Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (2017) ► pp.242–269

Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in English and French

Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus

| Université catholique de Louvain
While discourse markers (DMs) and (dis)fluency have been extensively studied in the past as separate phenomena, corpus-based research combining large-scale yet fine-grained annotations of both categories has, however, never been carried out before. Integrating these two levels of analysis, while methodologically challenging, is not only innovative but also highly relevant to the investigation of spoken discourse in general and form-meaning patterns in particular. The aim of this paper is to provide corpus-based evidence of the register-sensitivity of DMs and other disfluencies (e.g. pauses, repetitions) and of their tendency to combine in recurrent clusters. These claims are supported by quantitative findings on the variation and combination of DMs with other (dis)fluency devices in DisFrEn, a richly annotated and comparable English-French corpus representative of eight different interaction settings. The analysis uncovers the prominent place of DMs within (dis)fluency and meaningful association patterns between forms and functions, in a usage-based approach to meaning-in-context.
Keywords: discourse markers, disfluency, corpus annotation, usage-based, speech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse markers and (dis)fluency in corpus linguistics
    • 2.1Corpora annotated with DM information
      • 2.1.1Definition of DMs
      • 2.1.2Crosslinguistic research on DMs: From case studies to full categories
      • 2.1.3Annotating the functions of discourse markers
    • 2.2Corpora annotated with (dis)fluency information
      • 2.2.1Brief overview of (dis)fluency annotation frameworks
      • 2.2.2Discourse markers in previous approaches to (dis)fluency
    • 2.3A usage-based approach to the integration of DMs and (dis)fluency
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Dataset construction
    • 3.2Annotation schemes: A bottom-up approach to corpus annotation
      • 3.2.1Discourse markers: Multi-layered annotation
      • 3.2.2(Dis)fluency: Word-level tagging
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative analysis: Variation of DMs and fluencemes
    • 4.2Qualitative analysis: Usage-based schemata of forms and functions
  • 5.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.04cri
References (62)
References
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aijmer, J., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. -M. (2011). Pragmatic markers. In J. Zienkowski, J. -O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive Pragmatics (pp. 223–247). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, K. (2013). A parallel corpus approach to investigating semantic change. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 103–125). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliao, J., & Lacheret, A. (2013). Disfluency and discursive markers: When prosody and syntax plan discourse. In R. Eklund (Ed.), Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DiSS) 2013. TMH-QPSR, 54(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
Besser, J., & Alexandersson, J. (2007). A comprehensive disfluency model for multi-party interaction. In S. Keizer, H. Bunt & T. Paek (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 182–189).Google Scholar
Bolly, C., Crible, L., Degand, L., & Uygur-Distexhe, D. (2017). Towards a model for discourse marker annotation. From potential to feature-based discourse markers. In C. Fedriani & A. Sansó (Eds.), Discourse Markers, Pragmatic Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives (pp. 71–97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S., Bloom, J., Schober, M., & Brennan, S. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boula de Mareüil, P., Adda, G., Adda-Decker, M., Barras, C., Habert, B., & Paroubek, P. (2013). Une étude quantitative des marqueurs discursifs, disfluences et chevauchements de parole dans des interviews politiques. TIPA Travaux Interdisciplinaires sur la Parole et le Langage, 291.Google Scholar
Bouraoui, J. -L., & Vigouroux, N. (2006). Étude de dysfluences dans un corpus linguistiquement contraint. In Proceedings of the Journée d’Etudes sur la Parole (JEP 2006) (pp. 429–432).Google Scholar
Brognaux, S., Roekhaut, S., Drugman, T., & Beaufort, R. (2012). Train&Align: A new online tool for automatic phonetic alignment. In Proceedings of IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT) (pp. 416–421). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Candéa, M. (2000). Contribution à l’Etude des Pauses Silencieuses et des Phénomènes Dits “d’Hésitation” en Français Oral Spontané (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris III, Paris.Google Scholar
Crible, L. (2014). Identifying and Describing Discourse Markers in Spoken Corpora. Annotation Protocol v.8 (Technical report). Louvain-la-Neuve, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
(2017). Towards an operational category of discourse markers: A definition and its model. In A. Sansó & C. Fedriani (Eds.), Discourse Markers, Pragmatic Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives (pp. 99–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., & Degand, L. (forthcoming). Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade-off? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Crible, L., Degand, L., & Gilquin, G. (2017). The clustering of discourse markers and filled pauses: A corpus-based French-English study of (dis)fluency. Languages in Contrast 17(1), 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, L., Dumont, A., Grosman, I., & Notarrigo, I. (2016). Annotation Manual of Fluency and Disfluency Markers in Multilingual, Multimodal, Native and Learner Corpora. Version 2.0 (Technical report). Louvain-la-Neuve & Namur, Université catholique de Louvain & Université de Namur.Google Scholar
Degand, L., Martin, L., & Simon, A. -C. (2014). LOCAS-F: Un corpus oral multigenres annoté. Paper presented at the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Berlin, Germany.
Demirşahin, I., & Zeyrek, D. (2014). Annotating discourse connectives in spoken Turkish. In L. Levin & M. Stede (Eds.), LAW VIII – The 8th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 105–109). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denke, A. (2009). Nativelike Performance. Pragmatic Markers, Repair and Repetition in Native and Non-native English Speech. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Dister, A., Francard, M., Hambye, P., & Simon, A. -C. (2009). Du corpus à la banque de données. Du son, des textes et des métadonnées. L’évolution de la banque de données textuelles orales VALIBEL (1989–2009). Cahiers de Linguistique, 33(2), 113–129.Google Scholar
Ejzenberg, R. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 288–313). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Eklund, R. (2004). Disfluency in Swedish Human-human and Human-machine Travel Booking Dialogues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Linköpings Universitet, Linköping.Google Scholar
Eklund, R., & Shriberg, E. (1998). Crosslinguistic disfluency modeling: A comparative analysis of Swedish and American English human-human and human-machine dialogs. In R. H. Mannell & J. Robert-Ribes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 2627–2630). Canberra: Australian Speech Science and Technicology Association, Incorporated (ASSTA).Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2006). The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics. Causation in the hot seat. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis (pp. 159–191). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman, J. -P., Prsir, T., & Auchlin, A. (2014). C-PhonoGenre: A 7-hour corpus of 7 speaking styles in French: Relations between situational features and prosodic properties. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC’14) (pp. 302–305). Paris, European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
González, M. (2005). Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies, 77(1), 53–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Deschamps, A. (1975). Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l’anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d’hésitation. Phonetica, 31(3–4), 144–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosman, I. (2016). How do French humorists manage their persona across situations? A corpus study on their prosodic variation. In L. Ruiz-Gurillo (Ed.), Metapragmatics of Humor: Current Research Trends (pp. 147–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. -B. M. (2006). A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 21–41). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A. (2002). Learner corpora and language testing: Small words as markers of learner fluency. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer-Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 143–173). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage Based Models of Language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kohn, K. (2012). Pedagogic corpora for content and language integrated learning. Insights from the BACKBONE project. The Eurocall Review, 20(2), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunz, K., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2015). Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lacheret, A., Kahane, S., & Pietrandrea, P. (Eds.) (2014). Rhapsodie: A Prosodic and Syntactic Treebank for Spoken French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lopes, A., Martins de Matos, D., Cabarrão, V., Ribeiro, R., Moniz, H., Trancoso, I., & Mata, A. I. (2015). Towards using machine translation techniques to induce multilingual lexica of discourse markers. Computing Research Repository (CoRR), 1–6 [URL] (last accessed August 2017).Google Scholar
Meteer, M. Taylor, A., MacIntyre, R., & Iver, R. (1995). Disfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus (Technical report). Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G., Wallis, S., & Aarts, B. (2002). Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palisse, S. (1997). “Artisans”, “Assureurs”, Conversations Téléphoniques en Entreprise. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed March 2014).
Pallaud, B., Rauzy, S., & Blâche, P. (2013). Auto-interruptions et disfluences en français parlé dans quatre corpus du CID. TIPA Travaux Interdisciplinaires sur la Parole et le Langage, 291, 2–19.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (2000). The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H. Riggebbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 163–199). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC’08) (pp. 2961–2968). Paris, European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Roekhaut, S., Brognaux, S., Beaufort, R., & Dutoit, T. (2014). eLite-HTS: Un outil TAL pour la génération de synthèse HMM en français. Paper presented at the Journées d’Etude de la Parole (JEP), Le Mans, France.
Rühlemann, C., & O’Donnell, M. (2012). Introducing a corpus of conversational stories. Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus . Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(2), 313–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. (1997). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In D. Jones & H. Somers (Eds.), New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 154–164). London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. -J. (2010). Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp. 101–133). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K. (2009). EXMARaLDA – Creating, analysing and sharing spoken language corpora for pragmatic research. Pragmatics, 19(4), 565–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 1071, 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shriberg, E. (1994). Preliminaries to a Theory of Speech Disfluencies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Simon, A. -C., Auchlin, A., Avanzi, M., & Goldman, J.-Ph. (2010). Les phonostyles. Une description prosodique des styles de parole en français. In M. Abecassis & G. Ledegen (Eds.), Les Voix des Français. En Parlant, en Ecrivant, vol. 21 (pp. 71–88). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Strassel, S. (2003). Simple Metadata Annotation Specification v.5 (Technical report). Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Tonelli, S., Riccardi, G., Prasad, R., & Joshi, A. (2010). Annotation of discourse relations for conversational spoken dialogs. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC’10) (pp. 2084–2090). Paris, European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Willems, D., & Demol, A. (2006). Vraiment and really in contrast: When truth and reality meet. In K. Aijmer & A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers in Contrast (pp. 215–235). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zikánová, Š., Hajičová, E., Hladká, B., Jínová, P., Mírovský, J., Nedoluzhko, A., Poláková, L., Rysová, K., Rysová, M., & Václ, J. (2015). Discourse and Coherence. From the Sentence Structure to Relations in Text. Prague: Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., & Cartoni, B. (2012). English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 12(2), 232–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S., & Degand, L. (2013). Annotating the meaning of discourse connectives in multilingual corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Cited by (22)

Cited by 22 other publications

Flinn, Andrea
2023. How Often Do Pauses Occur in Lexical Bundles in Spoken Native English Speech?. Corpus Pragmatics 7:4 ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo
Morady Moghaddam, Mostafa
2023. Discourse markers in L2 learners' responses to teacher‐generated compliments during classroom interaction. Foreign Language Annals 56:4 ► pp. 1035 ff. DOI logo
Niculescu, Oana
2023. Acoustic Correlates of Filler Particles in Romanian Connected Speech. Philologica Jassyensia 38:2 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Blochowiak, Joanna, Cristina Grisot & Liesbeth Degand
2022. From implicit to explicit. Pragmatics & Cognition 29:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Kazemian, Reza & Mohammad Amouzadeh
2022. Aspects ofvæ(‘and’) as a discourse marker in Persian. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 32:4 ► pp. 588 ff. DOI logo
Degand, Liesbeth & Ludivine Crible
2021. Chapter 1. Discourse markers at the peripheries of syntax, intonation and turns. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu
2021. Very simple, though, isn't it? Pragmatic marker sequencing at the right periphery. Journal of Pragmatics 182 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Jarrah, Marwan, Sharif Alghazo & Yousef Bader
2021. Two Types of Concession: Evidence From Discourse Markers. Sage Open 11:3 DOI logo
König, Katharina
2021. HM and EHM as discourse markers in German WhatsApp chats. Discourse, Context & Media 39 ► pp. 100457 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg
2020. When Do We Leave Discourse Relations Underspecified? The Effect of Formality and Relation Type. Discours :26 DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2019. Chapter 2. Local vs. global scope of discourse markers. In Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 305], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2020. Weak and Strong Discourse Markers in Speech, Chat, and Writing: Do Signals Compensate for Ambiguity in Explicit Relations?. Discourse Processes 57:9 ► pp. 793 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine
2022. The syntax and semantics of coherence relations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine, Ágnes Abuczki, Nijolė Burkšaitienė, Péter Furkó, Anna Nedoluzhko, Sigita Rackevičienė, Giedrė Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė & Šárka Zikánová
2019. Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics 142 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine & Liesbeth Degand
2019. Domains and Functions: A Two-Dimensional Account of Discourse Markers. Discours :24 DOI logo
Cuenca, Maria Josep & Ludivine Crible
2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics 140 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Didirková, Ivana, Ludivine Crible & Anne Catherine Simon
2019. Impact of Prosody on the Perception and Interpretation of Discourse Relations: Studies on “Et” and “Alors” in Spoken French. Discourse Processes 56:8 ► pp. 619 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander
2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics 146 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander
2021. The acquisition of pragmatic markers in the foreign language classroom: An experimental study on the effects of implicit and explicit learning. Journal of Pragmatics 186 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander
2021. Chapter 6. Discourse markers and brain lateralization. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 158 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 99], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. A Pragmatic Approach to Fluency and Disfluency in Learner Language [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 332], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.