The Use of Fillers in The Short Monologues by English Learners at Yeti

English Course Salatiga

Kezia Intaningtyas Ayu Pinasty1, Sri Wuli Fitriati2
1
Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
2
Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

1
 Abstract

This study investigates the use of fillers in short monologue performances by English learners at Yeti English
Course (YEC) in Salatiga, Indonesia. Given the importance of speaking fluency in second language acquisition,
this research focuses on how learners use lexicalized, unlexicalized, and prolonged fillers to manage speech
production. Data were collected from 25 video recordings of learners' monologues. The analysis revealed that
lexicalized fillers, especially repetitions and word prolongations, were used more frequently than unlexicalized
ones. These fillers served several communicative functions, including hesitation marking, time-gaining, self-
repair, and maintaining fluency. Findings suggest that fillers play a strategic role in learners’ speech, not merely
as signs of disfluency but as tools that facilitate communication and cognitive processing. This study contributes
to a deeper understanding of spoken discourse features in language learning and offers pedagogical implications
for teaching speaking fluency through awareness and strategic use of fillers.
Keywords: Fillers; Short Monologue; English Learners; English Course

Correspondence Address:
Faculty of Languages and Arts Universitas Negeri Semarang
Kampus Sekaran, Gunungpati, Kota Semarang 50229
E-mail: keziaintaningtyas@[Link]

INTRODUCTION
English has become one of the most important languages that many people must master. It has developed
into an international language used by people around the world in daily communication. This condition is
related to globalization. Guillen (2001) stated that globalization leads to greater interdependence and
mutual awareness among economic, political, and social units across the world. As globalization
continues, the number of non-native speakers of English is now three times greater than the number of
native speakers. This shows that the interest of people around the world to learn and speak English is
increasing significantly.
In Indonesia, English is a compulsory subject taught at various levels of education. Learners are
expected to master the four basic language skills: listening, reading, writing, and speaking. However,
among these, speaking is considered the most difficult skill to master. Brown (2004, p. 172) stated that
there are five components of speaking: grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and pronunciation.
Learners must be able to pronounce words correctly, use appropriate vocabulary, and build grammatically
correct and understandable sentences to express their ideas effectively.
However, mastering all these components at once makes speaking difficult for many learners.
Especially in Indonesia, where English is not used in daily life, learners often experience anxiety, lack of
confidence, and fear of making mistakes. This makes the speaking skill more complex than the others.
Furthermore, English fluency is increasingly seen as a sign of quality and educational achievement in
developing countries, including Indonesia. Someone who speaks fluently is often viewed as educated,
capable, and globally competitive.
Fluency has an essential role in second language acquisition. mentioned that fluency is one of the
major goals in second language learning and is used to measure learners’ oral proficiency. Segalowitz
(2010) categorizes fluency into three types: cognitive fluency, which refers to the mental ability to
process language; utterance fluency, which is measurable from speech production; and perceived fluency,
which refers to how the listener judges the speaker’s fluency. Huang (2024) emphasized that perceived
fluency includes factors like rhythm, intonation, and the natural flow of speech.
An effective way to measure fluency is by asking learners to perform a monologue task. A
monologue is an individual speaking task that allows learners to express their thoughts without
interaction. (Karpovich et al., 2021) explains that monologue tasks can help learners become more
confident and independent. They require learners to process, organize, and deliver ideas in a logical and
coherent way. However, because these tasks are often performed without preparation or assistance,
learners may experience hesitation, forget their ideas, or face difficulties in managing their speech.
This leads to the prevailing issue in speaking tasks: many learners experience anxiety and
breakdowns in fluency during monologue performances. Fitriati et al. (2021) states that learners often feel
frightened and nervous when they are asked to speak in front of the class. Hasibuan and Irzawati (2020)
also explain that this anxiety can lead to physical symptoms such as sweating, increased heart rate, and
confusion. As a result, learners may avoid speaking, delay participation, and show low self-confidence in

2
oral performance. This condition leads to a gap between the expected fluency in speaking performance
and the actual performance of learners, especially during spontaneous speech tasks like monologues.
One solution to this issue is the use of communication strategies. According to Celce-Murcia
(2007), learners who are able to use communication strategies tend to perform better in speaking and
learn languages more effectively. One of the most common communication strategies is the use of fillers.
Fillers are words, phrases, or sounds inserted into speech that do not carry meaning but serve important
communicative functions. Baalen (2001) explains that fillers can be placed anywhere in speech and can
be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. Examples include “uh,” “um,” “well,” “you
know,” and “i mean.”
Fillers help speakers maintain fluency, gain time to think, signal hesitation, or hold their turn in
conversation. They are especially helpful in monologue tasks where learners must speak continuously
without support. Celce-Murcia (1995) categorizes these strategies as hesitation devices, repetition, and
self-correction. In real speaking situations, learners may forget words or ideas, and fillers allow them to
manage this problem naturally and keep their speech going.
Several researchers have classified fillers into different types. Stenstrom (1994) and Rose (1998)
divide fillers into lexicalized fillers (e.g., “well,” “you know”) and unlexicalized fillers (e.g., “uh,” “um,”
“erm”). More recently, studies such as Lomotey (2021) and Souza et al. (2023) have discussed prolonged
fillers, where speakers lengthen the sounds of a word or syllable, such as “i...i think,” or “theee... Thing
is.” These prolonged fillers are particularly interesting because they are often used when learners are
processing thoughts and deciding what to say next.
In addition to their types, fillers also serve different functions. According to Stenstrom (1994),
Baalen (2001), and Rose (1998), fillers can function as hesitation markers, floor holders, indicators of
uncertainty, and time-gaining strategies. While these elements are sometimes seen as a sign of disfluency,
many scholars argue that fillers actually help speakers appear more natural and conversational, especially
in spontaneous speech.
Despite this growing body of research, there are still gaps in how fillers are studied in learner
speech. Most previous studies focus on fillers in conversations, interviews, or public speaking settings.
Fitriati et al. (2021) investigated fillers in classroom presentations, while Susilowati (2024) analyzed filler
use in formal speeches. However, few studies have investigated the use of fillers during short monologue
performances in informal learning environments such as English courses, and even fewer have discussed
prolonged fillers as a specific category. Additionally, studies that connect filler use directly with learners’
fluency performance in monologue tasks are limited.
This study aims to fill that gap by investigating the types and functions of fillers used by English
learners in short monologue performances at the Yeti English Course (YEC) in Salatiga. Yec is a well-
known English course that offers various programs, including public speaking, TOEFL, and IELTS
preparation. It is known for its successful teaching strategies and for producing learners who often win
english speech competitions. YEC groups students according to ability levels, allowing for focused and
tailored instruction. These learners frequently perform monologue tasks as part of their classroom
activities, making them a suitable population for this study.
The novelty of this research lies in its focus on short monologue tasks in a non-formal English
learning environment, which has not been widely explored. It also includes prolonged fillers as part of the
analysis, which are often overlooked in filler studies. Moreover, this study links the use of fillers with
learners’ fluency, providing insight into how these elements function not just as hesitation markers but
also as tools to support real-time speech production. Unlike previous studies that focus only on
lexicalized and unlexicalized fillers, this research integrates three types of fillers—lexicalized,
unlexicalized, and prolonged—and explores their functions in learner performance.

METHODS
This study used a qualitative descriptive approach to describe and analyze the use of fillers by English
learners in short monologue performances. The purpose of this approach was to explore how learners use
fillers—lexicalized, unlexicalized, and prolonged—as part of their speaking strategies, particularly in
relation to fluency. As this research was categorized as discourse analysis, it aimed to examine spoken
language as it was naturally produced by learners in an authentic learning setting.
The data were taken from 25 students of the Yeti English Course (YEC) in Salatiga, Central
Java. These learners were at the intermediate level and had previously received instruction in public
speaking as part of their course program. The institution and respondents’ identities were kept

3
confidential and used only for research purposes. The researcher chose YEC as the site because of its
strong focus on speaking activities and its success in preparing students for English speech competitions.
The learners frequently practiced short monologue performances, making them suitable subjects for this
study.
The data were collected using a video analysis technique. The main data source consisted of
25 short monologue videos recorded during classroom speaking assessments. Each student delivered a
short monologue for approximately 1–2 minutes. These performances were recorded with permission
from the institution and the students. The monologues were then transcribed manually into written text.
n During transcription, the researcher paid close attention to the verbal elements of speech, especially
the use of fillers, including repeated words, hesitation markers, and prolonged sounds.
To identify and analyze fillers, the researcher referred to existing classifications and
frameworks provided by Stenstrom (1994), Rose (1998), and Baalen (2001). Fillers were classified into
three types: lexicalized (e.g., “well,” “you know”), unlexicalized (e.g., “uh,” “erm”), and prolonged
fillers (e.g., “I...I think,” “theee problem is…”). Each transcript was examined line by line to identify
instances of filler use. The researcher created a table to organize the data, showing the types of fillers,
their frequency, and their position in the utterance.
The analysis also focused on the functions of fillers as proposed by Stenstrom (1994) and
Baalen (2001), such as marking hesitation, gaining time to think, indicating uncertainty, holding the
floor, and signaling self-repair. The researcher interpreted each filler based on its context in the
monologue and noted how it supported or interrupted the speaker’s fluency.
To ensure the trustworthiness of the data, the researcher employed expert judgment. An
expert in the field of English education and linguistics was consulted to validate the classification of
filler types and their functions. The researcher also performed repeated reviews of the transcriptions
and triangulated the findings with relevant theories and previous studies.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of the analysis based on the learners’ short monologue performances at
Yeti English Course (YEC). The findings are organized to answer the three research questions: (1) what
types of fillers are used by the learners, (2) what functions those fillers serve, and (3) how the use of fillers
reflects the learners’ fluency in speaking. Each part is discussed in relation to the relevant theories and
previous studies. The discussion not only outlines the data but also interprets how the presence and use of
fillers indicate learners’ strategies in managing spontaneous speech and their development in oral fluency.

Types of Fillers Used by YEC Learners

The analysis of 25 short monologue performances by YEC learners shows that they used two types of
fillers: lexicalized fillers and unlexicalized fillers. This classification follows the theories proposed by
Stenstrom (1994) and Rose (1998), who stated that lexicalized fillers are real words or short phrases like
“you know,” “well,” “I mean”, while unlexicalized fillers are non-word sounds such as “uh,” “eee,”
“erm”.
Table 1. Types of Fillers
Types of Fillers Frequency Percentage
Lexicalized fillers 112 67.07%
Unlexicalized fillers 55 32.93%
TOTAL 167 100%

The data showed that learners produced a total of 167 fillers, of which 112 (67.07%) were
lexicalized fillers and 55 (32.93%) were unlexicalized. Among the lexicalized fillers, the most frequently
used were repetitions, such as “happy… happy,” “I...I think,” and “inspired… inspired.” As Rose (1998)
stated, filled pauses can be a reflection of the cognitive process during speech production. In this study,
the most dominant lexicalized filler was repetition, which appeared 61 times throughout the learners’
monologues. This suggests that learners frequently repeated words as a strategy to gain time while
thinking about what to say next. Following repetition, the next most commonly used lexicalized filler was
word prolongation, where learners extended the sound of a word to hold the floor or delay speech while
organizing their thoughts.

4
 On the other hand, unlexicalized fillers like “eee,” “emm,” “aaa” appeared in spontaneous
moments when learners seemed unsure or needed thinking time. “Eee” was the most frequently used
unlexicalized filler, appearing 49 times. The higher number of lexicalized fillers may indicate that YEC
learners are gradually building their strategic competence in spoken English, using real words to help
manage pauses and organize thoughts.
This finding is similar to those of Fitriati et al. (2021), who reported that EFL students often used
more lexicalized fillers during conversation. Likewise, Rahmawati and Farida (2025) and Tabitha and
Bram (2024) found that both students and public figures preferred lexicalized fillers to maintain speech
flow.

Functions of Fillers Used by YEC Learners

The second research question focused on discovering the functions of the fillers identified in the students’
speech. Based on the framework from Stenstrom (1994) and Baalen (2001), five functions are generally
acknowledged: hesitation, time-creating, editing-term, mitigation, and emphatizing devices. However, this
study found that only three functions were used by YEC learners: hesitation, time-creating, and editing-
term devices.
Table 2. Functions of Fillers
Fillers’ Functions Frequency Percentage
Hesitation 107 64.07%
Time-creating 47 28.14%
Editing-term 13 7.78%
TOTAL 167 100%

Hesitation Devices
This was the most dominant function observed in the data. A total of 107 instances (64.07%) of fillers
functioned as hesitation markers. These were typically used when learners were unsure about their next
words or needed more time to retrieve vocabulary. The most common hesitation filler was “eee,” used in
sentences like, “And eee... I hope the personality of the students of YEC will be like my landmark”. This is
in line with findings by Celce-Murcia (1995) and Kharismawan (2017), who emphasized that hesitation
fillers are signs of cognitive processing during speech.

Time-Creating Devices
The second most used function was time-creating, with 47 instances (28.14%). This function helped
learners to hold the floor, think, and plan the continuation of their sentences. Often, this occurred in the
form of repetition, as in: “The son... the son...” or “I... I want to say…”. This is supported by Indriyana et
al. (2019), who explained that time-creating fillers help speakers manage fluency without leaving silent
pauses that might disrupt communication.

Editing-Term Devices
The least common function found in this study was the editing-term device, with 13 instances (7.78%).
Fillers in this category were used when learners corrected themselves, such as in: “Princess Diana… ya…
Princess Di… Lady Diana Princess of Wales…” and “Number truu… number two YEC always helps…”.
These editing fillers show that learners had the awareness to fix their mistakes in real time, indicating
developing self-monitoring and language control.

Learners’ Fluency as Reflected in the Use of Fillers

The third research question explored how the use of fillers reflected the learners’ fluency during short
monologue performances. Fluency in this context was measured using the rubric from O’Malley and Pierce
(1996), which includes five components: pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary, and
comprehensibility. Learners were scored on a scale of 1 to 4 in each category, and their total score was
used to classify them into one of four fluency levels: Poor (5–8), Fair (9–12), Good (13–16), and Excellent
(17–20). Out of 25 learners, the results were as follows:
Table 3. The Result of YEC Learners Monologue Performances
Rating Count Percentage
Poor 2 8%

5
 Fair 7 28%
Good 9 36%
Excellent 7 28%
Total 25 100%
Most learners fell into the Good and Excellent categories, meaning they were able to deliver
their speech smoothly and clearly. These learners tended to use fewer fillers, especially unlexicalized
ones, and showed better control in word choice, structure, and delivery.
Conversely, learners in the Poor category showed frequent pauses, hesitations, and relied heavily
on fillers to maintain speech flow. These students struggled with organizing their ideas and retrieving
vocabulary quickly, which disrupted their fluency. The Fair learners demonstrated moderate fluency, with
occasional filler use that reflected hesitation and time-planning needs.
The findings support Segalowitz’s (2010) idea that fluency is not only about smooth delivery
(utterance fluency) but also about a speaker’s ability to process and perform language in real time
(cognitive fluency). Huang (2024) also emphasized that fluency includes how speakers manage rhythm,
pace, and listener perception (perceived fluency).

Discussion
The findings of this study reveal how English learners at Yeti English Course (YEC) use fillers in their
short monologue performances, particularly in terms of types, functions, and how these fillers reflect their
fluency. The discussion refers to the theories mentioned earlier and connects the results with previous
studies to highlight their relevance and significance.
Regarding the first research question, the results showed that learners used two types of fillers: lexicalized
and unlexicalized fillers. Lexicalized fillers dominated the data with a total of 112 occurrences, while
unlexicalized fillers occurred 55 times. This shows that learners tend to use actual words or phrases more
often than non-word sounds to manage their speech. The most dominant lexicalized filler was repetition,
which appeared 61 times, followed by word prolongation. The frequent use of repetition indicates that
learners often need extra time to think of what to say next, so they repeat a word to avoid silence. This
supports Rose’s (1998) statement that filled pauses are a reflection of cognitive processes. Word
prolongation also functioned similarly, with learners stretching out the final sound of a word to hold the
floor and buy time.
These findings are in line with previous studies conducted by Rose (1998), Fitriati et al. (2021), and
Tabitha and Bram (2024), which showed that lexicalized fillers such as “well,” “so,” and repetition were
commonly used by learners and even professional speakers. This suggests that YEC learners, especially at
the intermediate level, have already begun developing awareness of how to use fillers strategically in their
speech. The choice of lexicalized fillers over unlexicalized ones may reflect a growing competence in
spoken English and better control in managing speech flow.
As for the second research question, this study identified three functions of fillers used by learners:
hesitation, time-creating, and editing-term devices. Hesitation fillers were used most frequently, with 107
occurrences, mostly in the form of “eee”. These fillers occurred when learners were unsure of what to say
and needed time to think, especially during transitions or in the middle of a sentence. This is in line with
Celce-Murcia’s (1995) explanation that hesitation fillers help speakers manage their planning time during
real-time speech.
The time-creating function was observed 47 times, often through the use of repetition and word
prolongation. These fillers allowed learners to extend their speech and maintain control over their turn
while preparing the next utterance. This supports Indriyana et al. (2019), who explained that time-creating
fillers are helpful for both learners and public speakers in managing spontaneous language delivery.
Editing-term devices, though less frequent, also appeared in the data. Learners used fillers like
“ya” or repeated phrases when correcting themselves or revising their wording. Although only 13
instances of editing-term fillers were found, they show that learners were aware of their speech errors and
made efforts to self-correct, even during performance. This is an indicator of growing self-monitoring
ability in L2 production.
It is also notable that mitigation and emphatizing functions were not found in this study. This
could be due to the nature of the monologue task, which focuses more on content delivery than on
interaction. Since the learners were speaking individually, they were not required to soften their message
or emphasize a point emotionally, which might explain the absence of these two functions. This aligns
with Baalen’s (2001) claim that not all filler functions are present in all speaking contexts.

6
 For the third research question, which explored how fillers reflect learners’ fluency, the analysis
used a speaking assessment rubric adapted from O’Malley and Pierce (1996). Learners were categorized
into four fluency levels: Poor, Fair, Good, and Excellent. The majority of learners were placed in the
Good (36%) and Excellent (28%) categories, suggesting that most YEC learners were able to deliver their
ideas smoothly with only minor hesitation or interruption. Those who fell into the Poor and Fair
categories used fillers more frequently and showed more visible signs of struggling with fluency, such as
long pauses, repeated hesitations, and difficulty in organizing their speech.
These patterns indicate that filler usage is closely related to fluency level. Learners with better
fluency used fillers in a more controlled and strategic manner, while those with lower fluency relied on
fillers as a way to cope with language processing difficulties. This supports Segalowitz’s (2010) view that
fluency includes not only utterance-level features such as speed and pauses, but also cognitive fluency,
which involves the speaker’s internal processing ability. Additionally, Huang (2024) emphasized
perceived fluency, which depends on how the listener evaluates the speaker’s rhythm, intonation, and
flow—all of which can be affected by the presence and quality of filler usage.

CONCLUSION
This study aimed to analyze the use of fillers in short monologue performances by learners at Yeti English
Course Salatiga. The research was conducted to answer three main questions: to identify the types of fillers
used, to analyze their functions, and to examine how the use of fillers reflects learners’ fluency. The
findings showed that learners used both lexicalized and unlexicalized fillers, with lexicalized fillers—
particularly repetition and word prolongation—being the most dominant. These fillers were used as
strategic tools to gain time, hold the floor, and maintain the flow of speech.
From a functional perspective, the fillers served as hesitation devices, time-creating devices, and
editing-term devices. These functions reflected the learners’ attempts to manage speech production and
cope with difficulties during spontaneous monologue tasks. The absence of mitigation and emphatizing
functions may be due to the task type, which focused on delivering content rather than interaction.
Additionally, the use of fillers provided insight into the learners’ fluency level. Learners with higher
fluency used fillers more effectively and with better control, while those with lower fluency relied more
on fillers to manage gaps in speech.
These results are compatible with the objectives of the study, which were to describe how fillers
are used by learners and to understand their role in supporting spoken performance. The findings also
confirm that fillers are not merely signs of disfluency, but rather part of learners’ communicative
strategies to maintain fluency and reduce speaking anxiety.
The practical implication of this study is that teachers should view fillers as a natural and useful
part of spoken language, particularly in the early and intermediate stages of fluency development. Instead
of treating fillers as mistakes, speaking instructors can encourage learners to understand their purpose and
learn how to manage their use. Classroom activities can include spontaneous speaking practice, role
plays, and monologue tasks that allow learners to build fluency and reduce anxiety, while gradually
improving their ability to speak with fewer unnecessary pauses.
For future research, it is suggested to explore the use of fillers in different speaking contexts,
such as interviews, debates, or interactive dialogues, to compare their functions across various speech
situations. Further investigation on prolonged fillers is also recommended, as they remain under-
researched despite their frequent appearance in learner speech. Additionally, studies involving a larger
number of participants or learners from different institutions may provide deeper insights and more
generalizable results regarding the relationship between filler use and speaking proficiency.

REFERENCES

Abdulla, A. M., & Mohammed, A. A. (2023). Filler usage as a strategic competence in EFL
learners'speech performance. International Journal of Language Education, 7(2), 56–69.

Adini, D.S., Riza, A., Afriyani,R. (2021). Pause filler used by students in microteaching class. Ekasakti
Educational Journal, 1(1), 83-90. [Link]

7
Alamri, W.A. (2019). Effectiveness of qualitative research methods: interviews and diaries. International

of English and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 65-70. [Link]

Atkinson, P., Hammersley, M. (1998). Ethnography and participant observation. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, 110-128.

Awang, M. M., Zulkifli, N., & Ismail, H. N. (2022). Communication strategies among EFL learners: A
study of strategic competence. Journal of Language and Communication, 9(1), 21–34.

Baalen, Irene Van. 2001. Male and female language: Growing together? Retrieved from
[Link]

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. [Link]

Bhandari, P. (2022, December 27). Qualitative research: Methods, types, and examples. Scribbr.
[Link]

Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Longman.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with

content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2), 5-35.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching.
Intercultural language use and language learning, 41-57. Dordrecht: Springer.

Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–
111. [Link]

Cloutier, C., & Ravasi, D. (2021). Using tables to enhance trustworthiness in qualitative research.
Strategic Organization, 19(3), 429–438. [Link]

Costa, J. B., Ritto, A. P., Juste, F. S., & Andrade, C. R. F. (2017). Comparison between the speech
performance of fluent speakers and individuals who stutter. CodAS, 29(2), 1–7.
[Link]

Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative research. Theory into Practice,
39(3), 124-130. [Link]

Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J.D. (2019). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage publications.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.

Dewi, A. (2012). English As An International Language: An Overview. Journal of English and Education,
6(2). [Link]

Efendi, N., Anggrarini, N., Dahlia. (2024). Filler Types In Student’s Academic Speaking Presentation:
The Use and Function. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and
Linguistics, 11(2),263-275. [Link]

8
Fitriati, S. W., Mujiyanto, J., Susilowati, E., & Akmilia, P. M. (2021). The use of conversation fillers in
English by Indonesian EFL Master’s students. Linguistics Research, 38, 25-52.
[Link]

Flick. U. (2007). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Gee, J. P. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. Routledge.

Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, 105-117.

Guest. G., Namey. E., Chen. M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in
qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5). [Link]

Guillén, M. F. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? Acritique of five key debates in the
social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235-260.

Hasibuan, A.R., Irzawati, I. (2020). Student’s speaking anxiety on their speaking performance: A study of
EFL learners. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 394, 101-106.
[Link]

Huang, W. (2024). A systematic review of speech fluency measurement in L2 monologues and dialogues.
Journal of Education and Educational Research, 10(2). [Link]

Husna, H.A.U. (2021). The relationship between the students’ English speaking skills and their closeness
to English. LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature, 15(2).
[Link]

Indriyana, B.S., Sina, M.W., Bram, B. (2021). Fillers and their function in Emma Watson’s speech.
Ranah: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa, 10(1), 13- 21. [Link]

Johnson, W. (1961). Measurements of oral reading and speaking rate and disfluency of adult male and
female stutterers and nonstutterers. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders. Monograph
Supplement, 7, 1–20.

Juliano, F., Nehe, I., Handayani, N.D. (2022). An analysis of fillers used by Bill Gates in the David
Rubenstein Show. Proceeding Undergraduate Conference on Literary, Linguistics, and Cultural
Studies,1(1),8-15. [Link]

Karpovich, I.; Sheredekina, O.; Krepkaia, T.; Voronova, L. (2021). The use of monologue speaking tasks
to improve first-year students’ English-speaking skills. Education Science 11,(298).
[Link]

Kharismawan, P.Y., (2017). The types and the functions of the fillers used in Barack Obama’s speeches.
International Journal of Humanity Studies, 1(1), 111-119.
[Link]

Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., Soeffner, H.G. (2006). Video-Analysis Methodology and Methods.
Peter Lang

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222

9
Lahiri, S. (2023). A qualitative research approach is an inevitable part of research methodology: An
overview. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 5(3).
[Link]

Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Lomotey, C.F. (2021). Fillers in academic discourse: An analysis of lectures from a public university in
Ghana. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 3(1), 98-121.
[Link]

Makram et al. (2022). Is checklist an efective tool for teaching research students? A survey-based study.
BMC Medical Education, 22(561). [Link]

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J. (2004). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Sage Publications.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260. [Link]

Morse, J.M., Niehaus. L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Left Coast Press.

Nurahmi, I., Sahril., Sunra, L. (2021). Students’ filler in academic presentation. PINISI JOURNAL OF
ART, HUMANITY & SOCIAL STUDIES, 1(4), 12-17

Nurjamin, M., Fatimah, N. R., & Siahaan, A. (2020). The use of discourse markers and fillers in
spontaneous speech. Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 10(1), 45–55.

Paltridge, B. (2021). Discourse analysis: An introduction (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

O'Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical
approaches for teachers. Addison-Wesley.

Pamolango, A.V. (2016). An analysis of the fillers used by Asian students in Busan, South Korea: A
comparative study. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 2(3), 96-99.
[Link]

Rahmawati, Y., Farida, A.N. (2025). Fillers in finals of national school debating championships. Journal
of English Language and Education, 10(1),53-63. [Link]

Rapley, T., & Rees, G. (2018). Collecting and analyzing data with field notes. The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Data Collection, 378–392. [Link]

Ravindran, V. (2019). Data analysis in qualitative research. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing
Education, 20(19), 40-45. [Link]

Rose, R.L. (1998). The communicative value of filled pauses in spontaneous speech. Brimingham:
Brimingham University.

Santos, N.M.B., Hernandez Alarcon, M.M., Mora Pablo, I. (2016). Fillers and the development of oral
strategic competence in foreign language learning. Porta Lingarium, 25, 191-201.
[Link]

10
Sarira, P., Mahmud, M., Affandi, A., & Burhamzah, M. (2023). The existence of fillers in converting the
written language to spoken language. Borneo Journal of English Language Education, 5(1), 1–
13.

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.

Shriberg, E. (2001). To ‘errrr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 31(1), 153–169. [Link]

Silverman, D. (2020). Qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Souza, L. M. S., Martins-Reis, V. O., Santos, P. J., Gomes, D. Â. do Valle, Lima, A. M., & Celeste, L. C.
(2023). Word final prolongations: Acoustic characteristics and influence on speech fluency
perception. D.E.L.T.A., 39(3), 1–25. [Link]

Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.

Stevani, A., Sudarsono & Supardi, I. (2018). An Analysis of Fillers Usage In Academic Presentation.
JPPK : Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa. 7(10). 1—9.
[Link]

Susilowati, E., & Kusumaningtyas, E. D. (2024). Fillers as communication strategies uttered by Prabowo
Subianto in his interview as president-elect at the Qatar economic forum. Journal of English
Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 29–44.

Syamsudin., Istiadah., Syafiyah., Cahyono, A.E., Mulyono, S. (2024). Utilizing fillers for addressing
speaking challenges, improving self-confidence and motivation in EFL learning. Journal of
Education and Learning (EduLearn), 18(4), 1327-1334.
[Link]

Tabitha, R.K., Bram, B. (2024). Fillers in Elon Musk’s spontaneous speeches. Journal of Language, 6(1),
26-35.

Tarone, E. (1983). Teaching strategic competence in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Language
Learning, 4, 121-130.

Vitale, V. N., Schettino, L., & Cutugno, F. (2024, December 4–6). Modelling filled particles and
prolongation using end-to-end automatic speech recognition systems: A quantitative and
qualitative analysis. Paper presented at the 10th Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics
(CLiC-it 2024), Pisa, Italy. [Link]

Watanabe, M., Hirose, K., & Den, Y. (2006). Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of upcoming phrases
for native and non-native listeners. In D. Sidtis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 51–54). U.S.: International Speech Communication
Association.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.

Yulpia, T. (2025). The use of fillers by the students of English study program in English speaking practice.
Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar & Menengah – Edumedia, 3(1), 54–68.
[Link]

11
12