RE-ANALYZING FILLERS AND BACKCHANNELS IN OTHER

TEAM’S CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

The Paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for

Discourse Analysis Subject

By

Agus Dwiyanto 0203518068

Assisted by:

Diah Ayu Setianingrum 0203518073

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION GRADUATE PROGRAM

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS

STATE UNIVERSITY OF SEMARANG

 ABSTRACT

Language is learned and studied from time to time by men that also can be
studied thoroughly in Discourse Analysis. Utterances between languages used both
by the speaker and interlocutor is bridged by Fillers and Backchannel during the
conversation. The purpose of this article is to re-analyze the number of types of fillers
and also backchannel of other’s team result of analyzing their own conversation. This
paper uses descriptive qualitative method, because it analyzes the types of fillers and
backchannels found in the analysis. The steps to analyze the data are re-checking the
other team’s analysis, finding the fillers and backchannels also give conclusion and
suggestion regarding the findings whether should it be revised or no. Based on the
data analysis, the researcher found some minor mistakes in the analysis. The total
number of the Empathizing should be (15) whilst in the analysis says (18), Time-
creating devices should be (3) whilst it is stated (2), Mitigating should be (3) also
whilst it is stated (2). We also found that the team didn’t provide the paper with
backchannels which should be counted as (14) for vocal.

Keywords: Fillers, Backchannels, Discourse Analysis, Re-analyze.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER …………………………………………………………….. i

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………...…. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………….. iii

INTRODUCTION…………………………………..…………….... 1

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. The Definition of Speaking…………………………. 4

B. The Definition of Fillers and Backchannels …..……. 5

C. Types of Fillers and Backchannels …..……….……. 5

D. The Previous Research of The Study…...................... 7

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Research Methodology…………….………….……. 8

B. The Instruments …..………………………………… 8

C. The Procedure of The Research……………….......... 8

D. The Object of The Research ………………………… 9

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.……………................................... 10

CONCLUSION………………………………………....................... 14

REFERENCES…………………………………………………….… 15

APPENDIX

ii
 INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Research

Language, as we all know from so many definitions about it, acts as a

means of communication. It simply means that human, since long time ago,

use language as the medium to express their feelings, exchanging information

and many of the usages. Among many, one field that focused on the study

about language is Discourse Analysis. Slembrouck (2003) in his journal

explains that DA aims to study the organization of language above the

sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units,

such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse

analysis is also concerned with language use in social contexts, and in

particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers. Discourse Analysis

has sub branches, two of them are fillers and backchannels.

According to Johnson (1983, p. 18), speaking is an ability to produce

articulation, sounds or words to express, to say, to show and to think about

ideas, thought and feeling whilst Byrne (1984), speaking is an oral

communication, a two ways process between speaker and listener and involve

productive and receptive skill of understanding. Based on the previous

theories, it is then summed that speaking is an exchange of information

between the speaker and the interlocutor.

Baalen (2001) defines fillers as sounds or words or phrases that could

appear anywhere in the utterance and that could be deleted from the utterance

without a change in content while Yule (2006) identifies fillers as a break in

the flow of speech. Most people produce fillers in their spoken interaction.

1
 According to Pamolango (2015) in his article, he defines that fillers and other

phenomena of spoken interaction have been dealt with in discourse analysis, a

primarily a branch of linguistic study examining the use of language by its

native population whose major concern is investigating language functions

along with its forms, produced both orally and in writing. Moreover,

identification of linguistic qualities of various genres, vital for their

recognition and interpretation, together with cultural and social aspects that

support its comprehension, is the domain of discourse analysis.

The researcher, as requested by the lecturer, takes the data of the

research from the already-analyzed conversation conducted by another team in

the same classroom. The analysis is done just in case the other team made a

slight mistake in analyzing the conversation, so that the research here is made

as a reminder or cross-checker for the analysis made by the other team.

B. Research Questions

1. What are the missing types of fillers and backchannels found in the

other team’s analysis?

2. What are the numbers of missing types of fillers and backchannels

found in the other team’s analysis?

C. Aims of The Research

1. To find out how many missing types of fillers and backchannels found

in the other team’s analysis

2. To seek the numbers of missing types of fillers and backchannels found

in the other team’s analysis

2
 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A. The Definition of Speaking

Clark and Clark (1977) stated that speaking appears to be divided into

two types of activity-planning and execution whilst planning and execution

have process. There are five processes. The first is discourse plan. The speaker

decides the discourse that they want to take. For example is telling story. The

second is sentence plan. The speaker should select the appropriate sentence to

discourse. The next is constituent plan. The speaker decides the sentence, and

then the speaker plans the constituent. The fourth is articulatory program. The

speaker puts then sentence into articulatory program. The last is articulation.

The speaker executes the contents.

According to Brown (2001, p.272), as cited by Fadhila (2013), there

are micro skills of speaking as follow: “produce chunks of language of

different lengths, orally produce differences among the English phonemes and

allophonic variants, produce English stress patterns, words in stressed and

unstressed positions, rhythmic structure, and intonational contours, produce

reduced forms of words and phrase, accomplishing pragmatic purpose,

producing fluent speech at different rates of delivery, using various strategies

devices (pauses, fillers, and et cetera), monitoring our oral production and

enhancing the clarity of the message, using grammatical word classes, systems,

word order, patterns, rules, and elliptical forms, producing speech in natural

constituents-in appropriate phrases, pause groups, breath groups, and

sentences, expressing a particular meaning in different grammatical forms and

using cohesive devices in spoken discourse”.

3
B. The Definition of Fillers

Stenstöm (1994) defines the filler as lexically empty item with

uncertain discourse function, except to fill a conversational gap (p. 222). It

means that the fillers commonly occur to mark of hesitation or to hold

control of a conversation while the speakers think what to say next.

Stenstöm (1994) also stated that fillers are categorized into two types;

those are a silent pause and a filled pause (p. 1). On the other hand, Rose

(1998) also divides the field pauses into two types. The first one is an

unlexicalized filled pauses and the second is a lexicalized filled pause.

C. Types of Fillers

Stenstöm (1994) stated the five functions of the application of Fillers, they

are;

1) Hesitating: when a speaker has difficult decision in using the words

(Foss and Hakes, 1978)

2) Empathizing: invitation for the listener to be involved in what the

speakers says (Stenstöm, 1994)

3) Mitigating: to make speech more polite

4) Editing Term: correct the speech errors in the speakers’ utterances

5) Time creating devices: giving some times for the speakers to think

what to utter next (Stenstöm, 1994)

D. The Definition of Backchannels

Knutson (2009) the term backchannel to a point a form of listener

feedback was used by Yngve in a paper entitled “On Getting a Word in

Edgewise”, it is a medium through which a person accepted message such

4
 as yes and uh-uhh without releasing the turn. Backchannelling is a direct

concise reaction by a listener to the main speaker, in the form of a verbal

or non-verbal gestures. Yule (1975) argues that there are two types of

backchannels, they are vocal and non vocal. The vocal backchannels are

such as yeah, uhm, okay. The non vocal backchannels such as nods, smiles

and other facial expression.

E. The Previous Research of the Study

The previous studies regarding the fillers and backchannel analysis

have been conducted by a lot of researchers from time to time with various

subjects of research that made the research rich in sources. The first research

is conducted by Afriani et. al. (2014), she analyzed the used of fillers in the

students’ conversation during discussion session in the English Class of

STKIP PGRI Sumbar. The second one is the research conducted by

Pamolango (2016), analyzing the fillers used by Asian Students in Busan,

South Korea in the means of comparative study. The last one is the research

conducted by Brno (2007) which focused in analyzing the backchannels in

the English Conversation as a requirement for his Master Degree in Masaryk

University.

5
 RESEARCH METHOD

A. Research Methodology

The research uses descriptive qualitative method in the process of

collecting and analyzing the data. The qualitative research design was

employed to reveal what fillers and backchannels types that the other team

used and found the most common one. In the finding, some data which

represented the main deixis would be presented. It would not present all the

deixis found since the data were quite plenty. The analysis was done by

identifying the deixis and their types.

B. The Instrument

The research is conducted by scanning the already-analyzed

transcription of the other team’s analysis in sake of finding the errors in

analyzing the types of fillers and backchannels. In the end, we give feedback

to the team whose analysis was revised. The name of the members will remain

anonymous due to privacy.

C. Procedures of the Research

The primary data were taken by swapping the analysis of each team,

because that is what the lecturer requests. Our team (consisted of I and Diah

Ayu Setianingrum / 0203518070. Since we belong to the same team, our

papers will possess the same data due to the similarity of subject and object of

the research. The data were categorized based on the kinds of fillers and

backchannels error analysis made by the other team.

6
D. The Object of the Research

The object of the research is the analysis of fillers and backchannel of

other team. They are (the team) consisted of our classmates.

7
 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The differentiation of findings in types of fillers between ours and the

other team’s can be seen through the table 1 below

Table 1. Types of Fillers Differences

Other Team’s Findings Our Team’s Findings

Types Types

1. Lexicalized: 19 1. Lexicalized: 19
2. Unlexicalized: 4 2. Unlexicalized: 4

Functions: Functions:

1. Empathizing: 18 1. Empathizing: 15
2. Hesitating: 2 2. Hesitating: 2
3. Time-creating Devices: 2 3. Time-creating Devices: 3
4. Mitigating: 2 4. Mitigating: 3
5. Editing Term: 0 5. Editing Term: 0

The result of the findings above indicating that there is no difference

between the findings in terms the type of fillers between both analysis. But when

it comes to functions, there are three major differences that can be seen towards

the bold numbers, they are the functions of Empathizing, Time-creating devices

and Mitigating.The examples of the findings differences can be seen as follows;

18. Oh my god.... I’m sorry to V Mitigating

hear that...

8
 The bolded terms above should be Empathizing, not mitigating. Because,

to prove that, there is one evidence also made by the other group in their analysis,

using the same terms but ended up putting different analysis like this below

21. Omg! Ya... After this, V Empathizing

maybe you can consume it.

The other examples are as the misconception in placing the term in the

table presented below. The term stands for time creating, but the other team stated

it as empathizing which is less relevant with the context of the conversation.

7. Ow… yes I know that a diet V Empathizing

rich in vegetables in fruits can
lower blood pressure.

The utterance ow has dots that follow behind it, which interpreted as the

time gap before the speech continued. With such condition, it would be better if

the analysis put them into time-creating devices which suit the types more. Below,

as the last comparison, is the findings of Backchannel which is not presented in

the other team’s finding list.

Backchannel

Vocal: 14 Non Vocal: 0

9
 CONCLUSION

Utterances between languages used both by the speaker and interlocutor is

bridged by Fillers and Backchannel during the conversation. The purpose of this

article is to re-analyze the number of types of fillers and also backchannel of

other’s team result of analyzing their own conversation. Based on the data

analysis, the researcher found out that there are differences between the findings

that were analyzed by our team and the other team. The total number of types of

fillers remains the same with lexicalized type (19) and Unlexicalized (4).

The difference comes after our team started analyzing the functions of

fillers, there are minor mistakes in the analysis. The total number of the

Empathizing should be (15) whilst in the analysis says (18), Time-creating

devices should be (3) whilst it is stated (2), Mitigating should be (3) also whilst it

is stated (2). We also found that the team didn’t provide the paper with

backchannels which should be counted as (14) for vocal.. Due to the findings of

the differences, it is concluded that research, in any terms and fields, should be

done really carefully and the note also applies to our team as well.

10
REFERENCES

Baalen, I. V. 2001. Male and Female Language: Growing Together?

Retrieved June 24th, 2019, from Historical Sociolinguistics and

Sociohistorical Linguistics Web

Site :http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/vanBaalen.htm.

Brown, H.D. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall Inc.

Byrne, Donn. 1980. English Teaching Perspectives, England: Longman Group Ltd.

Clark, Herbert H and Eve V. Clark. 1977. Psychology and Language. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fadhila, Hawa. 2013. Errors in Speaking English Made by Students of English

Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Minithesis.

Surakarta: School of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah

University of Surakarta.

Hatch, Evelyn. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. 2006.The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford. Blackwell

Publishing.

Johnson, K. 1983. Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kholis, Nur. 2016. Deixis Analysis of the Good Dinosaur the Movie. SINTA:

Science and Technology Index, 9(1), pp. 113-139. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v9i1.74-89.

11
Knutson, Elizabeth M .2009. “on being heard: a study of listening behavior in

French conversation”. The French Review 82(6) pp. 1180-1193.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168801.

Pamolango, Valantino A. 2015. Types and Functions of Fillers used by the female

teacher and lecturer in Surabaya. Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya,

15(1): pp. 11-15.

Slembrouck, Stef. 2003. What is meant by Discourse Analysis. Retrieved from:

http://bank.rug.ac.be/da/refs.htm

Stenstörm, A. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.

Yule G. 2006. The Study of Language. Cambridge:CUP.

12
13