My Platonic Talk post drew some attention from some fellow media trainers and communicators. Apparently, I have not been alone in my assertion that “perfect speech” is not the road to perfect communication, but is in fact a hindrance. Backing that up, I have an anecdote from a study that I remembered reading years ago… and now I have other pros who would like the opportunity to cite it.
(Nothing like sticking it to the Toastmasters.)
I still have not found the original study, but apparently there is some other evidence out there backing up the concept:
At least one “expert” seems to think ‘um’ and ‘uh’ are just placeholders that indicates that “Iron-tongued John” is not ready to pass the drum to the next speaker:
A two-person conversation becomes like a tennis match. Inevitably there are short periods of silence as people pause to let the other person take over the speaking. But sometimes a speaker doesn’t want to give up their turn and instead wants a little extra time to think about what they’re going to say next.
Of course, Dr. Juan is no linguist. His column also answers questions about tapeworms, telepathic whales, and urinating after sex to prevent STDs.
For those who want to see a little balance here, Mother Tongue Annoyances has a post detailing a strategy to eradicate ‘um’ and ‘uh’ through the social equivalent of electroshock therapy:
Sure, these involuntary ‘placeholder,’ ‘filler,’ or ‘bridge’ noises are understandable in their way. However, in my opinion, one of the hallmarks of a professional teacher, trainer, or public speaker is that his or her speech just f-l-o-w-s as naturally as possible, and is relatively or completely free from extraneous filler words.
Within the comments, however, comes a key piece of rebuttal. With citations, if not links:
kev wrote:
Um’s and Ah’s are not the problem, the problem is a rightious audience not paying attention to actual content.
Some are convinced that Um’s and Ah’s are bad and will notice them because in semi-intellectual circles it is an accepted practice. If you have ever really wanted to listen to what someone has to say, (ie. your boss talking about your job evaluation), you simply do not notice the um’s, because the emphasis is on the content and not theatre.
Studies have shown, in fact, that natural um’s and ah’s HELP listeners understand, whether is is an implicit indication of new information to come (Arnold et al, 2003), whether the speaker is about to engage in a difficult topic or one that needs emphasis (Bortfeld et al, 2001; Fox Tree et al, 1999), or it simply a way a speaker can identify with the audience and thus have the audience respond quicker to the speaker (Corley et al, 2003.)
However, excessive um’s and ah’s have also been shown to have detrimental effects on public speaking, but my point is that natual disfluency in speech is not as bad as some of you guys make it out to be. Ever try to understand someone talking about an entirely new topic without ever using um’s or ah’s to pause? Its harder than learning from someone you identify with and who also takes appropriate pauses.
- Arnold, J. E., Fagnano, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2003). Disfluencies signal thee, um, new information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 25–36.
- Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in spontaneous speech: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123-147. ;
- Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280-295.
- Corley, M., Hartsuiker, R. Hesitation in speech can. . . um. . . help a listener understand. (2003). Proc. of 25th Meeting of Cognitive Science
Thank you, kev. (Let’s remember to sign those comments in full so we can properly credit you in the future…)
I’m not going to hash out the rest of this. But here are some additional links in support of my thesis, that perhaps will lead someone to find my Holy Grail. Dig away:
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Speech, Communication, Language, Media Training, Communication Theory[/tags]
Ike,
All those filler words and phrases (including “at this point in time”, “you know” “like I said” “in other words”) were always a professional consideration because we had to edit them out when I was a TV reporter (no time for those in an 8 second sound bite). It wasn’t until I began coaching however that I realized how they decrease the speaker’s effectiveness when you hear them “unfiltered” by the edit booth. Count me as someone who works hard to get clients “comfortable with the silence.”
Good stuff, and valid points. (Thanks for the link, BTW.)
Your thesis brings to mind Aristotle’s “golden mean” and the notion of
You are correct: conversation is an organic quantity, and I can buy into the idea that an occasional nonce sound such as an ‘um’ or an ‘ah’ can help both the trainer and the student process the information at hand more efficiently.
On the other hand, you probably know as much as I do that there are many, many many public speakers who either through lack of trainer, poor preparation, or some other factors or combination of factors, succumb to a preponderance of these filler noises, and these help no one.
Two cents,
Tim
Aileen — I’m with you to an extent. But when fear of not “being perfect” gets in the way of organization, confidence, and content… it undermines everything we work toward as coaches.
*** Anyone find the golden citation yet?
And of course, not all “ums” and “ahs” are equal. Perhaps the biggest problem with filler noises is not that they break the flow of speech, but when the particular noise a person is in the habit of making is unusual or loud or long or just plain weird.
This is often relatively easy to fix once people are made aware of it.
I just listened to a recent podcast where I used too many “umms” as thinking pauses. Something to work on.
On another note, I want to congratulate you on your rise in rankings. A little birdie tells me you’re almost into a new top Technorati category.
I’m on the verge of cracking the esteemed “Technorati 400K” list!
(And your podcast sounded fine…)