Early in the semester we talked a lot about disfluencies. After the conclusion of our coverage of this topic, I came away thinking that even though disfluencies probably do have a specific role in language, that if used too much, they would have a negative impact on language comprehension. I recently found an article by Susan Brennan that disputes this idea.
In 2001, Brennan and Schober did a study testing how different types of disfluencies influence comprehension. Mid-word interruptions, mid-word interruptions with fillers, and between-word interroptions were compared. The study found that the use of disfluencies did not hurt comprehension in any way. In fact, in the case of mid-word interruptions with fillers, comprehension was achieved faster and with equal accuracy.
So this study provides just one more reason why disfluencies are needed in our language, and why they really shouldn't be looked upon as verbal "blunders"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK4-457VF49-22&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=87a2eb8cf67be9f614c0366b896c3b12
Comments (1)
Excellent update on our discussion of disfluencies. Again, I think we need to consider the context in which the speech is used and the perceptions we bring to the situation about the particular speaker, but it seems that disfluencies have much more to "offer" the speaker and listener than we even originally thought. So...from a language use perspective, disfluencies can be beneficial. However, from a sociological perspective, we can be viewed negatively for using them. I think our question from this section still remains...how do we change the negative perceptions people have about disfluencies in speech?
Posted by Prof Knupsky | April 9, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted on April 9, 2008 11:10