Investigating Speech Disfluencies in Spontaneous L2 Speech Production: A Psycholinguistic Study of Indonesian TikTok Users
Authors
-
Shera Yanuar Hardiat
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
-
Udayani Permanaludin
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
-
Deni Suswanto
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36312/jolls.v6i2.5013Keywords:
Speech disfluency, Second language speech production, Psycholinguistics, TikTok mediaAbstract
Speech disfluencies are natural yet meaningful features of spontaneous speech that reflect real-time cognitive processing demands during language production. In second-language (L2) contexts, disfluencies occur more frequently because speakers must simultaneously manage conceptual planning, lexical retrieval, syntactic encoding, and self-monitoring with limited linguistic automaticity. Despite growing research on L2 fluency, disfluency as a psycholinguistic phenomenon remains underexplored in self-initiated digital communication contexts, particularly on platforms such as TikTok, where young adult L2 speakers produce spontaneous, minimally edited English speech as part of self-improvement challenges. This study aims to describe the types of speech disfluencies produced by three Indonesian TikTok users in their spontaneous English speech and to explain the underlying psycholinguistic factors that trigger them. Employing a qualitative descriptive method, nine video samples from the ‘Day 1–30 Speaking English Challenge’ were analyzed through verbatim transcription and qualitative content analysis, drawing on Levelt’s (1989) speech production model and Kormos’ (2006) framework of second language speech processing. The analysis identified 227 disfluency tokens distributed across three major categories: pauses, comprising silent and filled pauses (171 instances total); hesitations, encompassing repetitions, false starts, truncated words, prolongations, and self-corrections (84 instances); and lexicalized fillers (9 instances). Five underlying psycholinguistic factors were identified as triggers: conceptual planning difficulty, lexical retrieval effort, syntactic and phonological encoding demands, working memory load, and self-monitoring behavior, each operating at distinct stages of speech production. While the findings are specific to this dataset and are not intended for broad generalization, they demonstrate that disfluencies in spontaneous L2 digital speech are not random errors but systematic indicators of real-time cognitive processing. The study contributes to the extension of Levelt’s (1989) and Kormos’ (2006) frameworks to digitally mediated speech contexts, with implications for psycholinguistically informed fluency assessment, language pedagogy, and the role of self-initiated digital speaking practice, such as TikTok speaking challenges, in fostering authentic L2 fluency development.
Downloads
References
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Handbook of psycholinguistics. Academic Press.
Chang, H., & Windeatt, S. (2024). Fluency issues in L2 academic presentations: Linguistic, cognitive, and psychological influences on pausing behaviour. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241233718
Clark, H. H. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37(3), 201–242. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0693
Colorafi, K. J., & Evans, B. (2016). Qualitative descriptive methods in health science research. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(4), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715614171
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
Eren, Ö., Kılıç, M., & Bada, E. (2022). Fluency in L2: Read and spontaneous speech pausing patterns of Turkish, Swahili, Hausa, and Arabic speakers of English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09822-y
Feng, R., & Guo, Q. (2022). Second language speech fluency: What is in the picture and what is missing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 859213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859213
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11(4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00255
Hanzawa, K. (2024). Development of second language speech fluency in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 28(3), 816–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211008693
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In Structures of social action. Cambridge University Press.
Jelčić, M. (2024). Pauses in spontaneous speech production in the media.
Kirkland, A., Lameris, H., Szekely, E., & Gustafson, J. (2022). Where’s the uh, hesitation? The interplay between filled pause location, speech rate, and fundamental frequency in perception of confidence. In Interspeech 2022 (pp. 4990–4994). https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2022-10973
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49(2), 303–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00090
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kosmala, L., & Crible, L. (2022). The dual status of filled pauses: Evidence from genre, proficiency, and co-occurrence. Language and Speech, 65(1), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211010862
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 337–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587959
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Liao, J. (2023). Disfluency and self-repair in presentational and interpersonal speech modalities. Foreign Language Annals, 56(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12658
Lickley, R. (2015). Fluency and disfluency. In The Oxford handbook of speech production (pp. 445–458). Oxford University Press.
Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
McMullin, C. (2023). Transcription and qualitative methods: Implications for third sector research. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(1), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00400-3
Mizera, G. J. (2006). Working memory and L2 oral fluency.
Rahmawati, A., Syafei, M., & Prasetiyanto, M. A. (2023). Improving speaking skills through TikTok application: An endeavour of utilizing social media in higher education. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 11(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v11i1.6633
Schnadt, M. J., & Corley, M. (2006). The influence of lexical, conceptual, and planning-based factors on disfluency production. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 750–755).
Segalowitz, N. (2016). Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9991
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.84
Wang, Y. (2021). A study on the use of hesitation markers in varied-level EFL learners’ L2 speaking process. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11(5), 823–840. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.115063
Zellner, B. (1994). Pauses and the temporal structure of speech.
Zulhemindra, Z., Munir, S., Yulnetri, Y., & Putra, K. P. (2022). Investigating filled pauses found in English students’ conversation. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of English Studies, 9(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.26555/adjes.v9i1.35
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shera Yanuar Hardiat, Udayani Permanaludin , Deni Suswanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JOLLS agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in JOLLS, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors permit the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
