{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02463891248937978, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.167539267015707, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book review: Nino Amiridze, Boyd H Davis and Margaret Maclagan (eds), Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders

As can be seen, research on prosody in interaction is rich and growing. The studies presented are interesting, varied and show much vitality in this research area. The subfield is an important addition to prosodic research, which has largely been focused on controlled settings, and Conversation Analysis, where much of the research has been based on written transcriptions. Also pleasing to see is an effort to incorporate multimodal cues, including gesture and facial expression. However, going forward, the integration of different uses of prosodic cues will need to be tackled more. As is well-known, any one prosodic feature, for example, a raise in pitch on a particular word, can have multiple uses, including interactional goals, but also linguistic goals such as signalling information status or lexical stress. Most of the papers do not consider how the prosodic cues relevant to the interactional feature at hand fit into an overall framework of prosodic organization that considers its multiple uses simultaneously. This remains a challenge for future research.