Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2025
Edited by Kristel Doreleijers, Remco Knooihuizen and Eva van Lier
[Nota Bene 2:2] 2025
► pp. 252–268
Uhm… The use of hesitation markers on the social media platform X in Dutch and Spanish
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Radboud University Nijmegen.
Published online: 31 October 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00032.car
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00032.car
Abstract
The status of hesitation markers or filled pauses (e.g., eh, uhm) is debated, with some claiming that these forms merely signal disfluencies or delays in conversation, while others argue that they are lexical items. Although more common in oral communication, hesitation markers have been attested in written communication too, such as in tweets. Due to the nature of written language, hesitation markers in tweets must be intentionally produced; it follows that they fulfill a pragmatic function. However, not much is known yet about these pragmatic functions. We qualitatively explore the functions of hesitation markers in a corpus of Dutch and Spanish tweets. We not only show that they have a clear pragmatic function, but also that they can have a clear interactive and intersubjective function, in that they comment on the content of the contribution of their interlocutor and how this content conflicts with assumed common knowledge.
Keywords: tweets, X, hesitation markers, pragmatic functions, filled pauses, Dutch, Spanish
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Selection of target forms
- 2.2Data collection
- 2.3Annotations
- 3.Results
- 3.1Functions of hesitation markers
- 3.1.1Thinking
- 3.1.2Self-correcting
- 3.1.3Interacting
- 3.1.4Attention grabbing
- 3.1.5Embarrassment and other functions
- 3.2Exploring frequency distributions
- 3.1Functions of hesitation markers
- 4.Discussion and conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (24)
Blondet, María Alejandra. 2001. Las pausas llenas: Marcas de duda e identidad lingüística. Lingua Americana 81, 5–15. [URL]. (6 January, 2024.)
Clark, Herbert H., and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84:1, 73–111.
D’Arcey, J. Trevor, Shereen Oraby, and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2019. Wait signals predict sarcasm in online debates. Dialogue & Discourse 10:2, 56–78.
Dingemanse, Mark. 2020. Between sound and speech: Liminal signs in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:1, 188–196.
Erker, Daniel, and Joanna Bruso. 2017. Uh, bueno, em…: Filled pauses as a site of contact-induced change in Boston Spanish. Language Variation and Change 29:2, 205–244.
Foster, Daniel, Suzanne Aalberse, and Wessel Stoop. 2019. Examining Twitter as a source for address research using Colombian Spanish. In Bettina Kluge, María Irene Moyna, Horst J. Simon, and Jonathan Warren (eds.), It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research, 75–90. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Graham, Lamar A. 2018. Variation in hesitation: The case of este vs. eh in Latin American Spanish. Spanish in Context 15:1, 1–26.
2023. A longitudinal corpus-based study of hesitation markers in Mexico City Spanish: Este and eh then and now. Hispanic Studies Review 7:1. [URL]. (15 December, 2023.)
Hennoste, Tiit. 2005. Repair-initiating particles and um-s in Estonian spontaneous speech. Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop (DiSS’05, 10–12 September 2005, Aix-en-Provence, France), 83–88. [URL]. (14 February, 2024.)
Hough, Julian, and Matthew Purver. 2013. Modelling expectation in the self-repair processing of annotat-, um, listeners. SemDial Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. University of Amsterdam. [URL]. (14 February, 2024.)
James, Deborah. 1973. Another look at, say, some grammatical constraints, on, oh, interjections and hesitations. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9:1, 242–251. [URL] (2 February, 2025.)
Kosmala, Loulou, and Ludivine Crible. 2022. The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency and co-occurrence. Language and Speech 65:1, 216–239.
Maclay, Howard, and Charles E. Osgood. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word 151, 19–44.
Rehbein, Ines. 2015. Filled pauses in user-generated content are words with extra-propositional meaning. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Extra-Propositional Aspects of Meaning in Computational Semantics (ExProM 2015), 12–21.
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2015. Dispreferred responses when texting: Delaying that “no” response. Discourse & Communication 9:6, 643–661.
Roesslein, J. 2020. Tweepy: Twitter for Python! [URL]. (15 October, 2023.)
Tottie, Gunnel. 2014. On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language 21:1, 6–29.
Townsend, Leanne, and Claire Wallace. 2016. Social media research: A guide to ethics. University of Aberdeen. [URL]. (25 June, 2025.)
van Halteren, Hans, and Nelleke Oostdijk. 2012. Towards identifying normal forms for various word form spellings on Twitter. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 21, 2–22. [URL]. (25 June, 2025.)
Wang, Yan. 2011. A discourse-pragmatic functional study of the discourse markers Japanese ano and Chinese nage. Intercultural Communication Studies 20:2. [URL]. (25 June, 2025.)
Wieling, Martijn, Jack Grieve, Gosse Bouma, Josef Fruehwald, John Coleman, and Mark Liberman. 2016. Variation and change in the use of hesitation markers in Germanic languages. Language Dynamics and Change 6:2, 199–234.
X. 2023. [URL]. (21 November, 2023.)
