In my last post, I spent a little time talking about a book I'd already read, this time I want to talk about a book that has officially become my first priority on my Must-Read...Eventually-List. I was turned on to this book, by Ted Landphair's unique review which had several um's and uhh's in the preview. I had to see what this was about--with all the warnings of every English teacher I've ever had ringing in my head--because this a piece was in Voice of America. What possible exception allowed someone to write umm, uhh, and like (my English teachers especially complained using these words verbally, much less writing them) in their work?!
What Landphair had done was play upon, Michael Erard's study on the verbal mishaps of English speakers with words such as "umm", "uhh", "like", and spoonerisms. Erard wrote about them in his book entitled Um...: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean and further went on to explain why it is that we stumble.
It is very rare to find someone who doesn't stumble to find words, "...such as the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ...It's called 'eloquence.'" It is human nature to mix up words because we compose and think while we're talking. This is essentially the most basic form of multi-tasking we do and when we can't multitask properly we fill the gaps with instead of space words like "umm", "uhh", "err", "like", and "you know what I'm sayin’?". This isn't saying that we're dumb or incompetent (although Landphair argues that today's youth is verbally lazy), but rather that we are only capable to a point. According to Erard's calculations, we rack our brain for one word every four hundred milliseconds, meanwhile we must verbalize what we're thinking.
He goes on to discuss why it is that we get so angry about our blunders. Erard discussed the consequences of linguistic blunders with public-speaking professionals and self-righteous amateurs, who in turn basically related that in certain circles language is a sign of competency and the use of umm and uhh lengthens conversations and decreases the listener’s attention. Erard uses as an example the constant blunderings of President George W. Bush; he ascertains that the media has pounced upon Bush's constant verbal blunders and helped expound upon the idea that Bush is incompetent, an argument I'll reserve for another day.
Other causalities of blunders, including bilingualism and age, help Erard conclude that malapropisms are not representative of ignorance or inability. We should be cautious about the assumptions we make about people especially in these latter two instances because at the base of it all we're all human.
What Landphair had done was play upon, Michael Erard's study on the verbal mishaps of English speakers with words such as "umm", "uhh", "like", and spoonerisms. Erard wrote about them in his book entitled Um...: Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean and further went on to explain why it is that we stumble.
It is very rare to find someone who doesn't stumble to find words, "...such as the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ...It's called 'eloquence.'" It is human nature to mix up words because we compose and think while we're talking. This is essentially the most basic form of multi-tasking we do and when we can't multitask properly we fill the gaps with instead of space words like "umm", "uhh", "err", "like", and "you know what I'm sayin’?". This isn't saying that we're dumb or incompetent (although Landphair argues that today's youth is verbally lazy), but rather that we are only capable to a point. According to Erard's calculations, we rack our brain for one word every four hundred milliseconds, meanwhile we must verbalize what we're thinking.
He goes on to discuss why it is that we get so angry about our blunders. Erard discussed the consequences of linguistic blunders with public-speaking professionals and self-righteous amateurs, who in turn basically related that in certain circles language is a sign of competency and the use of umm and uhh lengthens conversations and decreases the listener’s attention. Erard uses as an example the constant blunderings of President George W. Bush; he ascertains that the media has pounced upon Bush's constant verbal blunders and helped expound upon the idea that Bush is incompetent, an argument I'll reserve for another day.
Other causalities of blunders, including bilingualism and age, help Erard conclude that malapropisms are not representative of ignorance or inability. We should be cautious about the assumptions we make about people especially in these latter two instances because at the base of it all we're all human.
~1~
.jpg)
2 comments:
Hey,
You raise a good point. Is it different for someone to write about um's and uh's in formal speech? Then it is to speak them? Example when people speak on television, we obviously here the um's and uh's, yet one reads the copy of the speech, those uh's and um's have been erased.
Nice post! Several classmates have written about the same topic so be sure to check out their blogs. I will also add that the original psychological research that showed that Umm and Uhh have distinct functions in English speech was conducted by Herb Clark, a professor in psychology here at Stanford! Check out his work if you are really interested in how all of this works, and how we can use science to figure it all out!
Post a Comment