Why we say 'huh' once every 84 seconds
While chatting with a friend, if it ever felt like you knew exactly what was going to be said next, that was probably because you really did. Not just that, chances are that you played an active role in leading the conversation to that very point. And this was done in large part not just by the things you said, but also through signals such as “um” (to express a delay), “mm-hmm” (to express understanding or offer acknowledgement), and “huh?” (to express confusion or lack of comprehension).
Analysing the behind-the-scenes workings that guide our conversations, N J Enfield, in his book, How We Talk, seems to give an altogether new meaning to phrases like “finishing each other’s sentences”. After all, on average, it takes a person just 200 milliseconds to answer a question. That is less than the time it takes for our brains to identify a colour or retrieve a word from memory and pronounce it.
We manage this by constantly predicting what the other person is going to say and when they are likely to finish that sentence, while simultaneously formulating our own response. All this happens with split-second precision every time we have a casual conversation. Astonishingly, this remains constant across cultures, regions and languages.
Researchers from varied disciplines have long studied the functioning of language and the properties of the human brain that have made it possible. The focus, however, has primarily been on the rules of grammar, the formal structure of sentences and the neurological mappings of the brain as it processes language.
Enfield’s work inverts these concerns and seeks to understand language as we experience it—via the “messy back-and-forth of conversation”. Through this lens, this book delves into the “universal core of language” characterised by a system of turn-taking while talking, heightened sensitivity to the passage of time (which is most noticeable when a pause stretches even a fraction of a second longer than usual) and a complete dependence on small utterances such as “huh?”.
Once every 84 seconds
As it turns out, “huh?” comes closest to being a universal word, appearing in 31 languages spread across 16 distinct language families. It also appears once every 84 seconds in a conversation. Similarly, one of every 60 words we say is “um” or “uh” wherein a delay in speaking marked by “um” is invariably greater than a delay marked by “uh”. One needs to bear in mind that the delays in question here are 670 and 250 milliseconds respectively. For those uninitiated in the study of linguistics, it can be hard to register the significance of a 200-millisecond-long pause in a conversation.
However, if one looks beyond all the experiments and the trivia, what really stays with the reader is the sense of deep compassion with which Enfield approaches and discusses the inner workings of conversations and the underlying reasons for the evolution of language. The chapter on “repair” and “confirmation” (seeking clarifications through repetition) does not simply enumerate efficient techniques of exchanging information, but rather conveys a shared willingness to cooperate and resolve problems as they arise in the course of a conversation. It is this empathy that leads Enfield to envision the simple norms of conversations (like the expectation of a response) as following a “moral architecture” that guides our behaviour: “We infer others’ intentions beyond the explicit meanings of their words, we monitor others’ personal and moral commitment to interaction and if necessary hold them to account for that commitment, and we cooperate with others by opting for the most efficient, and usually most helpful, kinds of responses. We help each other, where necessary and possible, to stay on track in conversation.”
(The author is a freelance writer)
|
AUTHOR SAYS
N J Enfield speaks to Down To Earth How has technology affected the evolution of language over the last two-three decades? Technology has played a role in language change for a very long time, going back to the invention of writing, then printing, then telephones, broadcast media, and now the internet, social media, and smartphones. Forms of electronic communications are themselves changing and evolving very quickly, and I don't think that we will fully appreciate their effects on language for some time to come. But these technologies provide a rich platform for human creativity with language. Do you think linking vocalised signals with non-vocalised ones can shed new light on how humans communicate? Yes. Researchers of social interaction are very aware that bodily behaviour such as gestures and facial expressions are important. A lot is now known about how hand gestures are tightly integrated with the words people use in conversation, and this includes various gestures that help regulate the flow of social interaction. Do speech patterns, words and the usage of signals vary depending on the speaker's audience? The context of a conversation can have a strong effect on aspects of how we talk, such as formality. All languages have the word ªhuh?º, and they also have alternatives, such as more explicit expressions like ªwhat did you say?º or polite forms such as ªpardon me?º. This is not so much about one person having more authority, but about the formality of the context. There is a universal bedrock of conversational dynamics that forms the basis of how conversation works. But variation on this is always possible in special cultural situations. Often, in formal or ritual situations, there are special rules or restrictions on how people talk. Here is where we may see cultural diversity. For example, in formal debates, or in church services, there are different rules concerning who is allowed to talk and when. (For full interview, log on to http://www.downtoearth.org.in) |
(This review was first published in the 1-15th July issue of Down To Earth under the headline 'Um...'s the word!').