I've seen this movie like ten times.

[tllkt]

1. I've seen this movie ten times.

2. I've seen this movie, like, ten times.

Is there a difference in meaning between the two sentences? Is the word "like" a filler word in 2?

 

[Rover_KE]

I'd take #1 to mean you'd seen it exactly ten times, and #2 to mean you'd seen it approximately ten times.

Delete the commas—they're redundant.

 

[jutfrank]

I largely agree with Rover_KE. On the surface, sentence 1 appears factual in that 10 is the number of times that you've seen the movie. Sentence 2 I think would most likely be read that 10 is not meant as a precise number, and that 10 is in fact quite likely to be an exaggeration, especially if stressed.

The word 'like' there is more of an indicator of vagueness than a filler. Though if it's expressed to give the speaker time to think of a number, it does have filler properties, in my judgement.

 

[tllkt]

The word 'like' there is more of an indicator of vagueness than a filler. Though if it's expressed to give the speaker time to think of a number, it does have filler properties, in my judgement.

So these are mutually exclusive, then? Does a word being a filler restrict it from having any influence on the sentence's meaning?

Here are some definitions of "like" from Merriam-Webster and Google (which attributes its definition to Oxford Languages). Do these still count as "fillers"? Can a filler be used "to emphasize a word or phrase", "for an apologetic, vague, or unassertive effect", and "to signify the speaker's uncertainty", or would that make it a filler no more?

I'm unable to attach a screenshot for some reason, so I'm just going to post these:

- used interjectionally in informal speech often to emphasize a word or phrase (as in "He was, like, gorgeous") or for an apologetic, vague, or unassertive effect (as in "I need to, like, borrow some money")

- nearly, approximately (the actual interest is more like 18 percent)

- used interjectionally in informal speech with expressions of measurement (it was, like, five feet long)

- used in speech as a meaningless filler or to signify the speaker's uncertainty about an expression just used.

 

[jutfrank]

So these are mutually exclusive, then? Does a word being a filler restrict it from having any influence on the sentence's meaning?

No, I'm saying that it's both a filler and an indicator of vagueness, affecting meaning. That's my view.

Here are some definitions of "like" from Merriam-Webster and Google (which attributes its definition to Oxford Languages). Do these still count as "fillers"? Can a filler be used "to emphasize a word or phrase", "for an apologetic, vague, or unassertive effect", and "to signify the speaker's uncertainty", or would that make it a filler no more?

Well, this is merely a question of terminology, then. What we normally mean when we say 'filler' is that the word has no semantic contribution to the sentence and that it serves as a way to 'fill' empty space, usually to give the speaker time to think. However, having no semantic properties doesn't mean it doesn't have a communicative effect, thereby making some kind of pragmatic contribution. I would consider these communicative effects as part of meaning, in its broad sense. The very fact that someone hesitates in their speech can, in my opinion, mean something.

You don't have to get bogged down in definition here.