2 Summary of quantitative analysis

My quantitative analysis contains two lectures and two labs/seminars taken from

MICASE. The analysis is based on two different fields of study, viz. psychology and

anthropology. There were total 35,212 words, from which 2,107 were fillers (cf. Table

13). That is almost 6 per cent of all words. In my opinion, this is an adequate number of

fillers. There are only a few options of prevention, e.g. to be prepared in advance,

relaxed and comfortable.

In general, it is neither right, nor true to state that particular fields of study have

a direct impact on the frequency of fillers. Both psychology and anthropology are

individual fields of study, each representing a different approach to knowledge of this

world. The only factor that is important for fillers is, as already stated, state of mind.

The more one is apprehensive, the more likely fillers are to appear. Some of the ways of

how to avoid the use of fillers was already mentioned but there are some other factors

which may be helpful to those who have problems with an extreme usage of fillers. For

example, keeping records of one‟s speech and enriching vocabulary.

43

Table 13: Summary of fillers both in lectures and labs/seminars

SPEECH EVENT

CATEGORY

TOTAL

WORDS

TOTAL

FILLERS

THE MOST

FREQUENT

FILLER

Psychology - lecture 7,266 268 uh (interjection)

Psychology - lab 8,847 672 yeah (response-form)

Anthropology - lecture 11,206 354 so (discourse marker)

Anthropology - seminar 7,893 813 um (interjection)

TOTAL: 35,212 2,107 5.98%

For my further study, I have decided to analyze the frequency of fillers that are

used by my colleagues in Practical Language class. My results are as expected. Some of

my colleagues used fillers, for example, only five times but some of them used them

nearly in 50 cases. This, again, underlines the statements in this section, i.e.

psychological states of mind are very important in order to prevent the use of fillers.

2.3 Qualitative analysis

The second analysis is a qualitative analysis. There are again two lectures and

two labs/seminars from psychology and anthropology. This analysis studies fillers

according to their discourse functions and tries to find out why and when and in what

circumstances fillers are used.

In order to proceed with the analysis, I have divided fillers according to their

discourse functions. As already mentioned at the beginning of my analysis (cf. Chapter

2), I have decided to use Biber et al.‟s terminology, in which fillers are divided into

eight categories (cf. Section 1.5 above). Each section of my analysis has its own table

where the frequency of all fillers from a particular category is studied. I have decided to

add these tables into the qualitative analysis in order to prevent disorganization in the

quantitative section.

2.3.1 Discourse markers

The first category that is studied in my work is the category of the so-called

discourse markers (DMs). I have decided to analyze this category first since it is the

44

most extensive one in comparison with the others. The category of DMs contains the

discourse markers actually, basically, I guess, I mean, in fact, I think, kind of, kinda,

like, now, so, sort of, sorta, well and you know, alphabetically sorted. Each of these

markers will be discussed and analyzed in the sections below, i.e. 15 types. This section

is divided into single subsections, each dealing with one type of a DM, since they are

the most frequent fillers in my analysis (cf. Table 14).

Table 14: Frequency of DMs in all speech event categories

DM Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

actually 1 11 3 5 20 2.01

basically 4 4 0 10 18 1.81

I guess 0 7 0 3 10 1.01

I mean 7 5 9 120 141 14.17

in fact 1 0 3 0 4 0.42

I think 0 11 3 3 17 1.71

kind of 1 6 1 27 35 3.52

kinda 0 9 0 2 11 1.11

like 17 78 16 120 231 23.21

now 10 6 13 13 42 4.22

so 52 53 120 54 279 28.04

sort of 7 5 8 11 31 3.12

sorta 6 1 0 1 8 0.8

well 12 25 12 17 66 6.63

you know 2 6 17 57 82 8.24

TOTAL:

15

120 227 205 443 995 100%

2.3.1.1 Actually

The first discourse marker according to the alphabetical order is actually. It

occurred only once in the intro psychology lecture, in eleven cases in the biopsychology

45

lab, three times in the intro anthropology lecture and finally, in five cases in the

anthropology discussion section.

(1) “try to find the stuff that that you that you think might actually be very very

interesting that's actually in the book.” (LAB500SU044)

Actually as a filler is used by the speaker in order to emphasize what he/she says.

Its main function is to stress the important information and organize one‟s thoughts as

well. It is one of the most typical fillers in the Czech language. Actually is usually

translated as “vlastně”. However, English tends to resort some other fillers more. As a

result, actually does not hold the first place according to frequency in my analysis,

neither in lectures, nor in labs/seminars.

2.3.1.1 Basically

Basically occurred in four cases both in the intro psychology lecture and the

biopsychology lab. The anthropology lecture does not contain any token of this filler,

while in the anthropology discussion section, basically occurred in 10 cases.

(2) “so basically, um what kinds of consequences are there?” (DIS115JU087)

Basically as a filler is used by the speaker in order to sort out his/her thoughts.

The main function is, however, different. Basically tends to be used as a good beginning

of a sentence, separated with a comma which in the transcription indicates a pause. It is

usually applied when the speaker tends to explain a fact or information and, as a result,

make this explanation „basic‟.

2.3.1.2 I guess

The next DM in my analysis is I guess. It did not occur in any lecture but its

presence can be seen seven times in the biopsychology lab and in three cases in the intro

anthropology seminar.

(3) “I guess, this would would be the pons, somewhere here?” (LAB500SU044)

46

As seen in the example above, I guess fulfils the typical function of fillers, i.e. it

does not add new information but pragmatically enriches the whole sentence because

the speaker is not sure about something. In this case, the speaker is not sure which part

of the sheep‟s brain he can see.

Another option of I guess is its use as a response form, when the speaker is not

sure whether his/her answer is true or not.

2.3.1.3 I mean

The fourth DM I mean as a filler appeared seven times in the intro psychology

lecture and in five cases in the biopsychology lab. In the other field of study, I mean

occurred in nine cases in the intro anthropology lecture and 120 times in the intro

anthropology discussion section, which makes this filler the most frequent one in the


(4) “yeah, that‟s true, I mean, um why do you think that there are not as many

consequences?” (DIS115JU087)

I mean as a filler is used by the speaker as a self-corrector, i.e. the speaker needs

to sort out his/her thoughts and correct something that has already been said.

2.3.1.4 In fact

The DM in fact occurred only once in the intro psychology lecture and three

tokens can be seen in the intro anthropology lecture. There were no occurrences in the

labs/seminars at all.

(5) “…and you heard them afterwards refer to them as Masai they are in fact

Samburu.” (LEL115SU005)

In fact as a filler is used by the speaker in order to stress important information.

In this case, the speaker talks about African clans and points out that people often

confuse them. Basically, the „fact‟ that something is wrong is expressed by this filler.

47

2.3.1.5 I think

I think occurred in my data only three times in the intro anthropology lecture, in

eleven cases in the biopsychology lab and just three times in the intro anthropology

lecture. The anthropology discussion section contained overall 34 tokens of I think.

(6) “I think, they use the consequences to teach morals.” (DIS115JU087)

The main function of I think is to express one‟s opinion, usually without

knowledge whether this opinion is true or not. It is a polite way of expressing opinions,

yet, as all fillers, it can be excluded from the clause.

2.3.1.6 Kind of (kinda), sort of (sorta)

I have decided to put kind of and sort of together since kinda and sorta have the

same semantic meaning. Kinda and sorta are only the transcription of kind of and sort

of, which are semantically equal.

Kind of has been found in my analysis once in the intro psychology lecture, six

times in the biopsychology lab, once in the intro anthropology lecture and in 27 cases in

the anthropology discussion section.

Kinda occurred in the biopsychology lab nine times, and only two times in the

intro anthropology discussion section.

The same can be applied for sort of and sorta. Sort of appeared seven times in

the intro psychology lecture, in five cases in the biopsychology lab and eight times in

the intro anthropology lecture plus in eleven cases in the intro anthropology discussion

section.

Sorta occurred six times in the intro psychology lecture, once in the

biopsychology lab, and once in the intro anthropology seminar.

(7) “…cuz i think you‟ll um, you‟ll notice, um, a lot of shows have some kind of

moral lesson or some kind of, um, some kind of values that they're promoting…”

(DIS115JU087)

(8) “so it‟s not_it‟s kinda, it‟s kinda hard to see as a differentiated object”

(LAB500SU044)

48

(9) “…I‟m sort of drawing on your comments and sort of, adding to them but…”

(DIS115JU087)

(10) “…I find it a frustrating thing is I sorta don‟t know how to respond to it…”

(LEL500JU034)

Kind of is a typical filler, the main function of which is to bring the addressee

closer to his/her thoughts and to express oneself not in a concrete way.

Kinda is only an informal equivalent of kind of which is typical among young

people. There is no such filler present in the lectures analyzed, which brings evidence of

the teachers‟ awareness of the formality of lectures. No such words should be used in

formal situations in general. The same applies for sort of and sorta, but sorta occurred

even in lecture on psychology since the speaker suffered from nervousness.

2.3.1.7 Like

Like as a filler occurred in my data 17 times in the intro psychology lecture and

in 78 cases in the biopsychology lab. The intro anthropology lecture contained 16

tokens of this filler and in the intro anthropology discussion section, like occurred 120

times.

(11) “Cuz they aren‟t gonna like, throw like a six-year-old in jail for like stealing

something or like make him pay a big fine…”( DIS115JU087)

Like can be used in several ways. In the example above, like is used as an

auxiliary element that helps the speaker to express his thoughts and his opinions on a

given problem. Like as a filler has been studied in the work of Sýkorová (2010), which

is based on the same data as my work. The name of her publication is “Like as a Filler

in Academic Spoken English”. She found out (ibid.: 101) that “like is used mainly by the

youngest group between age 17-23 and that it is the most frequent filler in comparison

to other fillers”.

49

2.3.1.8 Now

Now as a filler was used in ten cases in the intro psychology lecture and in six

cases in the biopsychology lab session. The intro anthropology lecture and the seminar

had 13 and one occurrence respectively.

(12) “Now what do you do when you suddenly are wildly beyond.”

(LEL115JU090)

Now indicates the situation that is to happen in order to prepare the addressee to

a situation. It is important to notice that now in initial position has a different meaning

when placed in final position. Now in initial position represents uptake, something is

planned to happen, whereas now in final position is usually the adverbial of time and so

it is outside the scope of my work.

2.3.1.9 So

So is the most frequent filler in my analysis. It occurred 52 times in the intro

psychology lecture and in 53 cases in the biopsychology lab. In the intro anthropology

lecture it holds the first place (cf. Subsection 2.1.3) with 120 occurrences and in the

intro anthropology discussion section, it occurred in 54 cases.

(13) “So let‟s start briefly by going over the three that I mentioned.”

(LEL115JU090)

In my study, so occurs mostly in initial position and expresses an uptake, similar

to now. The speaker wants to indicate that something is to be introduced and wants to

get attention of the addressee(s).

(14) “…and so they institute land policies that restrict.” (LEL115JU090)

In this case, so means „as a result‟. In my work, it is very important to

distinguish the semantic meaning of elements since their positions are essential in my

study in order to be able to classify them correctly.

50

2.3.1.10 Well

Another DM that occurs in my analysis is well. It has twelve occurrences in the

intro psychology lecture and 25 in the biopsychology lab. As for anthropology, in the

lecture, it occurred twelve times and in 17 cases in the discussion section.

(14) “Well because Descartes thought that consciousness can‟t (do anything)”

(LAB500SU044)

The primary position of well is the initial position. Well usually expresses

hesitation or surprise. Also, the speaker might want to gain some time before he actually

answers, which is the main function of fillers.

2.3.1.11 You know

The last filler from the category of DMs is you know. This filler has two

occurrences in the intro psychology lecture and six in the biopsychology lab. The

frequency of this filler is 17 in the intro anthropology lecture and 57 in the intro


(15) “…the reason is because you like coming to class and you‟re learning

something and you're, you know.” (DIS115JU087)

(16) “…they have problems it‟s like you know like.” (DIS115JU087)

In (15), you know stands in final position, representing an element of knowledge.

The speaker assumes that the addressee(s) already know everything about the topic that

is discussed and only wants to be sure.

In (16), you know represents a similar function, yet, the position is not final. The

speaker also relies on the fact that the addressee is familiar with the topic and knows the

crucial information.

51

2.3.2 Interjections

The second category in my analysis represent the so-called interjections which

were used very frequently as well, e.g. uh with 82 occurrence in biopsychology lab. The

interjections that are listed in my analysis are: aaahh, hm, mhm, mm, nah, ooh, oop,

ugh, uh, uh?, uhuh, um, whew and wow (cf. Table 15). The main function of

interjections is usually similar, i.e. they express surprise, agreement, confusion or

hesitation.

Table 15: List of interjections in all speech event categories

Interjection Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

aaahh 1 0 0 0 1 0.18

hm 0 1 0 0 1 0.18

mhm 0 9 0 2 11 2.01

mm 0 2 0 0 2 0.37

nah 0 4 0 0 4 0.73

ooh 0 2 0 0 2 0.37

oop 1 0 0 0 1 0.18

ugh 2 0 0 0 2 0.37

uh 65 82 20 14 181 33.15

uh? 0 1 0 0 1 0.18

uhuh 0 5 0 1 6 1.01

um 30 35 55 205 325 59.52

whew 0 3 0 0 3 0.55

wow 0 6 0 0 6 1.01

TOTAL: 14 99 150 75 222 546 99.99%

2.3.2.1 Aaahh, nah

Aaah occurred only once in my analysis, namely in the intro psychology lecture.

It is thus a rare filler.

(29) “when you‟re frightened you go aaahh.” (LEL500JU034)

52

The only discourse function of this interjection was imitation. The speaker tried

to imitate the sound of a frightened person in order to make the lecture friendlier.

The next filler that occurred in my analysis was nah. It has been used only in

four cases in the biopsychology lab.

(30) “nah, not exactly no. Actually I got the hole here.” (LAB500SU044)

This filler expresses disagreement. It is highly informal and can only be used in

a very informal situation, for example among friends or colleagues. The nature of this

filler is then on the border of interjection and response-form.

2.3.2.2 Mhm, hm, mm

Mhm occurred nine times in the biopsychology lab and twice in the intro

anthropology discussion section, i.e. more informal environments. It serves as an

agreement as well, as in:

(26) S8: “let‟s see if we can (go)”

S7: “mhm, I‟m about ready.” (LAB500SU044)

Hm and mm are fillers that go hand in hand. Hm occurred only once in the

biopsychology lab and mm only twice in the lab as well. All of them express agreement.

(27) S8: “the, right at the bulge, the uh the corpus (callosum.) [SU-m: “hm”]

that‟s layer five.” (LAB500SU044)

(28) “mm so here‟s my thalamus, when I‟m coming from the other side.”

(LAB500SU044)

Both hm and mm are fillers with the same discourse function, they express

reflection of one‟s thoughts but agreement as well.

53

2.3.2.3 Oh, ooh

Oh is one of the more frequent interjections used as fillers. It occurred only in

three cases in the intro psychology lab and in 31 cases in the biopsychology lab. In the

anthropology lecture it was used five times and in the discussion section in six cases.

(31) “oh, (you) got something there” (LAB500SU044)

(32) S1: “it‟s in class just like last time, yeah.” [SU-f: “oh, right”]

(LAB500SU044)

Oh occurs only when the speaker is surprised and/or experience something

unexpected (31). In (32), the addressee (SU-f) agrees with the speaker (S1) and, as a

result, oh serves as an auxiliary element for expressing agreement, i.e. a response form.

Ooh is only a modification of oh, also expressing surprise. It occurred only

twice, namely in biopsychology lab (33).

(33) SU-m: “ooh”

SU-m: “look at that”

S7: “the, stringy uh?” (LAB500SU044)

2.3.2.4 Oop, ugh

It is impossible to analyze oop and ugh without context. The speaker pointed to

powerpoint slides in order to show important information to the audience and he

realized that he has confused two terms by mistake, namely surprise and fear. As a

result of this realization, he expressed his surprise by the two fillers – oop and ugh. Oop

occurred in initial position and can be easily substituted with a different filler, blimey,

for example. But this would change the category of this filler from the interjection to the

expletive. Ugh occurred only twice in my analysis, namely in the intro psychology

lecture. Ugh occurred in final position and expresses the damage that was already done

and cannot be undone. In other words, oop expresses a situation that did not go as

planned, as in:

(21) “oop, I got surprise and fear wrong ugh.” (LEL500JU034)

54

2.3.2.5 Uh, uh?, uhuh

One of the most frequent fillers is the filler uh. In my analysis, this filler holds

the first place according to the frequency of occurrence in the intro psychology lecture,

it occurred 65 times (cf. subsection 2.1.1) and in the biopsychology lab in 82 cases. As

for anthropology, there were 20 cases in the lecture and 14 in the discussion section.

(17) “Uh, in a biopsych- in biopsychology if you‟re looking for, distal causes,

you‟re essentially looking for evolutionary-based explanations.”

(LEL500JU034)

(18) “He died in eighteen eighty-two, and and he his uh, another piece of

trivia, his uh grave, is uh next to the grave of Sir Isaac Newton.”

(LEL500JU034)

(19) “It‟s well like uh like front- frontal lobe I guess.” (LAB500SU044)

As stated above, the main function of this filler is hesitation. The speaker is

simply unsure about what is said and tries to express his/her thoughts in a more informal

way. The typical example of this is (19), where one of the students doing the autopsy of

the sheep‟s brain tries to locate and describe an important part of the brain. He has never

done this work before and, as a result, the hesitation filler uh was used in order to help

express his thoughts.

(20) SU-m: “look at that.”

S2: “the stringy, uh?”

S1: “yeah, it it‟s really interesting isn‟t it?” ( LAB500SU044)

A modified form of this filler is the filler uh?, which occurred only once in

biopsychology lab session. The main function of this filler is to express agreement and

partially a question, too (20). The speaker (S2) needs to hear a response, i.e. agreement

or disagreement from the addressee (SU-m) but someone else (S1) provides the answer

and, as a result, this filler is on the border of the interjection and the response getter.

55

Uhuh has been found five times in the biopsychology lab and only once in the

intro anthropology discussion section.

(25) “well yeah that's what I mean [S1: yeah ] you ever see those old

movies?” [S1: “uhuh” ] (LAB500SU044)

The main function of this filler is agreement. It is slightly informal but, in my

opinion, acceptable in the academic environment.

2.3.2.6 Um

In my analysis, um was also listed as one of the most frequent fillers.In my data,

um occurred exactly in 30 and 35 cases in the intro psychology lecture and the

biopsychology lab respectively. In the intro anthropology lecture, um was listed 55

times and in the discussion section in 205 cases, where it holds the first position.

(22) “um, okay so what does that, what does that tell us already, if if young

people, are more likely to steal things than, than o- um, older people?”

(DIS115JU087)

(23) “yeah, that‟s true, I mean, um why do you think that there are not as

many consequences?” ( DIS115JU087)

(24) “okay that‟s definitely um, that‟s definitely important. Yeah?”

(DIS115JU087)

Um clearly expresses hesitation and agitated thoughts. In order to formulate

one‟s thoughts, um is likely to appear. This filler can be placed into both initial and

medial position but cannot occur in final position.

2.3.2.7 Whew

Whew occurred only three times, namely in the biopsychology lab. It serves so

as to express indignation and in general, something unpleasant (cf. (34) below).

56

(34) “whew. God that stuff stinks when it gets close to it.” (LAB500SU044)

2.3.2.8 Wow

Wow has been found six times only in the biopsychology lab session. It occurs

when the speaker is surprised or astonished, as in the following example:

(35) S7: “there‟s there‟s there‟s their speech class is gonna meet there, at

Dennison right there, at four o'clock...”

S8: “wow” (LAB500SU044)

2.3.3 Response getters

The third category of fillers in my analysis represents the so-called response

getters. This category is less complex than the two categories above, i.e. discourse

markers and interjections.

I have gathered five types of response getters in my analysis. These are: alright?,

mkay?, okay?, right? and yeah?. All of them represent a filler, the main function of

which is to keep the students‟ attention and make the lectures or labs/seminars more

attractive for them. In a less formal environment, response getters placed in final

position serve as questions. The speaker expects an answer from the addressee, but

sometimes, the speaker asks only rhetorically and answers himself (cf. (37) below). As

already stated, the more frequent response getters are, the better, since they serve as a

tool that improves spoken performance in general. However, there is one problem and

that is the difference in the degree of formality. Some of the response getters listed in

this section are more formal or informal than the others. Their use fully depends on the

current situation and the relationship between the speaker and the audience (or the

addressee).

Formal response getters are: alright? and right?

Informal response getters are: mkay? and yeah?

Okay? is somewhere between them, it is not strictly formal or informal;

however, its use must be carefully chosen in order not to cause offense.

57

Table 16: List of response getters in all speech event categories

Response

getter

Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

Alright? 0 6 0 0 6 7.06

Mkay? 0 2 0 0 2 2.35

Okay? 0 13 2 0 15 17.65

Right? 27 13 2 15 57 67.06

Yeah? 0 0 0 5 5 5.88

TOTAL: 5 27 34 4 20 85 100%

The most common response getter is right? with 27 occurrences in the intro

psychology lecture, 13 in the biopsychology lab, two in the intro anthropology lecture

and 15 in the intro anthropology discussion section. The second place in the order of

frequency holds the response getter okay? which was indicated in 13 cases in the

biopsychology lab and twice in the intro anthropology lecture. Alright? occurred only

six times in the biopsychology lab, mkay? twice in the same speech event category and

yeah? has been listed only five times in the intro anthropology discussion section (cf.

(36) - (40)).

(36) “If the environment changes, evolution didn‟t know that, right?”

(LEL500JU034)

In example (36), the speaker does not expect any answer. This is a typical

response getter used in order to keep attention of the audience.

(37) “So don‟t worry about it, okay? It‟ll be okay.” (LAB500SU044)

Example (37) was already mentioned, the speaker asks a rhetorical question and

immediately provides the answer.

(38) “There‟s gonna be anatomical questions on the exam in two weeks,

alright?” (LAB500SU044)

58

Example (38) is a situation in which the speaker demands a positive answer but

he usually does not expect any verbal agreement.

(39) S1: “Okay that‟s definitely um, that‟s definitely important. Yeah?”

(DIS115JU087)

Example (39) represents a different situation. The speaker (S1) comments on

somebody‟s argument/opinion and agrees. However, someone else (S2) has something

to say as well. It would be, however, impolite to express his opinion without asking

permission. The speaker (S2) probably raised his hand in order to obtain a permit. That

is, however, a speculation, since no such information can be read from the corpus.

(40) “I‟ll have „em by eight-thirty tomorrow morning on the fourth floor,

outside my office. Mkay?” (LAB500SU044)

The last example (40) represents a common situation, similar to (36) above. The

only difference is that (40) is less formal than (36). Finally, all response getters in final

position in the clause must be followed with a comma so as to express a pause.

2.3.4 Response forms

The fourth category of fillers is represented by the so-called response forms.

These are words (fillers) that express agreements or disagreements. The main factor that

distinguishes response getters is, again, the degree of formality.

In my study, ten response forms have been found. These are the following:

alright, cool, definitely, exactly, indeed, mkay, really?, right, okay and yeah.

Formal response forms are: alright, definitely, exactly, indeed, right

Informal response forms are: cool, mkay, yeah

Okay and really? are not strictly formal or informal, they are neutral.

Table 17: List of response forms in all speech event categories

Response

form

Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthro-

pology

seminar

TOTAL %

59

alright 0 27 0 0 27 8.11

cool 0 0 0 1 1 0.3

definitely 0 0 0 2 2 0.6

exactly 0 1 0 0 1 0.3

indeed 0 0 3 0 3 0.9

mkay 0 1 0 0 1 0.3

really? 0 2 0 0 2 0.6

right 0 24 1 7 32 9.61

okay 3 81 8 9 101 30.33

yeah 0 87 1 75 163 48.95

TOTAL: 10 3 223 13 94 333 100%

The most frequent response form was yeah, which occurred 87 times in the

biopsychology lab, once in the intro anthropology lecture and in 75 cases in the intro

anthropology discussion section. Based on the data, yeah is strictly informal and occurs

mostly in more informal environment, i.e. labs/seminars. The second place holds okay,

which has been found only three times in the intro psychology lecture, in 81 cases in the

biopsychology lab, eight times in the intro anthropology lecture and nine times in the

anthropology discussion section. Right occurred 24 times in the biopsychology lab, once

in the intro anthropology lecture and in seven cases in the anthropology discussion

section. Alright occurred only in the biopsychology lab, namely in 27 cases. The rest of

the response forms have lower frequency of occurrence, indeed has been found only

three times in the lecture on anthropology, definitely twice in the anthropology

discussion section, really? twice in the biopsychology lab. Cool occurred only once in

the anthropology discussion section and both exactly and mkay only once in the

biopsychology lab.

(41) S8: “I guess it‟s kinda down.”

S7: “yeah, yeah” (LAB500SU044)

(42) S7: “No it's not i don't think it's [S8: oh okay ] look on look on this one

because this is an actually a sheep brain.” (LAB500SU044)

60

(43) S1: “That what‟s gonna happen is that those bodies will separate away

from [S7: right right right ] each other?” (LAB500SU044)

(44) “Y- yeah exactly, and you see this white really_ this is a really tough

white fiber here?” (LAB500SU044)

As seen from examples (41), (42), (43) and (44), yeah, okay and right are typical

response forms that differ only in the level of formality.

(45) S1: “If you guys can‟t find certain organs, wander around a little bit and

see if you can find them.”

SU-m: “alright” (LAB500SU044)

Alright is the most formal response getter in my analysis. Its use should be

typical for formal speech event categories such as lectures, office hours, etc. In my

opinion, its use in less formal situations is not prohibited.

(46) “Because it would be truly, indeed the very first time that they would see

any of the Samburu.” (LEL115JU090)

(47) “I mean, yeah definitely goals, definitely goals are important.”

(DIS115JU087)

Examples (46) and (47) show that both response forms are not used as stand-

alone elements but they are in the middle of the clause. If they stood alone, they would

be typical response getters. In examples (46) and (47), they are response getters but they

stress some fact or information.

(48) S8: “(it‟s about) language (or something)”

S7: “oh really?” (LAB500SU044)

Example (48) clearly shows a certain degree of surprise since the speaker (S7)

did not know vital information. In this case, he was interested in the MICASE project.

61

(49) “Alright, cool.” (DIS115JU087)

(50) S1: “If you pull that away, you should find the hippocampus sort of

nestled in the cortex [SU-m: mkay ] alright? yeah” (LAB500SU044)

Cool is the least formal response form in my analysis. Its use is typical for highly

informal situations. Also, this filler is popular especially among young people and its

use should not occur at college environment, for example in lectures. The same applies

for the modified form of okay – mkay.

2.3.5 Polite forms

The fifth category of fillers in my analysis represents the so-called polite forms,

which are expressions that are (as all fillers) semantically equal, but from the social

point of view (i.e. pragmatics point of view), they are indispensable. Polite forms help

people to achieve desired goals. The more polite forms are used, the better, since, in my

opinion, it is never wrong to be polite. Some limits, of course, must be set in order not

to be very polite in situations when politeness is not required. To be polite means to

affect people in a friendly way, be friendly and act in a socially-accepted way. In my

opinion, politeness is something that our society lacks. And, as a result, not many polite

forms appeared in my analysis.

There are only seven types of polite forms in my work. These are: excuse me,

excuse me?, I‟m sorry, please, sorry?, thanks and thank you.

Table 18: List of polite forms in all speech event categories

Polite form Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

excuse me 0 0 2 0 2 14.29

excuse me? 0 0 1 0 1 7.14

I‟m sorry 0 0 0 4 4 28.57

please 0 0 1 0 1 7.14

sorry? 0 0 0 4 4 28.57

thanks 1 0 0 0 1 7.14

62

thank you 0 1 0 0 1 7.14

TOTAL: 7 1 1 4 8 14 99.99%

The most „polite‟ field of study was the anthropology discussion section which

contained eight polite forms – four times I‟m sorry and four times sorry? The second

place is occupied by the anthropology lecture where excuse me occurred twice and

excuse me? once. There was only one token of please in the intro anthropology lecture.

As for psychology, the lecture contained only one polite form – thanks and the

biopsychology lab also one – thank you.

It is important to notice that this category is highly affected by people. This

means that behaviour, personality, education, upbringing and culture in general have a

direct impact on the use of polite forms. For illustration, cf. examples below.

(51) S1: “I‟m sorry I don„t know your name.”

R1: “Janine.” (DIS115JU087)

In order to be as polite as possible, the speaker has decided to use the polite form

I‟m sorry. As a result, the speaker (S1) obtained a satisfying answer without offending

the addressee (R1).

(52) S13: “In the like the Amazon they still are, a little bit”

S1: “sorry?”

S13: “like in the Amazon where they, really have no contact…”

(DIS115JU087)

Example (52) represents a completely different situation. The speaker (S13) tries

to express his thoughts but the addressee finds his expression fuzzy. As a result, the

addressee (S1) politely asks in order to make the speaker repeat his thought.

(53) “…so we‟re gonna see that right now. excuse me? okay. just to give an

example.” (LEL115JU090)

Example (53) is more complicated without wider context. The speaker wanted to

play his students a video in the lecture. In order to put the cassette or CD/DVD into the

63

player and press buttons, the speakers decided to apologize. The apology would not be

necessary since the audience was not offended, but it definitely sounds better and

friendlier.

(54) “…they were called substantists, substantivists excuse me.”

(LEL115JU090)

In this case (54), the speaker used a wrong word for a particular term. In order to

correct this mistake, he chose to apologize.

(55) “okay... let‟s get started. quiet please.” (LEL115JU090)

In the example above (55), the speaker started lecturing and demanded silence in

order to be able to present information on a given topic. In order to do that, he decided

to use the polite form please.

(56) “…we‟ll pick up there, on Thursday. thanks a lot.” (LEL500JU034)

Example (56) is an example of thanking, namely thanks. In order to thank for the

attention of the addressees, the speaker decided to thank them. In my opinion, every

lecture and in general every interaction that is benefit for at least one side should end

this way. Thank you is only more polite form of thanking.

2.3.6 Expletives

The sixth category of fillers in my qualitative analysis is the category of the so-

called expletives. In general, expletives express worries and inner anxiety that is

expressed via words in order to relieve one‟s anger. Expletives are, without doubt, a

weakness and its use shall not be often, yet, nowadays society feels it differently. On the

other hand, some situations may require the use of expletives in order to, for example,

entertain the audience (e.g. a theatre play). It can be stated that expletives are the

opposite of polite forms.

64

Table 19: Expletives in all speech event categories

Expletive Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

gee 3 0 0 0 3 60

bullshit 0 1 0 0 1 20

shit 0 1 0 0 1 20

TOTAL: 3 3 2 0 0 5 100%

In my analysis, there are only three expletives. It is gee that occurred three times

in intro psychology lecture, shit and bullshit, each with one occurrence in

biopsychology lab. No other expletives were identified in the corpus.

(57) “so, um you could make this evolutionary account that said, gee, maybe

the reason why we like we tend to universally like sweets and fats, is because of

our evolutionary heritage.” (LEL500JU034)

In Example (57), the speaker tried to imitate a putative situation and in order to

make this situation more natural, the speaker has decided to use the expletive form gee.

Gee is not formal, although there are some other expletives that are strictly informal, as

in the example below:

(58) S1: “um, okay, so, <S2: LAUGH> [SU-f: “shit” ] let's start.

<SIGHS>” (LAB500SU044)

(59) “yeah, there‟s like all this bullshit in the way.” (LAB500SU044)

The expletive seen in (58) is strictly unacceptable in the academic environment.

It is impossible to guess what led the speaker (SU-f) to use this expletive form.

Something must have happened and I am not able to guess what exactly since the

context is unclear in the corpus. On the other hand, the teacher (S1) noticed this

expletive and, as a result, sighs to express indignation.

In (59), the speaker while doing the autopsy used the expletive form not as a

stand-alone element but in the middle of the clause in order to indicate that there are

65

some other brain components that obstruct some other parts of the sheep‟s brain. This

expletive should not appear in the college environment either.

If the expletive in Example (59) was used as a stand-alone element, the example

might be on the border of expletive and response form.

2.3.7 Greetings/farewells

The seventh category in my analysis is the category of greetings and farewells.

In my opinion, every human interaction should start with a greeting and end with a

farewell. It is a pity that so few of these formulas have been found in my analysis. There

are only two of them, namely hi and good afternoon. Hi has only one occurrence in

anthropology discussion section and good afternoon occurred twice in intro psychology

lecture.

Table 20: Greetings/farewells in all speech event categories

Greetings

and

farewells

Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

hi 0 0 0 1 1 33.3

good

afternoon

2

0

0

0

2 66.6

TOTAL: 2 2 0 0 1 3 99.9%

(60) S1: “Alright cool. Hi.”

SU-m: “I have a question. Do you think, there‟ll ever be a fifth

category?”

S1: “Oh that‟s a good question.” (DIS115JU087)

The example above (60) represents a situation where the speaker (S1) ended a

session and decided to answer questions of his students individually. As a result, one of

the students was welcomed by hi.

66

(61) S1: “good afternoon.”

SS: “good afternoon.” (LEL500JU034)

Example (61) is a model situation how every lecture should start. The speaker

(S1) welcomed his audience by simple good afternoon. As a result, the audience (SS)

answered politely in the same way.

2.3.8 Attention getters

The last category in my analysis is that of attention getters, which helps the

speaker to enforce his opinion, to show the addressee something or serve simply as

exclamations. There was only one attention getter in my data, namely hey, which

occurred four times in biopsychology lab and only once in intro anthropology lecture.

Table 21: Attention getters in all speech event categories

Attention

getter

Psychology

lecture

Biopsychology

lab

Anthropology

lecture

Anthropology

seminar

TOTAL %

hey 0 4 0 1 5 100

TOTAL: 2 0 4 0 1 5 100%

(62) “…so because they knew these people, they said hey, we‟ll take

advantage of them again.” (LEL115JU090)

Example (62) represents a putative situation of negative human behaviour. In

order to keep the authenticity of such a statement, the speaker has decided to use the

attention getter hey, which is used in direct speech.

(63) “hey tell me about the pineal gland.” (LAB500SU044)

Example (63) represents a situation when the speaker demands an answer. In

order to make the process of answering quicker, the speaker chose the attention getter

hey.

67

2.4 Summary of qualitative analysis

My qualitative analysis was based on the data that was taken from MICASE.

There were two lectures and two labs/seminars analyzed. The most common were the

so-called discourse markers (e.g. so, I mean) and interjections (e.g. um, uh).

There is no major difference between fields of study that I have analyzed. The

only factor that plays a crucial role in the use of fillers are people, especially their state

of mind, but also some other factors, such as personality, culture or society.

Table 22: Summary of all types of fillers used both in lectures and labs/seminars

(according to their discourse functions)

DISCOURSE

FUNCTION

TOTAL %



Response forms 18 14.75


Polite forms 8 6.56

Expletives 3 2.46

Greetings/farewells 3 2.46

Attention getters 2 1.64


My qualitative analysis includes all eight categories included in the Table 22. I

have analyzed all fillers that have been listed in the quantitative analysis section. The

category of DMs was the most common one since DMs represent almost 43 per cent of

all fillers in my analysis. As already stated, the interjections were the second most

prominent category of all. From overall 122 types fillers, 26 of them were interjections,

that is almost 25 per cent of all fillers. The rest of the fillers found in my data were not

so frequent, but that does not mean that they are secondary. In my opinion, all fillers are

linguistically equal.

68

Conclusions

My work Fillers in Academic Spoken English was focused on the so-called

fillers, i.e. elements that semantically complete clauses/sentences. I have analyzed

two different speech event categories, viz. two lectures and two labs/seminars from

psychology and anthropology. Both fields of study have been analyzed and

organized in the quantitative and qualitative analysis. Quantitative analysis studies

the frequency of fillers, whereas qualitative analysis discusses discourse functions of

all fillers found in my data. The source of the data for my analysis was Michigan

Corpus of Academic Spoken English.

Both psychology and anthropology lectures and labs/seminars have a

tremendous number of fillers, which is in agreement with my expectation. The use

of fillers is common, since the language is constantly shaping and evolving. People

are affected by mass media and modern technologies. As a result, people forget to

communicate among themselves and expressions they use are accompanied by an

extensive number of fillers. It cannot be stated that particular fields of study differ

from each other in the use of fillers. Each field of study has its own terminology but

the only factor that enriches the phenomenon of fillers is the speakers‟ state of mind

and knowledge of a particular language. In other words, every situation is unique in

terms of tenor, mode and domain. The most common fillers in my data were DMs

(e.g. so) and interjections (e.g. uh, um).

I expect that fillers will accompany people‟s speech in the future as well,

especially in American English where boundaries between formality and informality

are not as strict as, for example, in British English. There are only two options of

prevention. The first one is a change of society, which is probably not possible. The

second option is a will to change one‟s spoken performance via records and self-

observation for those who want to avoid fillers.

Fillers are neither good, nor bad. They are linguistically equal to other

lexical words. Its use completely depends on the given speaker and the given

situation, whether they are used deliberately or unintentionally. If they cause a

problem to the speaker (e.g. they are used against his will or frequently), there is

always an option of prevention.

69

References

Biber. D., Johanson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (2000) Longman Grammar

of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Croucher, S. (2004) „Like, You Know, What I‟m Saying: A Study of Discourse Marker

Frequency in Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking‟. Oklahoma: University

of Oklahoma.

Crystal, D., Davy, D. (1969) Investigating English Style. New York: Longman.

Leech, G., Deuchar, M., Hoogenraad, R. (1982) English Grammar for Today: A New

Introduction. London: Macmillan.

Leech, G., Svartvik J. (1975) A Communicative Grammar of English. Harlow:

Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1989) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of

Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Hong Kong: Oxford University

Press.

McCarten, J. (2007) Teaching Vocabulary: Lessons from the Corpus, Lessons for the

Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Scarcella, R. (2003) Academic English: A Conceptual Framework. Irvine: University of

California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Stenström, A. (1994) An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. Harlow: Longman.

Sýkorová, I. (2010) Like as a Filler in Academic Spoken American English. Brno:

Masaryk University.

Sources

"Micase Online Home Page." Micase Online Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2014.

MASARYK UNIVERSITY Fillers in Academic Spoken English

Documents

Transcript of MASARYK UNIVERSITY Fillers in Academic Spoken English