In chapter 3, Erard talks about people using the phrases "um" or "uh" to fill iin gaps in communication while they are figuring out what they would like to say next. But why does that fraction of a second have to be filled? What is so wrong with just leaving a little bit of silence in the midst of the conversation instead of just inserting a sound to fill the gap? I'm wondering if maybe it is to keep the flow and fluidity of the conversation intact. In an earlier class we talked about how when speaking, we blend words together in one continous stream. Is this why we have to have a filler for the times when we are thinking what to say next? Does keeping the conversation going keep it less noticable that we're thinking of what to say?
And why the phrase "uh?" Why is this sound so universal? On page 55, Erard discusses some of the sounds that different languages use to fill the gaps in their languages. For example, in Britain they say "er" and in France they say "euh." But both of these sounds are very similar to our "uh." What about this sound makes it so universal to be used in many different languages?
Comments (1)
I am not sure why "uh" seems to be found universally in other languages. Perhaps it is because it is essentially a single syllable sound with no real meaning. It also seems to be a default position for the vocal cords. For instance, sighing elicits the same position that "uh" does. Because of "uh"'s universal nature I think that it plays an important role in communication. One function is that it allows the speaker to maintain control of the conversation, while granting the listener a momentary break to digest what has been said. I think that if "uh" were to be removed from conversation we would fill the gap with something else, possibly a word such as "so" or "like". However I think that the non-word "uh" is generally preferred because it carries less of a stigma than "like" does.
-Ashley
Posted by Ashley Connelly | February 12, 2008 2:09 PM
Posted on February 12, 2008 14:09