Wintry mix spreads across Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

Has anyone — a parent, teacher, or boss — told you to purge the words "um" and "uh" from your conversation?

When these words creep into our narrative as we tell a story at home, school, or work, it's natural to feel that we can do better with our speech fluency.

How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation

, hitting shelves Tuesday, University of Sydney linguist 

 rescues those words (and everyone who uses them) from censure. In so doing, he exposes the fascinating and intricate workings of what he calls the human conversation machine: "a set of powerful social and interpretive abilities of individuals in tandem with a set of features of communicative situations — such as the unstoppable passage of time — that puts constraints on how we talk."


Using cross-cultural data, Enfield shows how rapid is the turn-taking aspect of human conversation. Across 10 languages (from Italy, Namibia, Mexico, Laos, Denmark, Korea, the U.S., the Netherlands, Japan and Papua New Guinea) the rule is clear: Speakers offer an answer to a question posed to them within 207 milliseconds, on average. The range goes from 7 milliseconds (wow!) in Japanese to close to a half-second in Danish.

 the moment when it's our turn to speak. We risk losing our turn, or seeming hesitant, if we don't jump right into the flow.



What happens, though, if we're experiencing some kind of processing delay as we ready ourselves to speak? Perhaps we can't think of the right term, or we're struggling to process an unfamiliar word we just heard. After 600 milliseconds, "social attribution" kicks in — that is, the delay becomes a matter of concern for the community of speakers. We may, at this point, utter "um" or "uh" as a signal that we are working toward producing speech.


The evidence shows we also may use these words 

as buffers before offering what are called dispreferred responses, or answers our conversation partners may not welcome. Let's say a friend asks you to an event that don't wish to attend, and you're about to decline. If you slightly delay that bad news by starting out with "uh" or "um," that's the conversation machine at work.


Enfield's overall point here is that these tiny words, far from just being "noise" for scholars to ignore, deserve linguistic study. "Huh?" plays a key role, too, because, judging again from cross-cultural research, it is a human linguistic universal. When we ask "Huh?" in conversation, it can be a mark of cooperation rather than confusion, a point that Enfield elaborated on via email (Email responses in this post have been edited for length.):


For Enfield, cooperation in conversation reflects a kind of 

, a type of "systems" perspective that I think is spot on.
In 

Enfield aims to set apart our behavior and language from the behavior and communication of all other animals. Our social cognition is different "from that of even our closest relatives in the animal world," he writes. His overall conclusion is striking: "No animal shows the defining properties of human conversation: finely timed cooperative turn-taking, mechanisms for repair, and communicative traffic signals."
Based on 

 into the "dance" of contingent and mutually adjusted ape nonvocal communication, my skeptic's antennae went up at this statement of human uniqueness.
I sought an evaluation from Brittany Fallon, 

 and research faculty member in the department of linguistics at the University of New Mexico, who has carried out field 

 in wild chimpanzees. (I was Fallon's undergraduate professor at the College of William and Mary.)


On repair, for example, the checking we do as we talk to make sure we understand each other and, if necessary, fix breakdowns in comprehension, Fallon had this to say:

The evidence for turn-taking is less straightforward, but occurs at least sometimes among apes, as Fallon explains:


Sophisticated aspects of ape social cognition, then, may be seen in their 

Enfield acknowledged to me that there are many commonalities in our behaviors with apes, and emphasized that it's just good science to be skeptical of claims that rest on human exceptionalism.

In the end, though, he stands by the uniqueness theme:

for its data-fueled, often extremely cool insights into the conversation machine we all participate in every day. Before you accept its claim that our communication system is qualitatively different from that of other animals, though, explore the evidence from multiple scientific teams about the complex communication abilities of our closest living relatives.


Barbara J. King is an anthropology professor emerita at the College of William and Mary. She often writes about the cognition, emotion and welfare of animals and about biological anthropology, human evolution and gender issues. Barbara's new book is 

Personalities on the Plate: The Lives and Minds of Animals We Eat

You can keep up with what she is thinking on Twitter: 

Arts and Culture

The Thread® - Books and Literary News

Barbara J. King

Author

Tiny filler words in human rapid-fire conversation hold the key to understanding how language is unique, according to a new book. But anthropologist Barbara J. King raises some questions.

Um, uh, huh? Are these words clues to understanding human language?

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox