Cover not available
Article published In:
Segmental, prosodic and fluency features in phonetic learner corpora
Edited by Jürgen Trouvain, Frank Zimmerer, Bernd Möbius, Mária Gósy and Anne Bonneau
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 3:2] 2017
► pp. 118–148

Fluently disfluent?

Pauses and repairs of advanced learners and native speakers of German

| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
In this article, we explore the disfluencies of advanced learners and native speakers of German in spontaneous speech. We focus on the frequency, form, and place of silent and filled pauses as well as self-repairs. Frequency significantly differs for silent pauses only. As to form, the distribution for both filled pauses and repair types significantly differs between the groups, while the proportion of within-repair hesitations (‘interregna’) is similar. For the neighbouring tokens of filled pauses, learners adhere to the pattern of their native language English, which is significantly different from the pattern we find for native German. Our results indicate that for some aspects of disfluencies, it seems that learners can adapt to a native-like pattern, while others are imported from the L1. Still others are significantly different from both the target and the native pattern. We present different possible explanations for all these cases.
Keywords: disfluencies, repairs, spontaneous speech, fluency, filled pauses
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Disfluencies
    • 2.1Disfluencies in general
    • 2.2Silent and filled pauses
    • 2.3Repairs
  • 3.Differences between learners and native speakers
    • 3.1Frequency
    • 3.2Form
    • 3.3Place
  • 4.Method and data
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Frequency
      • 5.1.1Silent and filled pauses
      • 5.1.2Repairs
    • 5.2Form
      • 5.2.1Filled pauses
      • 5.2.2Repairs
    • 5.3Place
      • 5.3.1Filled pauses
      • 5.3.2Repairs
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.3.2.02bel
References (82)
References
Akaike, H. 1974. “A new look at the statistical model identification”. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-19(6), 716–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., & Weinert, R. 1991. “The HCRC map task corpus”. Language and Speech 34(4), 351–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E. 2013. “Information status relates to production, distribution, and comprehension”. Frontiers in psychology 41, Art. 235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. 2011. “Disfluency effects in comprehension: how new information can become accessible”. In E. Gibson, & N. J. Pearlmutter (Eds.), Bradford Book. The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Altmann, R. J., & Fagnano, M. 2004. “The old and thee, uh, new”. Psychological Science 15(9), 578–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bada, E., & Genç, B. 2008. “Pausing preceding and following to in to-infinitives: A study with implications to reading and speaking skills in ELT”. Journal of Pragmatics 40(11), 1939–1949. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballier, N., & Martin, P. 2015. “Speech annotation of learner corpora”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 107–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (Eds.) 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7.Google Scholar
Belz, M. 2013. Disfluencies und Reparaturen bei Muttersprachlern und Lernern – eine kontrastive Analyse. Master’s thesis. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Belz, M., & Klapi, M. 2013. “Pauses following fillers in L1 and L2 German map task dialogues”. In R. Eklund (Ed.), Proceedings of DiSS 2013. The 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, 9–12.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. 2001. “Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender”. Language and Speech 44(2), 123–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosker, H. R., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. 2014. “Native ‘um’s elicit prediction of low-frequency referents, but non-native ‘um’s do not”. Journal of Memory and Language 751, 104–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, C., & Götz, S. 2011. “Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2), 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. 2002. “Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking”. Cognition 84(1), 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Çokal-Karadaş, D. 2010. “Conversational repair in foreign language classrooms: A case study in a Turkish context”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER) 391, 145–160.Google Scholar
Colman, M., & Healey, P. G. T. 2011. “The distribution of repair in dialogue”. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1563–1568.Google Scholar
Corley, M., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Perc, M. 2011. “Why um helps auditory word recognition: the temporal delay hypothesis”. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corley, M., & Stewart, O. W. 2008. “Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um”. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4), 589–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. 2012. “The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(4), 782–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, E. 2007. “Hesitation markers in English, German, and Dutch”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19(02), 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. 2009. “The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(04), 533–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Venanzio, L. 2016. Die Syntax von Selbstreparaturen: Sprach- und erwerbsspezifische Reparaturorganisation im Deutschen und Spanischen. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckes, T. 2010. “Der Online-Einstufungstest Deutsch als Fremdsprache (onDaF): Theoretische Grundlagen, Konstruktion und Validierung”. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), Der C-Test: Beiträge aus der aktuellen Forschung. Frankfurt (Main), Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York (NY), Oxford, Wien: Lang, 125–192.Google Scholar
Eklund, R. 2004. Disfluency in Swedish human-human and human-machine travel booking dialogues. PhD thesis. Linköpings Universitet.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 Proceedings of ICSLP 981, 2631–2634.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. 1995. “The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech”. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 709–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Jasperson, R. 1995. “A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation”, In Davis, Ph. W. (Ed.), Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and Theoretical Modes. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV – Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol. 1021, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 77–134.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., & Watson, D. G. 2011. “The disfluent discourse: Effects of filled pauses on recall”. Journal of Memory and Language 65(2), 161–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Alice’s adventures in um-derland: Psycholinguistic sources of variation in disfluency production”. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(9), 1083–1096. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gick, B., Wilson, I., Koch, K., & Cook, C. 2004. “Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position”. Phonetica 61(61), 220–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2008. “Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference?”. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–149.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. 1958. “The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech”. Language and Speech 1(3), 226–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1961. “A comparative study of two hesitation phenomena”. Language and Speech 4(1), 18–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. 2007. “Performanzphänomene in gesprochenem Lernerenglisch: Eine korpusbasierte Pilotstudie”. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 18(1), 67–84.Google Scholar
2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2004. “Computer learner corpus research: Current status and future prospects”. In U. Connor, & Th. Upton (Eds.), Applied Corpus Linguistics. A Multidimensional Perspective. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 123–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R. 1991. “Pausological research in an L2 Context: A rationale, and review of selected studies”. Applied Linguistics 12(4), 345–364. 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 311, 144–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. 2009. Non-native speech: A Corpus-based Analysis of Phonological and Phonetic Properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgren, A. 2002. “Learner corpora and language testing. Smallwords as markers of learner fluency.” In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 143–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M. 1994. “A comparative study of self-repair in English and Japanese conversation”. In N. Akatsuka (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 41, 77–93.Google Scholar
Hieke, A. E., Kowal, S., & O’Connell, D. C. 1983. “The trouble with “articulatory” pauses”. Language and Speech 26(3), 203–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honikman, B. 1964. “Articulatory settings” In D. Abercrombie, D. B. Fry, P. A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott, & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), In Honour of Daniel Jones. London: Longman, 73–84.Google Scholar
Horne, M. 2009. “The filler eh in Swedish”. In Lund Working Papers in Linguistics 521, 65–68.Google Scholar
Hoshii, M., & Schumacher, N. 2016. „Problem-solving interaction in GFL videoconferencing”. In Sake, J., Kurek, M., & O’Rourke, B. (Eds.), New Directions in Telecollaborative Research and Practice: Selected Papers from the Second Conference on Telecollaboration in Higher Education. Dublin: Research-publishing.net, 147–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, S. 1997. “The Northridge earthquake conversations: The floor structure and the ‘loop’ sequence in Japanese conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 281, 661–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klapi, M. 2013. Disfluency Patterns: A Contrastive Corpus Study. Master’s thesis. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J., Peters, B., & Wesener, T. 2005. „Phonetic exponents of disfluency in German spontaneous speech”. In Prosodic Structures in German Spontaneous Speech. Universität Kiel, Germany, 185–201.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. 2000a. “The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production”. Language Learning 50(2), 343–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b. “The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(2), 145–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1988. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krause, T., & Zeldes, A. 2016. “ANNIS3: A new architecture for generic corpus query and visualization”. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(1), 118–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. 1990. “Investigating Fluency in EFL: A Quantitative Approach”. Language Learning 40(3), 387–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, A. 2007. “Das Zusammenspiel von qualitativen und quantitativen Methoden in der Korpuslinguistik”. In G. Zifonun, & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), Jahrbuch des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter, 28–48.Google Scholar
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. 1959. “Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech”. Word 51, 19–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. 2005. “Uh and um revisited: Are they interjections for signaling delay?”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(6), 555–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, M. 2015. Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen: Syntaktische und interaktionale Analysen. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. 1980. “Temporal variables in first and second language speech production”. In H. W. Dechert, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal Variables in Speech. Studies in Honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mouton, 263–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riazantseva, A. 2001. “Second language proficiency and pausing: A Study of Russian speakers of English”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(4), 497–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rieger, C. L. 2000. “Self-repair Strategies of English-German Bilinguals in Informal Conversations: The Role of Language, Gender, and Linguistic Proficiency”. PhD thesis , University of Alberta. Ottawa: National Library of Canada.Google Scholar
2001. “Idiosyncratic fillers in the speech of bilinguals”. In Proceedings of DiSS ’01: Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, 81–85.Google Scholar
2003. “Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics 351, 47–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruder, K. F., & Jensen, P. J. 1972. “Fluent and hesitation pauses as a function of syntactic complexity”. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 15(1), 49–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauer, S., & Lüdeling, A. 2016. “Flexible multi-layer spoken dialogue corpora”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(3), 419–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., & Bilous, F. 1991. “Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(3), 362–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., 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
Schneider, U. 2014. Frequency, Chunks and Hesitations. A Usage-Based Analysis of Chunking in English. PhD thesis. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. E. 1994. Preliminaries to a Theory of Speech Disfluencies. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. E., & Lickley, R. J. 1993. “Intonation of clause-internal filled pauses”. Phonetica 50(3), 172–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M. 1998. “Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure”. Journal of Pragmatics 301, 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. 2010. “Pausing patterns: differences between L2 learners and native speakers”. ELT Journal 65(1), 71–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temple, L. 2000. “Second language learner speech production”. Studia linguistica 54(2), 288–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trouvain, J. 2014. “Laughing, breathing, clicking – the prosody of nonverbal vocalisations”. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody (SP7), 598–602.Google Scholar
Trouvain, J., Fauth, C., & Möbius, B. 2016. “Breath and non-breath pauses in fluent and disfluent phases of German and French L1 and L2 read speech”. In Speech Prosody, 31–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. 2011. “ Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 161, 173–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Hest, E., Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, Th.. 1997. “Self-repair in L1 and L2 production: An overview”. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 117–18, 85–115.Google Scholar
Watanabe, M., Hirose, K., Den, Y., & Minematsu, N. 2005. “Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of following phrases”. In Interspeech-2005, 37–40.Google Scholar
Wieling, M., Grieve, J., Bouma, G., Fruehwald, J., Coleman, J., & Liberman, M. 2016. “Variation and change in the use of hesitation markers in Germanic languages”. Language Dynamics and Change, 6(2), 199–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, R. 1984. “Language production in foreign and native languages: Same or different?”. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second Language Productions. Tübingen: Narr, 11–25.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Peck, Naomi & Laura Becker
2024. Syntactic pausing? Re-examining the associations. Linguistics Vanguard DOI logo
Belz, Malte
2023. Defining Filler Particles: A Phonetic Account of the Terminology, Form, and Grammatical Classification of “Filled Pauses”. Languages 8:1 ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Huensch, Amanda
2023. Effects of speaking task and proficiency on the midclause pausing characteristics of L1 and L2 speech from the same speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45:4 ► pp. 1031 ff. DOI logo
Muhlack, Beeke, Jürgen Trouvain & Michael Jessen
2023. Distributional and Acoustic Characteristics of Filler Particles in German with Consideration of Forensic-Phonetic Aspects. Languages 8:2 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Niculescu, Oana
2023. Acoustic Correlates of Filler Particles in Romanian Connected Speech. Philologica Jassyensia 38:2 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Belz, Malte & Carolin Odebrecht
2022. Abschnittsweise Analyse sprachlicher Flüssigkeit in der Lernersprache: Das Ganze ist weniger informativ als seine Teile. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 50:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Bogdanova-Beglarian, Natalia, Kristina Zaides, Tatiana Verkhovtceva, Marianna Beradze & Natalia Meir
2022. Self-Repair in Elicited Narrative Production in Speakers of Russian as the First (L1), Second (L2), and Heritage (HL) Language. Languages 7:3 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Trouvain, Jürgen
2022. Das IFCASL-Korpus als phonetisches Lernerkorpus. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 50:1 ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
Wisniewski, Katrin
2022. Gesprochene Lernerkorpora des Deutschen: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 50:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Trouvain, Jürgen, Frank Zimmerer, Bernd Möbius, Mária Gósy & Anne Bonneau
2017. Segmental, prosodic and fluency features in phonetic learner corpora. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 3:2 ► pp. 105 ff. 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.