Modern Wisdom - #630 - Valerie Fridland - Why Is Everyone Saying ‘Like’ and ‘Um’ All The Time?

Episode Date: May 20, 2023

Valerie Fridland is a sociolinguist, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Nevada, a researcher and an author. On average we say around 5,000 words every day. But how often  have you assessed why you communicate the way you do, or where the words you're using came from? This is where the fascinating field of sociolinguistics comes in, exploring the history of our speech patterns and words' origins to help us develop new and better ways to communicate. Expect to learn why languages evolved to be so complex, how to stop saying ‘like’ so much, how social media has impacted the way we speak, why you keep using “um” and “uh” all the time, why Black Twitter is at the forefront of all cool new lingo, the unexpected origin story of the word ‘Hello’, why I apparently have hard time pronouncing my R’s and much more... Sponsors: Get £150 discount on Eight Sleep products at https://eightsleep.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get 10% discount on your first month from BetterHelp at https://betterhelp.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get 20% discount on House Of Macadamias’ nuts at https://houseofmacadamias.com/modernwisdom (use code MW20) Extra Stuff: Buy Like Literally Dude - https://amzn.to/41HmKaR  Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello friends, welcome back to the show. My guest today is Valerie Friedland. She's a sociolinguist, professor of linguistics at the University of Nevada, a researcher, and an author. On average, we say around 5,000 words every day. But how often have you assessed why you communicate the way you do, or where the words that you're using came from? This is where the fascinating field of sociolinguistics comes in, exploring the history of our speech patterns

and words origins to help us develop new and better ways to communicate. Expect to learn why languages evolved to be so complex, how to stop saying like so much, how social media has impacted the way we speak, why you keep using um and ur all the time, why black Twitter is at the forefront of all cool new lingo, the unexpected origin of the word hello? Why I apparently have a hard time pronouncing my ars and much more. Very cool from Valerie. I know that communication and improving your communication is something that an awful lot of people care about, and Valerie's got some really interesting insights. It should help to make you feel far less nervous about your vocal ticks, and remember that the vibe

and the energy of how you deliver things is a lot more important than the specific precision with which you say them. Say the words properly, get the delivery right, and the stuff in between makes a lot less of a difference, it seems. In other news, this episode is brought to you by AteSleep. It is getting very hot here in Austin, Texas, and my AteSleep Pod Pro cover is keeping me alive. It is a cooled mattress topper. It tracks my sleep. It makes sure that as I go throughout the night,

it adjusts the temperature based on how my sleep stages are changing. It is a complete game changer. If you live anywhere that is even remotely warm, you need to have a cooled mattress, because you can't do it with air conditioning. The duvet on top of your bed is literally built to stop heat getting in or out. So trying to control the temperature from outside of your bed is going to be a difficult battle. The pod pro cover fits on any bed just like a fitted sheet,

it will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting the temperature. On each side of the bed, so if you sleep hot and your partner sleeps cold, you can have two different sides. And, best of all, you can save $150 on the PodPro cover by going to 8sleep.com slash modern wisdom. That's e-i-g-t-sleep.com slash modern wisdom and they ship within the USA, Canada, the UK, the EU and Australia. In other, other, muse, this episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. We all need help at some point in our lives, whether it's because of stress at home or work or loneliness, it can be invaluable to know that there's someone professionally trained

who can help us get through whatever we're facing. It's not a crisis line or self-help, it is professional counseling done securely over the internet. The therapists have a broad range of expertise which may not be available in your area. The service is available for clients worldwide, you can log into your account at any time and send a message to your therapist. You get timely and thoughtful responses, plus you can schedule weekly video or phone sessions so you don't even have to leave the house. It is a quicker, cheaper and more convenient way to start doing therapy and if you've got relationship trouble, difficulties at work, stuff from your past that's coming up, or you just want

someone trained that you can talk to, this is a great place to begin. Join over 2 million people who have taken charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional by going to betterhelp.com slash modern wisdom. That's better. H-E-L-P.com slash modern wisdom. And in final news this episode is brought to you by House of McAdamias. House of McAdamias McAdamia units are phenomenal. The ready salted version. You don't need to be super fancy if you like the spicy or the sweet one. Go for it. they are very nice, but the straight up ready salted ones are insane. They are literally like crack. Tim Ferriss, Joe Rogan, Brett Weinstein, all big fans as well, and there is a ton of hype around these at the moment. It took two years of taste testing to get these right, and they really do taste phenomenal. If you

or someone you know is a nut lover, you have to try this out. Macadamia is the lowest carb of any popular nut, 33% less than almonds and 50% less than cashews, and they also have the best fat profile. It's like an avocado on steroids, more heart-healthy, mono-insaturated fat than other nuts. Also, you can get 20% off your entire order and a free box worth $35 with your first purchase. Head to houseofmacadamiaius.com slash modern wisdom and use the code mw20 at checkout shipping to the UK, US and South Africa. That's houseofmacadamius.com slash

modern wisdom. But now ladies and gentlemen, please welcome free-gland. What do you study? I am what's called a sociolinguist. Don't try to say that after a few drinks at cocktail parties. It's a hard one, but it basically means that I study how the underlying linguistic patterns that we take for granted and we don't even notice anymore vary not just by language or dialect, but by social facts about us that are much smaller than these things that we tend to think of as language differences. Why do languages change at all then? Why isn than these things that we tend to think of as language differences.

Why do languages change at all then? Why isn't it just that we have a language and then people use it and people use it and it gets locked in for the rest of time? Well, that's why I make the big bucks or actually not, but that's why they pay me some salary. That's a big question actually and you know, that is what keeps linguist and psychologist and cognitive scientist employed because we don't understand all the forces, but the short answer to that big question is we have underlying cognitive and articulatory pressures that constantly affect us as speakers. So an example of that would be the fact that take a word with a lot of

consonants on it that's a single syllable like whisks, which is, you know, word we use every day when we're cooking. And notice that when you say it in fast speech or just really anytime you say it in speech, you're going to naturally just delete some of the consonants off that. So you'll say you'll whisk it fast. You're not going to say all the whisks, because it's a hard thing to say, or fifths, that's another word, sixths. Those are all tricky words. Well, the reason you delete those consonants is there's a natural inherent pressure, a cognitive preference, we think, for languages to have very minimal syllable structures. And that means no consonants at the end, if possible, some languages actually prohibit all

consonant clustering, but English allows a lot, well, I call it a promiscuous language for that reason. And so it's natural to delete them. That's sort of a cognitive, trying to get back to this cognitive preference we have. There's also some articulatory issues. So for example, words like tha, or words that begin with tha, that consonant cluster, that's sort of a th, but it's actually a single sound. Many, many languages don't have that sound, so for example, my mother is a French speaker

and I used to make endless loads of fun of her because she would say one to twee, because she couldn't make the th sound, right? And she loved it, of course. That was her favorite aspect of our relationship, I'm not sure. But she couldn't say that because it's not a sound in French. That also tells us that it's either artichid, particularly a disperferred sound or cognitively a disperferred sound. So languages will naturally, if they have that sound, try to move towards not having it

anymore, which is why a lot of dialects of English say things like brava or teeth because they're trying to get back to that more natural consonant structure. So those are natural tendencies we have that exist all the time, pressure on us, all speakers, all languages all the time. The part that I'm interested in is the other pressure which is social pressure. So how is my social identity a factor in which of those pressures I succumb to? So if I'm a female, if I'm a young person, if I'm an African American, if I'm a second language speaker, a non-native speaker, what do those pressures, coupled with those linguistic pressures, create in terms of dialects? And it's because these things swirl around us all the time.

We're always having these natural pressures. We're always something socially. We're always changing who we are socially. And that has a big impact on which of those pressures that we allow in our speech and which we don't. And in the end, it's the cosmic language change that results. So language has always had these pressures on it. It hasn't changed.

The language might change, but the pressures don't. We've always been social, right? Back in caveman days, I'm sure they did some social fun stuff. So it's always been there, and we just kind of interact and engage, and then that creates a language change over time. Obviously, it's a lot more complex,

but that's sort of the short-long answer. Is it right then saying that languages seem to change in a particular direction toward simplicity, toward being more straightforward, easy to pronounce? Well, okay. That's a really a trick question, because I think the problem is a lot of times when people think simplicity, they think simplicity in a cognitive sense, and that's really not what we're moving towards. And languages don't always get simpler. Certain types of languages tend to get less complex over time from a standpoint of how they're articulated and maybe how they're structured more phosentactically. And those tend to be large languages spoken by a lot of speakers. So like English, for example,

or Chinese or Russian, they actually have a lot of speakers, a lot of non-native speakers learn it, a lot of adults that may have to acquire it not perfectly, and that causes language to simplify over time because the very complex morphosontactic and phonological patterns that babies are born into and able to acquire because of their greater cognitive plasticity does not exist in that case as widely and therefore over time the rules that are less transparent to pick up atrophy and that is what causes sort of a less complex structure. I wouldn't call it simpler but less complex. So English for example was really complex in its early days it had a lot of endings on all words, so nouns and verbs and

four nouns. So for example, think about how we say, I do, he does. Right, where you have that little S that comes on. Well, imagine that we had to do that every time we used a noun, an adjective or a verb to make sure it fit with all the other words in the Sun it. So like German today has, first of all has grammatical gender, which means that if I have a noun like the moon or the Sun, I have to know whether it goes with other male or female things depending on which grammatical gender it belonged to. So that was one ending and that had to stick on not just the nouns, but the adjectives. There were several verb classes in Old English, so there were strong classes and wheat classes.

So all the ED verbs that we use today are wheat class verbs. So they were a few, a very sort of minority class in Old English. The majority were the things like the sing-sang-song or drive-driven kind of class, where they had these extra endings that you put on. And those weird irregular verbs that we have in English like I drive, he drove, I have driven. That's actually a holdout from the strong classes of Old English. Now they're the minority today and we just memorize them but back then they were a

regular rule. So another fun example is the plural S. We have just one ending to make plurals in English. Super simple. You want to make something plurals stick and S on it. You want to make a new word plural, stick and S on it. But in old English, S was actually the minority way of forming plurals. And it wasn't just an S. It wasn't A-S typically. Many, many other forms of plurals existed. And the reason we have words like oxen and children is because they're hold out from old English plurals that were much more frequent. And in fact, shoes and eyes used to be shoeing and the iron back in the day.

No, right. So these are examples of complexity that we lost over time. I think the trick is we think of simpler as being sort of stupider or primitive and that's actually false in the way of language. And a perfect example is, you know, no one thinks English is a stupid language. And in fact, we've created all sorts of things. We've made airplanes fly.

We've created incredible lifesaving vaccines. You know, we've created the internet. In English, we do all of these things in English. So if we were really getting simpler, that probably wouldn't have happened. We'd be back in the days of Bale Wolf, which no one wants. No one wants to go back to that. Okay, so you have a pressure which is on language,

especially languages that are widely used in popular ones that need to be adopted by people perhaps later in life because they are the cognitive limitations that you have, just being an older person, trying to learn the language as opposed to a child picking it up naturally. Right, oh far-suck, right, when it comes to language acquisition. There we are.

So because of that, you inevitably de-complexify, you reduce down the complexity, and that causes some of the quirks, some of the sticky outy bits that may be a less logical to be eroded away. We end up therefore with a less complex end result, but that can't be the same for every language. And also, why, if that's the case, that languages are on average, especially when they're widely used, trending toward the less complex, why are they complex to begin with? Why not just make it simple from the start? Well, okay, so these are a couple different questions in there.

I think that you've packed in. One thing just to say is, the languages don't always simplify over time. A lot of times through language contact, they get more complex. It's this constant battle between what's good for us as language speakers, which is to make it easier to communicate in the most efficient way possible, which tends to lead to slightly simpler, less complex structures versus the need to sort of have

all the aspects there to form the different things we want to do with language, which is complex in its own right. So they're constant pressures. A lot of times more complexity happens when language is coming contact. So we actually acquire new things on top of the things we already had. But I think one thing they'd be careful of is when we're talking about complexity here, we're talking about morphosontactic or phonological complexity, which just means we have a lot of stuff put on words. There's different types of complexity you can gain. So while English lost morphosontactic complexity, meaning all those endings fell off, because who needs them, right? We gained sort of lexical or,

you know, what would be good pragmatic complexity, meaning, for example, our word order became more fixed. So it used to be in Old English, you could kind of be Willie Nilean, what you stuck at where, because there were little endings on all the words that told you, oh yeah, this adjective goes with that noun over there, right? They're friends. So, you know, you don't have to put them together, because they know they're friends. But we lose those things over time, and then we don't know their friends anymore if we're sticking the adjective at the end of the sentence, and the noun it modifies at the beginning. So as you lose the endings that tell you you work together,

like the wedding rings are gone, you work together, like the wedding rings are gone, so we no longer know they're together. Then we have to do other things that make up for it. So what English did instead is get a more fixed word order. So now our adjectives go before our nouns, right? And our subjects go before our verbs. And our objects go after that. So that allows anybody listening to an English sonnets to know, okay, it's first, so it has to be the subject. Oh, it's last, so it has to be the object. We didn't have to do that back then.

So it's a different kind of complexity. So I do want to be careful until we're not saying that everything's simplifying. But what happens over time is generally that smaller languages that had very few speakers, which was the origin of all language. I mean, back in the day, if we go back 50,000 years when we think language first started,

it wasn't thousands and thousands and millions of people that spoke them. There's very small groups, and they could transmit that kind of complexity. And so what happens is when you move away from small groups and you get to millions of speakers, the original purpose of language, which was sort of to allow communication in a small group, has changed and then language changes with it.

So we're talking about evolutionary processes and that's really what has caused language to change. And when you look at indigenous languages, for example, those, you know, Austronesian languages or Native American languages that have very few speakers often in the hundreds, those languages tend to be much more complex than languages like English, Chinese, or Russian. And that's because their purpose is to communicate in a small group. And therefore, they don't need to simplify over time because they're not having this transmission across large swaths of speakers. And when we transmit, and when I'm saying things change over time because they're not having this transmission across large swaths of speakers.

And when we transmit, and when I'm saying things change over time, I'm not saying all of some, someone wakes up and is like, okay, who needs that morphosin text? Let's just get rid of those stupid endings. I feel like saying eyes instead of eye in today. That's not what happens. It's transmission to children. So when you get larger groups of speakers, then the rules become more opaque to the adults and they transmit those inconsistencies to their children who then acquire the simpler

morphosin text. Oh, so morphosin text is die one generation at a time in that way. All language change works that way. That basically old people don't pick up new tricks. We're kind of like old dogs. We just don't do it. Now, certain superficial things like a vocabulary word. You know, I can learn to twerk.

But that doesn't mean I should. That definitely doesn't mean I should. But it's a lot harder for me to learn something like front vowel tense and laxness, which we have in New York, where you hear like, ca, ca, kiet versus some words like glass wouldn't be, would be tense and some would be lax. So this is really kind of tricky and it's a very, very, very complex rule where you tense the a vowel before so-called

fricatives, which are sounds like S or F. So it'd be Laugh, but Cat. So you'd hear this slight difference. That's something that's really hard to transmit to any speaker learning English, or even an English speaker that moves to New York as a 15-year-old is not going to get that very complex sort of types of pattern in there. So I think what we need to think about complex sort of types of pattern in there. So I think what we need to think about is sort of when we're talking about language change, what general people think about as language changes like a new word I've picked up. But what linguists think about as language change is a new sound system I've picked up,

new vowels I've picked up, new morphos syntax, new endings on my words, new pronouns, which of course were all upset about picking up these days. But that has happened through history. We've had a bunch of different pronouns, and in fact, most of the pronouns we have today, like she and they didn't even exist at the beginning of English.

So they have both come into English and in the middle English period. Therefore, we obviously have changed our pronouns a few times, it's been around the block on that front as well. What about um and uh, because these seem like words that are not only very common in English depending on who you're speaking to, but I speak to friends who are native speakers

of a different language, who make ums and urs sounds in different, it's a different sound even when they're trying to speak English to me. So that seems like a human universal. It is actually, I'm in our fascinating and you know you call them words but there's actually a huge debate in linguistic circles. You know this is what we do late at night about whether they are in fact words or not. They sort of act like utterances that things that sort of just come out that aren't necessarily governed by the same rules that words are, but we also find them written in things where it's like, um, no. And so that suggests a more word like employment.

So, you know, there's kind of a debate over the whether we call them words, but regardless of what we call them, filled pauses, which is what those are, are things that are universal. They've been found in every language study. They do differ slightly, so some languages will have a lot more than two. Some languages only have two, but basically all languages have at least two, and most proto-indulter European languages have something along the form of a or um, and usually they differ by the vowel. Why that sound. What is it that's about the physiology of the mouth perhaps the way that the brain tries to make sounds come out. What is it that's causing so many different languages to zero in on um or uh or something similar? Right well there are a lot of different answers to that depending on which aspect you're trying to answer but just for the sound itself actually it's a really interesting question because if we look at most languages, most of them have sort of a vowel-like, filled pause, like a, that

we write with a UH, but it's just a vowel, you know, like someone punches you in the gut, you just go, wuh, right? And then we have one with a nasal sound. And nasal sounds are things like ends or ends. And so English has a um, but so for example, in Japanese you have anno, which also has a nasal sound. So we find our- That's too syllables, that's interesting.

Yes, well some languages like Chinese and Japanese actually use demonstrative pronouns as filled pauses. So it can be a range of things. And in Spanish, esteth is a filled pa. So that also is something that functions as a word in other cases, but, Estet is a filled pause. So that also is something that functions as a word in other cases, but is brought in as a filled pause. So sometimes languages do that where they use another pre-existing word. Other languages, mostly Germanic languages, use an arm because that seems to have inherited from a proto-language. So we suspect that since

English is very similar to German and other languages like Finnish and Danish and Swedish, they all have these similar types of sounds that they probably weren't hear from Proto-Germanic, which may even have been inherited from Proto-Indo-European. So they're very old. But the reason we probably do that sound is if you'd say that a sound, just say a. A. Alright, so your mouth is kind of just outrested, right? The reason we probably do that sound is if you'd say the us sound, just say, uh. Uh. Alright, so your mouth is kind of just outrested, right? So if you didn't do much with your mouth and you need someone punched you, you got it.

That's the sound you would make. So it's an easy kind of, just simple sound. And it's central to the mouth, so you're not moving to get to different targets like your own speech sounds. It's just what is emanated, sort of as your brain is thinking. So that's probably why that sound in English was inherited. The arm is interesting because one of the reasons we think that sound might be used more than a

or have developed is partially because from a sound symbolism standpoint, it's a more polite sound. So if you go, ah, it's kind of ugly, your mouth's hanging open, a fly can just wander in there. But if you say, um, it's much of ugly. Your mouth's hanging open. A fly can just wander in there. But if you say, Oh, it's it's much more pleasant. Is it? Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh complex things to say, of harder vocabulary, less familiar terms, or really long-syntactic structures, they tend to come out.

But signals to a listener that you're going to just take a really quick delay. I'm thinking about it's coming out in just a second. But when you um, it actually tends to precede longer delays, which means that we are actually pretty intentional about which one we're using. We don't have synonyms typically that don't develop different meanings. So, you know, there's really no point in doing the exact same thing. So, language just automatically tries to give different meanings to them. So, I seem to signal, I need a short delay. I'm

seems to signal it's going to take me a little longer to figure this out. Why would people choose to use this? I understand that it's a sound take me a little longer to figure this out. Why would people choose to use this? I understand that it's a sound, but is this mental cognitive processing? Is this a buffering screen? Is this something else? What's going on? Yeah, you know how on the internet has that little twirly thing? That's basically what I'm in R. And have you noticed that when you're really in a hurry and you're trying to do something complex it tends to give you that little twerly signal more. Same thing with um and they tend to

occur when we're doing more difficult cognitive processing. So you know the idea that um and are sort of signals that we don't know what we're saying or we're uncertain or hesitant are not true in the sense that they signal that we don't know what we're talking about. In fact, what they signal is that we're doing a lot of work to say the right thing or to come up with the right word, but it does signal that we're doing cognitive work and that our processing is going. So it's basically a sort of signal of brain churning.

But what we find is it's not just brain churning if we're doing simple tasks. The more likely it is that we're actually doing harder things, like coming up with words we don't use very often, coming up with more technical vocabulary, or coming up with more complex embedded senate structure, so more phosentactically more complex. So we tend to correlate our, and I'muse with how difficult the thing we're doing is Which is probably why we um and more when we're in context that require you know higher morphal uten sort of speech

Like in the workplace or out school that kind of thing where we want to impress people so we're trying to come up Those big vocabulary words rather than you know twerk How does this, how is this interpreted by other people? So from our side, let's say that it is a byproduct of this cognitively demanding high RAM 64 gigabyte required processing speed that we're going through. That should be the case, if it's true, that other people should always interpret Omzenders as signals of authenticity, somebody that is working incredibly hard to get their sentence across, I really should pay more attention, yet Omzenders aren't exactly valorized as this fantastic introduction into somebody's speech pattern.

Right. So this is one of those really interesting places where things that offer us linguistic benefits, which are really, really do. They're actually very beneficial to us as both speakers and listeners. They don't match up with social benefits because they don't really offer social benefits. On, you know, on the whole, people don't really like an um, and in fact they often think it signals someone doesn't know what they're talking about or they're hesitant or uncertain. So if you go listen to someone give a presentation and they're

umming their way through it, you're probably going to sort of shut down or stop listening, or you'll say to your friends, oh my god if that person says another um, it's going to kill me. And when people over do it, we really, really notice them. So they're not really considered great speech features, but that's kind of funny because they're actually pretty great speech features if we look at them from a linguistic and cognitive standpoint. Part of the problem is in the context that we notice people's umming and i, which is usually presentations or speeches, those are contexts we expect people to have practice, to have rehearsed, to know what they're going to say. And since we know that I'm signal someone sort of thinking through things, I think part of the reason we dislike them in those contexts is because

they signal to us that someone hasn't done their homework. So if someone's giving a presentation and they're eyeing and I'ming their way through it, I'm thinking, God, did you not read this before you came up here and bored me? One thing that we do notice is when people are more dynamic speakers, when they say something that's more interesting and they're more engaging, people actually don't tend to note there as and as much as people that give sort of a monotonous sort of boring delivery and maybe don't have content that's really interesting. So a lot depends on what you're saying. but also the practice issue I think in places where we expect someone to have rehearsed and know their content, signals

that we're working through it is not a great thing to have. On the flip side though, when we look at the research on what an do for us, they both help us as a speaker with speech planning. They signal to the listener that my turn's not done and how long a delay to expect. So those are both beneficial things. But even more so for listeners, if we look at studies that do either eye tracking or event-related potential studies, things that sort of are measures of cognitive processing

on the listener's part, they actually seem to help us have faster recognition of what someone's going to say, be able to better predict what someone's going to say, are better at new information processing, and remember things better later. So that's not bad for a little filled pause. Wow. So we have a bunch of different dynamics crashing up against each other here. One is the buffering requirement or the advantage that using these filler words offer us. Another is that it is potentially useful at helping the people that we are speaking to, both retain and understand what it is that we're saying, but all of this gets filtered through the social expectation, which disincentivizes both the speaker and the listener

from this happening. So that's very interesting to the fact that this is good for you as a listener, but might not be what you want to hear as a listener. Right. But if you look at language over time, anyway, most of the things that we think of as bad speech are actually not bad at all.

It's just sort of social historical accident that we don't like them. So a lot of things. So think about like use, you know, the way that people say like all the time. People hate that. I hear nothing but bad things about like. If I go give a talk, it can be on a completely different topic. And then afterwards, people come up and say, oh my god, I love your talk. Tell people to stop saying like all the time. If only I had that power, right? And I wouldn't want it because actually like is very beneficial. So that's another example of we're doing something to help fill a void that we need in our language

or to help us do a function or a purpose that we haven't found to be met by other things in our language. And yet because they're not the right speakers that do them, or because we take them to signal something else, we socially interpret them negatively. So with un, I think it's because a lot of times we do associate them with hesitancy or uncertainty. And it's true they do signal the fact that someone is working through things.

But is that a bad thing? Why do we think that's bad? That someone is working through what they're going to tell us. I don't want someone to just spout off in coherent stuff because they're not thinking it through. If you step back to consider why we are, and it's actually for pretty good reasons, it's just that we don't like it because it signals to us someone isn't sure about the what they're saying and maybe they haven't practiced enough. What about the difference between using um and uh versus just having silence? You know that's an interesting question. Certainly it's been studied. So in some of the research

that looked at the gain that listeners get by hearing an uh or an um before a word in in a series of sentences, they would also do those same experiments where they had a silent pause instead of inserting an arm before the word to see if maybe it was simply that people have more time to think and that's why they do better at comprehension. And what they found is a silent pause didn't have the same effect, nor did something like a cough that also gave the same amount of time but was a different kind of distractor. And in fact, things like cost actually hindered comprehension. So clearly, we are treating an arm differently

than both other distractors and silent pauses from a cognitive standpoint. So silent pauses don't give us the bump that seems to give us. On the flip side, silent pauses are sometimes better in a context like giving a presentation. So I'm not telling people go stick into your presentation because unless I've talked to that audience before you get there, it probably will still not be taken as great speaking,

but especially at the beginning of a sentence because we do find that people either are, or are at the beginning of the sentence, depending on how long they think it's going to take them to answer the question. So it does seem to be taken as a marker of uncertainty, particularly at the very beginning of a Senate. So that might be one to stay away from. But when we, again, do studies that look at how people take silent pauses versus filled pauses, in some cases, they can take silent pauses as greater signals of anxiety than when someone filled their pause with, or probably because they weren't sure when someone paused in that context, whether

they were just not sure what they were going to say or whether they forgot what they were going to say. It doesn't give the listener the same clue that you know you're working on it. Instead, it might lead to some misconception when you silently pause that either you have it finished, but you don't know what you're gonna say, or you suddenly abruptly did finish and it's someone else's turn. So it can be a little more confusing,

whereas our signals to a listener specifically, I'm working on it, I'm gonna keep talking. So while silent pauses certainly in speeches are sometimes very effective, especially when you wanna add power to what you're saying, so you give people a moment to think about it. It's not always beneficial in casual conversation to do that. I have a friend who does a lot of debates,

and he uses turn-transition cues in a similar way to what you're talking about, but he doesn't use Omar Er, and he learned this from Christopher Hitchens. So he's having a debate with somebody, and one of the things that he's conscious of is that if he gets anywhere close to a pause point within his sentence, do you have the person who's potentially going to jump in and then try and make a point? So what he does is he'll start the beginning of a sentence like that, take a sip of water,

give himself the breathing room to go through things and then keep going because you know, no one's going to jump in it After a the e.k.a. me that's so rude, but if he started it before the beginning of the sentence or halfway through at a point It seemed like a monatural break. It allows somebody to come in. So yeah, I understand that ums and ears are a nice foam finger that you can wave in the air that says I got a little bit more to talk about here Just hang fire one second, mate. I know that I might not get the next word out immediately, but just I require a bit more. Don't jump in here, right?

It's sort of like, hey dude, I'm still talking, kind of signal, but that's exactly right. In turn, transition cues, I'm impressed. That's a big linguistic term. And it basically, to just, is anytime we're indicating to someone that it's their turn, and that can be something that we do spoken, like, saying, you know, stop talking and just have silence, or we can select somebody.

So I can say, Chris, what do you think? And that is definitely a term transition, Q. I can even just look at people, but it's very, because there's so many of them, and they do different work in terms of how people interpret them, it can be very confusing when someone just stops talking or doesn't use some sort of signal that they're either not done or they are done. So, ah, and are a great solution for that. And they do seem to work that way.

I know that you're coming at this from a linguistic perspective, but I would be stupid of me not to bring this up with you. No one on the podcast that's ever listening to this is ever going to see the volume of nods that I put in while the guest is speaking. So as I'm here, I'm just going away, like a little nodding dog sat on the back of a car, that has to be kind of not quite like a turn transition cue, but it's like an encouragement.

So what I'm doing while I'm here is, yeah, that's good, keep on going, keep on going. That's good. Yeah, enjoying it, enjoying it. And then if I need to take, if I stop, it's go, oh, maybe he's got something to say. So this is a silent equivalent of a whatever the, whatever the opposite of a turn transition keep, my turn transition queue. I have a keep going queue.

Yeah. You know, that, it's called back channeling what you're talking about. You're doing a silent back channel. But a lot of times we do it when we say things like, ah, yeah, right, ah, which of course we try not to do on a podcast because you can talk over the other person. My first ever episode was filled with,

mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Yep, mm-hmm. It took a long time for me to do program it. And the person that I picked up the nodding thing from was Oprah. Oh, that's picked up the nodding thing from was Oprah. Oh, that's a perfect person to take cues from. And you know, it's funny because actually it signals that you're a more conscientious nicer listener.

Turn transition. I mean, that back channels are actually a very lovely thing to do that's it's conversational support. You're encouraging someone to keep going. You're showing listenership. It has all those sort of aspects to it but when you do things like Interview guest or I have learned not to back channel too much because I do a lot of

Social linguistic interviewing and the last thing you can do is analyze someone's speech when you're talking over their speech with Yeah, great. Wow So you just sort of learn not to do it. But in casual conversation, it's weird if you don't. And in fact, there have been some really interesting studies about how people take people that don't back channel very much or what, how they misread their intentions. A famous study, of course, was done between men and women with the idea that men tend to not use back channeling as much as women, which is why women think men are assholes. I mean, I'm sure there's other reasons

that we think they're all- Is that true? Is there a sex split? Is there a gender split that are men? You know, there has been some in some. There were some studies when I'm thinking about was done in the 80s by Pamela Fishman, who did some research on conversational discourse. And she found among couples that men tended to not back channel

or did delayed back channeling, which is worse, which is where you don't do it in time. So, you know, there's very normal places to insert that, uh-huh, yeah, uh-huh. That shows excitement and like you're right there and you're keeping up with them. You're listening and you know, yes, keep going. And then there's the, yeah. Uh-huh. That really slow kind of three seconds too late. Yeah. Uh-huh.

That really slow kind of three seconds too late. That means I'm not, I'm reading the newspaper. I'm not even paying attention. So what she found was men used more delayed back channels than women did. That's right. I think, you know, it's changed. I haven't read any recent studies of that. Hopefully it has changed.

I think a lot of things have changed at that time, and we don't find it quite as distributed by male and female anymore. And it certainly can be personality type. There are people that are really avid engaged listeners, more conscientious listeners, and you can do psychological tests to test out those people. And there was a really interesting study

on discourse markers, and those are things like, you know, well, so, and we found that more conscientious people, I wasn't my study, but it was found that more conscientious people tend to use more of those as well. So I think it also is by personality type, and it's probably by sociocultural background as well. But yes, there was a gender difference initially in backchannel. Okay, what about the wood, like,

why does anybody use it? Oh, I love like. I mean, what's not to love about like? You know, a lot of people hate that word. They hate it, except for the verb, where they like ice cream, for example, but the like that's used as a discourse marker are a quotative verb, so those would be things such as,

I'm going to have to watch my like use here. Like he goes to school like, you know, or, and that sort of discourse marker like, that's overdone, but that's an example, or a quotative like would be something where you use it instead of the verb to say. So, if you're talking about a party and you're talking about what John said, you might say, what John was like, I don't think I'm going to go tomorrow, and I was like, I think you should. Right, that's a quoted adverb. So those are very different likes.

And in fact, there are at least three, if not more, different, very legitimate uses of like that are not the traditional uses of like, which would be like as a verb, like as a noun, or like as a preposition. So in a similarly construction, for example, the ones that are less accepted or like as a conjunction. So if you say something like, I feel like, or it seems like, or he pretends like, those types of likes, even that we all use those, are actually frowned upon by the grammar mavens. But the newest forms that we really dislike are those discourse marker likes that sort

of dot to our linguistic landscapes when we're saying things. But if you think about where they show up, and it's not random or chaotic, despite what people might believe, they actually tend to show up when a speaker is trying to do some sort of subjective approximation, an estimation or apply this sort of imprecisance of meaning so that their listener gets that sense that this is their own evaluation of a situation. So if I said, like, he was a lawyer or something, that means I'm telling you, this is their own evaluation of a situation. So if I said, like, he was a lawyer or something, that means I'm telling you, this is my own opinion, I don't really know for sure, but I'm estimating

or approximating what I think he was. Or she's like popular or something. Means it's not quite that, that's not the exact fit, that's not exactly how I describe it, but that's the best I can do, because there's not really words available to describe my meaning. So those are actually very valuable

because what they're communicating to you as a listener is, I'm not making any strong claims about this is exactly how the world is. I'm telling you, this is my perception of how the world is in this case, or it can intensify or emphasize something. So if I said, I ran like 20 miles today, well, you know, I didn't run 20 miles. I don't look that exhausted or that fit. But what I'm saying is I ran a lot. I'm emphasizing just for effect how much. So in all those cases, whether I'm using it as a quoted diver, which then tells you I'm not verbatim quoting what someone says, but sort of estimating what they said, or if I'm telling you an estimate of how much I ran for emphasis, they're actually serving a really useful purpose. It's simply that

age-wise older speakers tend not to use them. They use about instead, or they use, you know, as a discourse marker instead, or some sort of other discourse marker. Younger speakers, people under 40 tend to use like a lot more. And so that's where we really see a generational divide and how acceptable people find it. When did it get introduced? Well, for the popular belief, you'd say the Valley Girls in the 1980s with,

I think it was Moon Unit, Zappa, who sang that fabulous song, Valley Girl, you know, where she liked and gagged me with a spoon all over the place. But that was actually just picking up on an undercurrent of something that was already in Southern California speech at the time. And in fact, and Chris, you're going to like this,

like is a British feature. And we find it traces back centuries in British speech. And if you look at old criminal court transcripts from the 1700s, the old bailing proceedings, which are great documents for linguists you look at old criminal court transcripts from the 1700s, the old bailing proceedings, which are great documents for linguists to look at how colloquial speech was back in the day before we had cell phones and smartphones to record everything. And we find that like actually occurred as a discourse marker as far back as a 1700. So it's been around a long time and I'm afraid we have to blame the bridge for this one.

Okay, I've got a, how can I do this? Let me share my screen with you and let's see if this works. Okay, open and accept and let's see if I can get this. I've got a little video that I wanted to show you. Oh, I may not be able to open unless I quit and reopen. Let's see if this works. I'm not sure. Okay. Let's see if this can work. Can not sure. Let's see if this can work. Can you see that? I see that. Yeah, okay. I think the biggest thing that annoys me

in the whole dating world is fucking talking stages. That shit's so annoying. The whole... And just the inconsistency in them, I literally hate that so much. But I think that's my biggest thing. What specifically? Just the fact of just like you like

I don't know how to word this Like in like talking stages, and it's just like you're like labeled that and it's like people like are considered like You can't like you're just like confused and like Most of the time like the girl gets like gets like attached or something and they like see it like it's gonna lead to a relationship And it's always not and it's just like, that's like my biggest thing is like, I just hate the whole like, how like talking stages are so like normalized, like traditional dating

does not exist in this generation. So that was 27 likes in 48 seconds there. All right, and you know, when you draw attention to it, it really stands out, right? So the fact that we're talking about like it definitely stands out. A couple of things I would say is that's obviously a young woman and that tends to be who we sort of diss in terms of like use, more than young men, although actually studies don't show that there's really a significant difference generally between young men and young women. Older men and women there is some difference,

but generally speaking it's a young feature. And what we find with like is if we look at how it distributes over a lifespan, younger speakers tend to like at a much higher degree than they will as the same speaker 10 years later. So part of that is the stage of life she's in, but notice when she was talking, it's all estimation. She's giving her own impressions, her own opinions, her own sort of approximation of what she likes, what she doesn't, of her opinion. And so, for example, she was saying, I hate when it's like, I can't even remember what she was saying truthfully, but, you know, she was talking about how she feels when things happen. And so, this is a perfect example of why light was so prevalent in her speech,

because almost every instance she's talking about something that is her own subjective sensibility. Now, was it excessive? Certainly. But a lot of times when we look at young speech, we find an overuse of something and that's called age grading, which atrophies as they get older, because it's sort of cool in their set to talk that way. It's part of just sort of learning to use that feature and it's a novel feature coming in, so it gets overused. Then as they go into the working world and people frown upon them as the, you know, one million people

probably wrote nasty comments under that, you tend to lower your use, especially in settings where you would be expected not to use them. So for every parent out there who's freaking out about how their daughter or son uses like all the time in that context, don't worry, I promise they're still employable despite what you might think. What is the social interpretation of the use of the word like? Well, I think it depends on the age group among younger speakers. So I think when that young woman is talking to other young women, it's not noticed at all. I have a teenage daughter and she uses like quite a bit. And when she has her friends on the way to volleyball in the back of the car, it is a

like fest. I hear a lot. I hear a lot. There's a lot of low key. There's a lot of slay. There's a lot of like. But again, that's in her own peer group, and that's very normal. And it's kind of, I think part of the reason that she used a lot is it gives this very young hip kind of urban sort of sense, and that's very much what young women and young men are trying to pull off when they're with their friends. So as she gets old, I'm expecting she won't use it.

But the social benefit to her is it gives off that sort of cool hip, not too concerned with, you know, academics and scholasticness. You know, it's sort of- Yeah, it's in precision in a way it's relaxed, it's a procement. You know, kind of the chill vibe, the sort of Southern California chill vibe. And that's what I think young women are going for. I'm young men. It is also quite prevalent with young men.

But I do know that people, all the time, bring up just like that example, people that use it excessively. And I think the reason we notice and call those out is because they are excessive and unusual. So I teach 20-somethings every year, and they're delightful. And I will tell you, they're very concerned about their like use. I, at the very first day of class, I said, you know, I'll say, what do you notice about speech? Just tell me something.

I don't say, tell me something bad about speech. I just say, tell me what you notice. Every single year, every single class period, like, like, like, like, I hate like. And, like, like, I hate like. And they'll even say, I hate like how people these like all the time. Which is, then of course the rest of the class we laugh every time that person uses like. Because once you've noticed it, it's very, very sailing it. But young people are aware of it, and they are self-conscious about it.

My students are very self-conscious about it. So I make them study it. I make them analyze their speech. I have them have a conversation and record where they use it and how they use it, which gives them two tools. It first lets them see that it's purposeful. Most of the time people don't use it as excessively as that example. And you use it in cases, for example, where you're using it as a quotitive, where you're using it as a sentential at verbal. So if you can put a name to it, it makes it seem a little more like it has a function. But the other benefit is if they want to lower their use and they know how they use it,

you can take things to yourself. Okay, wait, I know I use it as a approximating at verbal. I'm going to use about instead. So instead of saying, I ran like 10 miles, you can just think to yourself, I ran about 10 miles. And so if you give someone the tools by understanding their speech, then they have tools to help themselves, whether they want to justify its use or change its use. So I think that's my approach to like.

Right. So rather than feeling as if like is a curse that gets thrown and scattered across a sentence, and it's essentially impossible for you to get rid of. What you're doing here is saying, it's their purpose. Here are three different distinct purposes. If you want to reduce the usage of the word like, one of the things that you need to do is look at where it gets brought in. And then in advance, perhaps at the start of that sentence, just take an extra halfbeat

and think, I will use about. I will use one of the other replace alternatives. Exactly. Exactly. As a socioling what I love like, you know, I think it's a fascinating thing to study and I love the fact that it's actually much more powerful and purposeful than people give it credit for. But as a person and as a mother, I do get the concern with women and men using like, and especially women because we dis their speech so much that a man can use a young man can use the same amount of like and not be judged in the same way,

and it can have professional consequences, at least we worry about that. So I want to give people the tools to look at like either way. And as long as they realize there's nothing bad about it, there's nothing wrong with it, but it may not be professionally and socially beneficial for you to do it. There's nothing wrong with it, but it may not be professionally and socially beneficial for you to do it. And in fact, the case, understanding it will give you some tools as well. What's happening with vocal fry as well? Speaking of dissing women's voices,

right? Now, this is vocal fries are really interesting feature. And for people that don't understand what vocal fry is, it's that sort of crackly, poppy sort of noise that sometimes comes into particularly women's voices as they get through the end of the Senate. So that would be something like, I don't know about that. Where you can hear that kind of fry, that crackling has come in. We call it creek in linguistics.

We actually don't refer to it as vocal fry. We refer to it as creek of voice, which I think is way more descriptive of what it sounds like. And actually, what happens with creek or vocal fry is that you have the vocal folds, and I'm going to give you, for those of you that are looking, you can see that these are sure to your vocal folds, which are kind of these muscular flaps at the top of the larynx. So usually we have them kind of pulled tight and long, and so you can either open them a little to make a voice-less sound where the air flows through freely, and that would be like a teta sound,

or you can close them and push the air through, and that makes them vibrate. As you do your pitch, too, you push them through the vocal folds, and the vibration of the vocal folds is what determines your average pitch. So in normal cases, just your everyday average pitch, the thing we recognize when we talk to our husbands or our wives, or when someone we know calls us on the phone, that's just normal

phonation, it's called. That's just a certain vibration of the vocal folds. But when we get into creaky voice, what happens is we take those same vocal folds and we kind of bunch them up so they're thicker. Do you see how they kind of get thicker? And think of a rubber band. If you have a rubber band in its pulled really tight and a pin it, it's going to, well, if it doesn't snap you and you go shit, that really hurt. If it stays together, it's going to vibrate at a very regular rate.

But if you kind of let it fall and get soft and you kind of ping it, it's just going to be like, yeah, right? It's not going to really do much. It's not going to be a regular vibration. Well, when you bunch of vocal folds up and you make them thicker and heavier, they vibrate at a slower rate because they're heavier and they tend to vibrate irregularly. Now lower pitch in general is just a slower vibration of vocal folds. If you add on top of that in a regular vibration, that's

when you get creaky voice. And so it happens at a low pitch. What happens is we actually find that men do it too, but because men operate at a lower pitch more generally, that drop in pitch to make vocal fry is not as obvious. So when we notice women doing it, it's because they go from a higher pitch at the front end of their sentence to a much lower pitch to enact vocal fry. What we find as women have been doing it in professional settings, particularly. So one of the biggest complaints you hear is in radio shows or broadcasting where people have women's voices. So NPR is an area where people have complained. In fact, there was a show, this American life

that was completely dedicated, one of the episodes to Vocal Fry and how many haters wrote in because of the women on that show, the broadcasters, the journalists that actually had Vocal Fry in their voices. What we find is early studies in the 1990s and the early 2000s showed that women in broadcasting settings actually vocal fried more than men in those settings

and more than women elsewhere, which suggests that they're actually responding to that pressure for women in broadcasting to have lower pitch voices, which is something that they've had a pressure on them since the 1950s. I mean, I think Barbara Walters spoke a lot about the fact that as a woman broadcasting, she was expected to put certain voice on. There have been lots of complaints by women saying that their high voices were called shrill and unacceptable on the airwaves. Well, what's the solution? Throw in a little low pitch, focal fry. And why don't you do lower pitch just in general? Well, because women get the double

bind of being less attractive in terms of ratings that people give them when we hear them with a lower pitch voice. So women with high pitch voices are more attractive, but not very professional or competent. Men with low pitch voice are both professional, competent, and attractive. So women have this double bind in a workplace where they have to adopt a lower pitch voice to be taken seriously, but then their judges less attractive. So what if you have a high voice with a little vocal fry that gives you a little bit of two more professional urban feel, which is really how women hear that feature. And that kills the problem of being not attractive but professional or being not professional but attractive. So it's kind of a really cool solution, I think.

It not well-loved. So, what you're saying there is other women seem to interpret vocal fry more positively than men do, is that right? Well, I think young men actually don't dislike it either. There are a lot of times what we see is the judgment of older speakers, particularly ones that would listen to MPR. You know, not many of my 20-year-old males listen to MPR in my class, nor my females. Not all of them, I'm sure there are some, but they tend to listen to a little different kind of more, you know, hit stuff.

So, you know, when you get to be older, an older speaker, you have these ideas and norms in your head, and you might be more judgmental. But young women hear vocal fry as urban, as professional, as sort of chill and relaxed, as intimate. So we find positive attributes with vocal fry among younger speakers, and those don't seem to translate so much to older speakers. And part of it's also just the fact that we diss women's voices in professional context. So when women do it and we notice it, it's a bad thing. But if you look at longer term research on vocal fry in British speakers, which is where it was first studied,

British men actually use vocal fry at a rate of three to 10 times more than British women. So, you know, it wasn't considered an epidemic or sort of a vocal pandemic until women in America started doing it at a much higher rate. But even today, it's still men that fry more. Are you familiar with David Putz? Do you know him? Evolutionary psychologist? Yes, I do. I know. He has done a lot of research on voice and evolutionary theories of voice. Correct, yeah. So he was on the show a little while ago and he was telling me, I think his master's thesis, perhaps, or his PhD, was done on vocal pitch and he was looking at, he uses this brilliant example from when he was at uni doing his undergrad and apparently

he was stood in a checkout queue and there was a couple of guys behind him and he heard how low both of their voices were and couldn't believe it. He thought he's going to turn around and see these man mountains or a guy with a Syme's twin that's got a second neck. It's impossible to have such a low voice and he turned around and it was just two normal dudes but stood in between him and the normal dudes was a pretty hot girl. I was going to say I'm sure there was a hot woman somewhere in this story. Right. Right.

You know, interpretations of both prestige and dominance, like lower vocal pitch is associated with longer and bigger vocal folds, which is associated with being a bigger animal over time. That's the same reason that before animals try to fight, they're actually going to growl or make raws at each other. This is how big I you don't want to fight me. Look at the amount of sound that I can make. If you can hear the amount of sounds, you don't want to come near these hands, bro. So yeah, I'm going to bang my chest while I make low guttural noises kind of precisely. Yeah, I actually saw a gorilla do that. A silverback gorilla did that five yards away from me in the

bewendy impenetrable forest in Uganda. And that was not too much. It was just a little reminder that he wasn't happy that we were lurking around him. So one of the trying to tie together a bunch of the different trends that we're seeing at the moment, it seems like we're leaning towards that we're seeing at the moment, it seems like we're leaning toward less formal language. It seems to be like going toward an informal style of language is something that's happening at the moment. How much has social media contributed to the changes that we've seen in language and given the fact that probably for the first time ever we have a higher proportion of people communicating with each other non-verbally, probably ever, ever in history,

ever have you considered how this and the introduction of social media and its propagation and mass use has changed the way that people relate to each other linguistically? Well, you know, that's a pretty new thing social media. Of course, there have been studies on more sort of traditional forms of media, so television, for example, on radio, and sort of to look at how that affects speech. And certainly, I think the last few years, the last several decades, not only has social media opened up the world, but transportation networks. I mean, you don't, there really are no very few undiscovered parts, and that you can't just go on vacation and hang out, right? So it's really changed massively our communication networks and how we, we talk to each other.

So, you know, there have been some studies, I know the ones on television use about how that spreads changes. And what we tend to find is television is one of those things. And social media is the same thing. Is it doesn't have natural social engagement in the way that everyday conversation does? And so if you stick a baby in front of TikTok or if you stick a baby in front of Tom Broca, or some sort of television show, they're not going to learn language from that, not because they're not hearing it,

but because they're not having engagement from it. And what we find with language is its social engagement in an authentic kind of space that really leads to both child language acquisition being optimal and adult transmission of changes. So most of the things we see on social media are most of the things that we see in the world on television are things that are already there at some low level. So they're already in the community. Television and social media doesn't invent anything, but what it does is disseminate it. So once it gets in a place where it's done by someone who has some sort of quality or

some sort of emotional resonance with people, and they do something cool with their language, whether it's something they are aware of or not. Then if I see it on social media and I'm sort of young and influenced easily, or even if I'm old and influenced easily, or they have some quality that I want to embody, it's a very natural thing to kind of move towards that speech style or move towards that word, or move towards the way that they physically move or the way they dress. And of course, the language operates the same. So I would say that the impact social media has

is one of dissemination, not innovation. So no one is doing things on social media and starting a trend in terms of language change. But what they're doing is they're disseminating changes that were in their communities. So I've got an example, and this is a really superficial one, but a good example is the word Riz. I don't know if you've heard that word. So if you have maximum Riz, it means you're kind of, you're really sexy with the ladies. Generally, it was started by a young African

American male. So it's usually used by men and it became the TikTok storm. In fact, I know it because my kids were both joking about who has maximum risk in their high school. And that just means you can just like look serious risk is when you just look at someone, with this sort of zoo lander gaze and they come running to you. And in fact, there were all sorts of TikTok memes where boys would go in front of the TAC track team

and be like giving them the eyeball and then sort all these track women start running towards them because he's at the finish line. Not because he actually had Riz, but that you know, it kind of became a joke. Well, that went viral and not in the community where it started, which was sort of the hip hop African American kind of genre, but because that embodies something that a lot of young men and want to, a lot of young white men love to talk with a hip hop kind of vocabulary. So they pick up words like that

to take those qualities of sort of Maki's Mo and Toughness, which are actually stereotypes about the people that use it not really why they use those features, but those are the stereotypes that young white men have about young African-American men that they're tough and they sort of have a lot of physicality and they're hot with the ladies. And therefore, we take those stereotypes,

we see those features that embody it, and then we pick them up. And that is the power of social media. And it certainly has been very influential in that. I think the question you asked about informal language use is not something that social media has inspired. That's been a tendency in our language over time. And if you think about the 18th and 19th century,

who wants that kind of formality? I mean, it was the height of formality where you had to wear like 50 layers and you had to use these very, very extravagant politeness routines and it took you forever to just get a coffee at Starbucks. I mean, it was a real pain in the ass. Who needs that?

So what we've done is we've become more efficient, I think, in our communication. And what has changed is not our language, but our culture. And our culture has become more informal. And language follows culture, not the other way around. And just like our forms of dress have become less formal. So if you look at most workplaces, people don't wear through-piece suits anymore.

Not happy workplaces, at least. But no one is saying, oh, my god, the downfall of man has happened because we're not wearing really uncomfortable suits and ties. And I think we have to look at language that way as well. There's nothing wrong with being less formal in our language. And really, formality in language is a relative,

cultural belief. If you look back to Old English, the Anglo-Saxons were not the height of fashion or formality. So, you know, more blood feuds in killing. So, I'm sure they weren't saying, sir, kind of, sir, would you mind, shall we do this? I mean, they didn't say that kind of stuff. So, they were very informal in their speech. In fact, you didn't ask someone to do something. You told them to do it. You shout, do X was how you would say it. Not, would you mind, please, kind, sir, do X? So that kind of really fancy formality is really something that was an early modern and early, early true modern period. So it's really not the death of modern decorum. It's simply we've changed to be a more informal society and language is changing with us.

And still when we go to formal cases, formal places and give speeches or go to workplaces, we know how to ramp it up and be dressed up in our speech. So anybody who's worried about that, I think you can rest easy tonight. The black Twitter to white boy pipeline for language is one that is not lost on me. Like massive. Words like bus in no cap. It's just, I find it so funny.

And one of my friends is tapped in hard to black Twitter. And he will be able to tell me about trends that are going to happen six months before they do. So there definitely is a trickle-down effect coming from black Twitter. One thing that I read probably about six months or a year ago now, a judge in New York had had to work out the interpretation of an emoji because a big chunk of a case rested on what this emoji had meant in the form of the conversation. I'm not surprised that probably did happen. Yes, I haven't heard of that specific case, but we actually find a lot of hip hop lyrics

being used in criminal trials to the detriment of defendants usually because of misinterpretation. Well, a lot of times rappers, for example, will be put on trial and we're not talking about, well, big name rappers, but just sort of every day people that have rap as part of what they do. And you know, rap music is built on sort of the experience of being in a place where, you know,

you're fearful for your life, you're having to fight. A lot of times it's sort of a makismo as well. It's sort of building yourself up. It's not truthful or necessarily reflective of anything that actually happened. But lyrics can be very misogynistic and very violent. And in cases where the hip hop sort of lyrics were done by the defendant, they've been used in those trials

to suggest that they were actually talking about what they had done. This is not performance art. This is an indication of what this person's true nature is like. Absolutely. And not only that, but actually if we look at research on when defendants or witnesses use African-American English when giving their depositions or when being a witness at a trial or when speaking on their own behalf, the outcomes for them tend to be much more negative than the outcomes for a speaker that would have used more mainstream English. So there are a lot of problems with the way that we interpret African-American English, even though we glorify it in some context, young white men love it, but what they don't do is recognize the negatives that are faced by people that

use African American English and can't just put it on the way that they do. Yeah, part of the reason as well is with the white guys on TikTok that using the language trickled down from Black Twitter is that it feels a little bit like a lap, right? It's them playing with the language as opposed to being locked into it, as opposed to it being almost native, it's something else. So one of my favorite stories that I came up with, I'd learned from a few years ago, was the development of goodbye

going from God be with you, to God be with you, to just goodbye. Have you got a favorite or any of the favorite word stories of where something developed from that we all use nowadays? Well, one of my favorite is hello, right? Because actually hello was in competition when the phone was first created as a way to answer, and it hello used to be used in British English for sailors a lot of time, I mean, that's sorry for sailors, but for people that wanted to call to someone who was not near them. So if someone was walking across the street, you wanted to get their attention, it was sort

of be a way to yell out at them, hello, hello, you're like, look over here, dude, I'm here. It wasn't a greeting in the way that we use it today. And it certainly wasn't the way answered the telephone. But I think it was Alexander Bell and Thomas Edison were having a little war at the beginning of the phone creation about what should be the way that you get someone's attention on the other line because the old phone lines didn't have a ring or anything. You'd have to say something like someone be walking through the house'd be like, hello, hello, pay attention. So you'd say it because it was the same sort of attention getting device as yelling to someone on the street.

But Alexander Bell, who had created a similar technology as Edison, but for competing, I think it was a mobile, for a competing group, he thought a Hoi made more sense. So people just say a Houy when they entered the phone, because this was a way you'd agree, you know, people on a ship. So he would enter the phone, a Huy, a Huy, that was his attention getting way.

But obviously, what happened is Edison won out in the end. And the reason is because in the first phone book, when they were giving instructions about how to use the phone. Instead of a hoi, they suggested hello. And so that was really the way that hello one out for our attention when we wanted to talk on the phone or just now when we greet each other. So we think of hello as being this really long-term, formal way to do it, but it's actually instead of a hoi, which I think we should go back to a hoi because I kind of like that

What about hi is hi short for hello? I Think I don't know the history of hi so much, but I pretty sure it is short for hello I'm not sure I room I know I've read that but it's been a long time I'm trying to think about what a hoi and hello have in common. They're both similar sounds They both don't have any hard like, plosives or any of those fricatives or there's not, it's the sort of thing I imagine that you could shout at a pretty loud volume quite easily. Is that what's a hoi and hello,

what do they have in common? Well, hello is voiced, right? A lot of voiced sound would tend to be louder and vowels, which are the loudest and high. I think, you know, I'd be curious. I'll have to look up the history of high and figure out how it happens. But a lot of times something might be optimal in its full form, but we as speakers tend to like to shorten things. And so it probably just came up in sort of a simple greeting of the shortening of hello. A lot of times what we'd see is these things happen when people are very intimate and they know each other well,

they sort of do these cute shortening of things and so high probably evolved that way. It's not that different than any other word that would have a vowel because all words have to have a vowel. So high on its own doesn't stand out more than any other word because basically high is just a vowel sound. Hello has two syllables, so we give you two chances to get someone's attention and Ls, which start the second syllable, tend to be

louder than a voiceless consonant, so that could be it. But I don't know from a sound symbolism standpoint that they've studied hello. There are a lot of interesting sound symbolism studies, but I don't think hello has been among them. Your area of work is absolutely fascinating. I think it's so interesting to look at the, it's almost like linguistic archaeology in a way. It actually, you know, a lot of anthropologists studied linguistics. So linguistics in the special field I do is kind of a cross between sociology and linguistic

anthropology. So we look back in time. That's really cool. Some of the old socio-historical linguistics where they go back and we try to recreate how sound change happened by looking at written documents. But in modern speech, I get to go on interview people and talk to them and figure out what they're doing differently. So, you know, for example, Chris, I could record you, stick you on a machine and then sort of do an analysis of your vowels, and sort of show just by looking at your vowels, I would be able to tell who's Chris versus,

who's a American male, just from where your vowels are positioned. And plus your arlist, right? So you delete your ars, post-volcallically. Have you not noticed that? You probably noticed. You said I'm like, the, the, instead of there, or here, you don't have your ars, you have no... That'll be the instead of there, or here, you don't have your arms, you have got a lot of...

That'll be the northeast of the UK. I managed to reintroduce, I had a brutally bad glottal stop because... Yeah, you don't have really glottal stops that stand out. Not too bad, but that's been, I've worked with a vocal coach Miles for two years now to try and just give myself a little bit more of a middle England. I already did quite a lot. I didn't have a massive Northeast of the UK, but when I was growing up I would miss the tease out of the word butter and I'd get slapped on the back of my wrist by my mum who would say,

there's two teas in butter Christopher and you're not pronouncing either of them. So, which is just half the course, northeast of the UK. That's the way that you would speak. Right. Well, now if you're American, you don't have any teas in that budder. Oh, it's D's. Well, it's actually called a flap. It's actually called a flap. But that's for a different episode.

So, you know, that's an interesting right because you have the glottal stop, which is a perfect example of a feature that has a really strong social stigma attached. And what I study is why do we get these really strong social feelings about something that's a sound? You know, a glottal stop is a sound. And when you say the word up, every English speaker, if they say the word up, actually has a glottal stop at the beginning of that word. So think about up.

You can feel that your glottis catches, right? It's because you're making a glottal stop. So no one, you know, criticize you when you're saying, up, but yet if you say, but, or what? Oh my God, like, you know, linguistic argument, or argument, or no, what's that even, I can't even say that word. It's linguistic hell.

I think you can do it. So that's a perfect feature there that exemplifies why I study what I study. Okay, but you gave a great example of your R. So you said yes, instead of years. Yes, that's two. Another one is, yeah, I get the piss taken out of me by a lot of friends for years and years, but it's yours. Right. That's a perfect, and you know, that's a fascinating one from a historical perspective because that is really sort of high class British speech, right? To drop your Rs. So if you have your Rs. Not so not so fabulous and Britain now in America if you drop your Rs. You're you're kind of pretentious and uppity or you're a New Yorker, right?

You're either a New Englander and you're like a Brahmin, you know kind of upper class or you're a New Yorker and you just sound cool and you're like a Brahmin, you know, kind of upper class or you're a New Yorker and you just sound cool. But generally Americans don't do it. But fascinating fact about those Rs is British speakers until the 19th century did it because it was considered bad English to not have your Rs. But in the 19th century it flipped around because it started to be the way that speakers

women particularly in court in the, you know, Royal Court spoke. And then it became cool to drop your Rs. the way that the speakers, women, particularly in court, in the, you know, royal court spoke, and then it became cool to drop your Rs. But prior to that, you actually will find write-ups from the 1700s that criticize that nasty vulgar R-dropping that some British speakers in London were. I'm part of the new era of R-dropping, okay? You are. You're the cool, swav R-dropper.

Thank you. I knew that you would understand all of the people in America that take the piss out of me for the way that I say yours No longer need to because I have the seal of approval from someone who's professionally trained Well, I mean Americans love British accent, so I don't think you have to argue with that I in fact was talking to somebody very very successful who has a Regional dialect he doesn't like and so on his voice Mel he had a British speaker recorded for him because you know British speech is so fancy. Well look if my accent is a competitive advantage over here then I'll take it as a win. Given the fact that I had to survive

Independence Day last year which was very difficult for me personally obviously as I was watching watching your country dance on the ashes of mine's lost ambition. Where should people go if they want to check out more of the work that you do? This is fascinating. Well, first of all, it's been really fun to talk to you about it. And yes, I think if you're looking for a second career social linguistics would be for you. But if people want to learn more about me, they can obviously pick up my book, which is like literally dude, but you can also go to my website, which is just valeryfreedlin.com and you can read some of my other work and sort of learn about the types of research I do. You can even participate

in a research study. If you click on that link, there's all sorts of fun to be had there. Valery, I appreciate you. Thank you. Sure, thanks for having me.