Listeners' uses ofum anduh in speech comprehension
Open accessAbstract
Despite their frequency in conversational talk, little is known about how ums and uhs affect listeners' on-line processing of spontaneous speech. Two studies of ums and uhs in English and Dutch reveal that hearing an uh has a beneficial effect on listeners' ability to recognize words in upcoming speech, but that hearing an um has neither a beneficial nor a detrimental effect. The results suggest that um and uh are different from one another and support the hypothesis that uh is a signal of short upcoming delay and um is a signal of a long upcoming delay.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
UM and UH are thought to be social pragmatic hesitation markers with communicative value.
“UM and UH, in particular, are thought to be social pragmatic hesitation markers with communicative value (e.g., facilitating comprehension by signaling to the listener that the speaker needs more time to finish communicating their current thought, or that they would like to hold/cede the floor [21]).”
From Linguistic camouflage in girls with autism spectrum disorder (2017) · cites this paper as [21]
UM is a social pragmatic marker used more often by younger people and women than by older people and men.
“UM is a social pragmatic marker [21] used more often by younger people and women as compared to older people and men”
From Linguistic camouflage in girls with autism spectrum disorder (2017) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 241
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Between-turn pauses and ums. Paper presented at the International Conference of Phonetic Sciences Satellite Meet- ing on Disfluencies, Berkeley, CA.
- Martin, J. G. (1971). Some acoustic and grammatical features of spon- taneous speech. In D. Horton & J. Jenkins (Eds.), The perception of language (pp. 47-68). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
- Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 375-409). San Diego: Academic Press.
- Shriberg, E. E., & Lickley, R. J. (1992). The relationship of filled- pause F0 to prosodic context. Paper presented at the IRCS Workshop on Prosody in Natural Speech, University of Pennsylvania.
- Siegman, A. W. (1979). Cognition and hesitation in speech. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Of speech and time (pp. 151-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Authors
- Fox Tree, J. E.
- Venue
- Memory & Cognition
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 320-326
- ISSN
- 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5946
- OpenAlex
- W2082389970
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- speech understanding, spontaneous speech, online processing, word recognition, prosodic cues
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Language, Reaction Time, Speech Perception, Verbal Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
