Gender and Native-ness Differences in the Use of Speech Fillers in Political Interviews

  • Rola Fawwaz Hamad AL-Faragy Department of English, College of Education for Humanities, University of Anbar
  • Fuad Jassim Mohammed Department of English, College of Education for Humanities, University of Anbar
Keywords: Discourse markers, Speech fillers, Political interviews, Male/Female, Native/Non-native

Abstract

This research aims to find out types and functions of speech fillers used by politician interviewees. It also investigates gender and native-ness differences in the use of SFS among participants. The data of this study come from eight extracted episodes taken from the corpus of conflict zone (CZ) talk show. The data have been analyzed and classified based on the theories proposed by Stenstrom (1994) and Rose (1998). A qualitative analysis has been followed in dealing with functions of SFs. A quantitative analysis is also applied in the course of counting frequencies and percentages of SFs. The results show that time is required for planning, especially when difficult topics are discussed. Results show that all participants used all types of SFs with unlexicalized SFs being used more frequently.  

         In terms of functions of SFs, Female participants used all functions of SFs based on the theory of Stenstrom. They are breathing, filling pause, hesitation mark, starter, shift marker, empathizing, mitigating, editing term, time creating device, holding the turn and sequencer, while the male groups used all functions except shift marker. Breathing is the dominating function of SFs used by all participants with vast distinction with other functions. In contrast, shift marker has the least used function.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al Khalifawi, S. H. S. (2018). Analysis of Turn-Taking in Senior University Classroom Interactions: Pauses, Overlapping, and Interruptions. Iraq: University of Anbar.

Al-Ghazali A & Alrefaee. (2019). Silent Pauses in the Speech of Yemeni EFL Learners. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 2 (1), 39.

Baalen, I. V. (2001). Male and female language: Growing together? Retrieved from http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/van%20Baalen.htm

Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). The Dynamics of Political Interviews. Mouton Publishers, Amsterdam. Text, 32, 131-55.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erbaugh, M.S. (1979)." A uniform pause and error strategy for native and non-native speakers". In R.S. Tomlin (Ed.). Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, (pp.109-130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Erten, S. (2014) .Teaching Fillers and Students’ Filler Usage: A Study Conducted at ESOGU Preparation School. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 2, 3: 67-79.

Foss, J. D. & Hakes, David J. (1978). Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to the Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc.

Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. International Pragmatics Association, 6, 167- 190.

Kharismawan, P. Y. (2017). The Types and The Function of Fillers Used in Barack Obama’s Speech. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), 111-119. : https://doi.org/10.24071/ijhs.2017.010112

Navratilova, L. (2015). Fillers Used By Male and Female Students of English Education Study Program in Argumentative Talks. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching. Vol.2 No 1.

Richards, J. & R. Schmidt. (2012). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.

Rieger, C. (2003). Disfluencies and hesitation strategies in oral L2 tests. Proceedings of DiSS’03: Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, 5–8 September 2003, Göteborg University, Sweden. Robert Eklund (Ed.), Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 90, 41–44.

Rose, R. L. (1998). The communicative value of filled pauses in spontaneous speech. Birmingham: Birmingham University.

Stenstrom, A. 1994. An introduction to spoken language interaction. London: Longman.

Szczepek Reed, B. (2011). Analyzing Conversation Introduction to Prosody. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16. 173–197

Wu, J. (2001). A quantitative comparison of disfluencies types between native and non-native English speaker in spontaneous speech. Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Published
2022-03-15
How to Cite
AL-Faragy, R., & Mohammed, F. (2022). Gender and Native-ness Differences in the Use of Speech Fillers in Political Interviews. Al-Adab Journal, 2(140), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.31973/aj.v2i140.3634
Section
English linguistics and literature