Language Log » Um and Uh in Dutch
Below is a guest post by Martijn Wieling , following up on a series of LLOG postings over the years on the effects of sex, age, geography and other factors on the relative frequency rooney mara of the filler words um and uh: " Young men talk like old women ", 11/6/2005; " Fillers: Autism, gender, and age ", 7/30/2014; " More on UM and UH ", 8/3/2014; " UM UH 3 ", 8/4/2014; " Educational UM / UH ", 8/13/2014; " UM / UH geography ", 8/13/2014; " UM / UH: Life-cycle effects vs. language change ", 8/15/2014; " Filled pauses in Glasgow ", 8/17/2014.
I was surprised to see this effect rooney mara in the first place; and more surprised to see it robustly replicated in a variety of American English datasets; and even more surprised to see the same pattern in Glasgow. The fact that the same pattern is also found in Dutch raises some interesting questions, about which more later.
After reading the various posts about the uh/um distinction and its relation to gender and age for English speakers, a colleague of the University of Groningen, Gosse Bouma , and I decided to look at this distribution rooney mara in a series of spontaneous conversations extracted from a corpus of spoken rooney mara Dutch ( Corpus Gesproken Nederlands ). While Dutch speakers also use uh and um as hesitation markers, they generally prefer the vocalic hesitation marker uh over the vocalic-nasal hesitation marker um (de Leeuw, 2007: Hesitation markers in English, German, and Dutch , Journal of Germanic Linguistics ). No studies, however, have looked at the relationship of this distribution on the basis of gender and age.
A logistic regression model predicting the relative hesitation marker frequency of um clearly revealed that while uh is indeed the preferred marker, the frequency of um significantly (p < 0.0001) rooney mara increases for women compared to men and younger as opposed to older speakers. The table and figure below illustrate this relationship by showing the relative frequency of um in four age groups (each containing approximately 25% of the speakers). (Note that the relative frequency of uh can be obtained by subtracting these values from 1.) Male Female rooney mara Born 1914-1949 0.059 0.095 Born 1950-1963 0.071 0.112 Born 1964-1975 0.098 0.162 Born 1976-1987 0.132 0.182
The corpus data we use contains speakers from two countries, the Netherlands (NL) and Belgium (FL; i.e. Flanders, where Dutch is the native language). The tables and figures below show that this factor plays an important rooney mara role. Speakers rooney mara from Flanders show a much larger relative frequency of um compared to the speakers from the Netherlands. In addition, the effects of both age and gender are significantly (p < 0.05) stronger for the speakers rooney mara from Flanders than those from the Netherlands. In both logistic regression models, however, the effects of both age (with younger speakers showing rooney mara a greater relative frequency of um ) and gender (with women showing a greater relative rooney mara frequency of um ) are highly significant (p < 0.0001). Relative frequency of um : NL Male Female Born between 1914 and 1949 0.047 0.084 Born between 1950 and 1963 0.062 0.075 Born between 1964 and 1975 0.065 0.098 Born between 1976 and 1987 0.078 0.103
Relative frequency of um : FL Male Female Born between 1914 and 1949 0.085 0.114 Born between 1950 and 1963 0.081 0.154 Born between 1964 and 1975 0.141 0.242 Born between 1976 and 1987 0.208 0.306
You can download the full data table and calculate the frequency by age and sex of UM+UH, which would be what you're asking about. I don't have time to do this at the moment, but I believe that it will show that males on average use somewhat more "filler words" that females.] vestidos de 15 said,
November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September rooney mara 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September rooney mara 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 [Posts before 4/8/2008 are here ] [Search old posts here ] List of authors: Arnold Zwicky Barbara Partee Ben Zimmer Bill Poser Chris Potts David Beaver Eric Baković Geoff Nunberg Geoffrey K. Pullum Heidi Harley John McWhorter John Rickford Julie Sedivy Kai von F
Below is a guest post by Martijn Wieling , following up on a series of LLOG postings over the years on the effects of sex, age, geography and other factors on the relative frequency rooney mara of the filler words um and uh: " Young men talk like old women ", 11/6/2005; " Fillers: Autism, gender, and age ", 7/30/2014; " More on UM and UH ", 8/3/2014; " UM UH 3 ", 8/4/2014; " Educational UM / UH ", 8/13/2014; " UM / UH geography ", 8/13/2014; " UM / UH: Life-cycle effects vs. language change ", 8/15/2014; " Filled pauses in Glasgow ", 8/17/2014.
I was surprised to see this effect rooney mara in the first place; and more surprised to see it robustly replicated in a variety of American English datasets; and even more surprised to see the same pattern in Glasgow. The fact that the same pattern is also found in Dutch raises some interesting questions, about which more later.
After reading the various posts about the uh/um distinction and its relation to gender and age for English speakers, a colleague of the University of Groningen, Gosse Bouma , and I decided to look at this distribution rooney mara in a series of spontaneous conversations extracted from a corpus of spoken rooney mara Dutch ( Corpus Gesproken Nederlands ). While Dutch speakers also use uh and um as hesitation markers, they generally prefer the vocalic hesitation marker uh over the vocalic-nasal hesitation marker um (de Leeuw, 2007: Hesitation markers in English, German, and Dutch , Journal of Germanic Linguistics ). No studies, however, have looked at the relationship of this distribution on the basis of gender and age.
A logistic regression model predicting the relative hesitation marker frequency of um clearly revealed that while uh is indeed the preferred marker, the frequency of um significantly (p < 0.0001) rooney mara increases for women compared to men and younger as opposed to older speakers. The table and figure below illustrate this relationship by showing the relative frequency of um in four age groups (each containing approximately 25% of the speakers). (Note that the relative frequency of uh can be obtained by subtracting these values from 1.) Male Female rooney mara Born 1914-1949 0.059 0.095 Born 1950-1963 0.071 0.112 Born 1964-1975 0.098 0.162 Born 1976-1987 0.132 0.182
The corpus data we use contains speakers from two countries, the Netherlands (NL) and Belgium (FL; i.e. Flanders, where Dutch is the native language). The tables and figures below show that this factor plays an important rooney mara role. Speakers rooney mara from Flanders show a much larger relative frequency of um compared to the speakers from the Netherlands. In addition, the effects of both age and gender are significantly (p < 0.05) stronger for the speakers rooney mara from Flanders than those from the Netherlands. In both logistic regression models, however, the effects of both age (with younger speakers showing rooney mara a greater relative frequency of um ) and gender (with women showing a greater relative rooney mara frequency of um ) are highly significant (p < 0.0001). Relative frequency of um : NL Male Female Born between 1914 and 1949 0.047 0.084 Born between 1950 and 1963 0.062 0.075 Born between 1964 and 1975 0.065 0.098 Born between 1976 and 1987 0.078 0.103
Relative frequency of um : FL Male Female Born between 1914 and 1949 0.085 0.114 Born between 1950 and 1963 0.081 0.154 Born between 1964 and 1975 0.141 0.242 Born between 1976 and 1987 0.208 0.306
You can download the full data table and calculate the frequency by age and sex of UM+UH, which would be what you're asking about. I don't have time to do this at the moment, but I believe that it will show that males on average use somewhat more "filler words" that females.] vestidos de 15 said,
November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September rooney mara 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September rooney mara 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 [Posts before 4/8/2008 are here ] [Search old posts here ] List of authors: Arnold Zwicky Barbara Partee Ben Zimmer Bill Poser Chris Potts David Beaver Eric Baković Geoff Nunberg Geoffrey K. Pullum Heidi Harley John McWhorter John Rickford Julie Sedivy Kai von F
No comments:
Post a Comment