Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques - 91. Um, Like, So: How Filler Words Can Create More Connected, Effective Communication

Episode Date: May 23, 2023

We’re often advised not to use “um” or “uh”, or “so” and “you know” in our communication. But linguist Valerie Fridland might argue otherwise. “Language is about how we encode both the linguistic message and a social message,” she says. “Crutch words … are really valuable and they have arisen to serve a need.” In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Fridland sits down with host and strategic communications lecturer Matt Abrahams to discuss how and when we use "you know","so", and other filler words. For example, Fridland says, the way we use “um” varies greatly from how and we might use “uh.” And the use of “like,” while deplored by many, actually serves a linguistic function and can provide context and background for a listener.She and Matt also discuss the social linguistic function of vocal fry and whether emojis have a place in business communication. Fridland is a professor of sociolinguistics at the University of Nevada. She's an expert on the relationship between language and society and recently released a new book, Like Literally Dude: Arguing for the Good in Bad English.Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> [e-mail] Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn,  Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedIn ********Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.Strawberry.me. Get 50% off your first coaching session today at Strawberry.me/smartJoin our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Hi, Matt here. We have two days left before we close our listener viewer survey. A big thank you to all of you who have already provided feedback. Please take a few minutes to share your input on the show. We still have a few prizes left to give to lucky respondents. Go to FasterSmarter.com.com. To give us your input. That's FasterSmartter.com.io slash survey. And now a word from one of our sponsors.

Their support allows us to bring you quality content free of charge. If you've ever thought, I know I can do more, but something's holding me back. You're not alone. Whether you're navigating career growth, seeking better balance, or wanting to communicate with more confidence, coaching can help you bridge the gap between intention and action. At strawberry.comme, you'll get matched with a professional coach who's trained to help you clarify your goals, build lasting confidence, and make intentional choices professionally and personally. This is not therapy. It's not consulting. It's a thought partnership designed to help you take action with more clarity and purpose. I strongly believe in the value of coaching. All of us can benefit from the help of a coach.

Visit strawberry.combe slash smart to get matched up with your coach today. That's strawberry. dot me slash smart and get 50% off your first coaching session. It's the most affordable time ever to see if coaching is right for you. When we think about the words we use, we tend to focus on making sure we communicate our meaning. But in fact, communicating information about our relationship, our connection might be even more important. I'm Matt Abrahams, and I teach strategic communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast. Today I look forward to speaking with Valerie Friedland. Valerie is a professor of sociolinguistics at the University of Nevada in Reno. She is an expert on the relationship between

language and society and recently released her new book entitled Like Literally Dude, Arguing for the Good and Bad English. Welcome, Valerie. I am super excited to do that. I am super excited to dive into our conversation today. Well, thanks, Matt. I'm really excited to talk with you. Great. And I love that I just get to say, dude, like I used to say, growing up in Northern California near Santa Cruz, I'd like to get started with a high-level question. What is the purpose of language? And how does it relate to and reveal who we are? The purpose of language is really twofold. It's about communication of information. So I have a message and I want you to have the same message in your head, and that requires that I somehow get it to you, and the best way to do that

is speech. But the second is social. We don't just talk to transmit information, and so it's not just the message in my head strictly into your head. It's also my feelings about the message in my head, my feelings about our relationship, and my sense of how welcome this information might be to you. So all these different factors enter into communication. So language is about how we encode both the linguistic message and that social message. It really has two elements, the information and the connection as well. And we have to be mindful of that for sure. I have like lots of detailed questions to ask. So let's get into them. Can you talk about the power of the word like and the power of the word so? I see these creeping in everywhere. Absolutely. And I think a lot of them

are thought of as crutch words or words that are not necessary, but really they're not at all the verbal riff-ref that people assign to them. They are really valuable and they both have arisen to serve a need and everything that we use in language comes in because it has a function that maybe some people don't value or they have a different way of meeting that need, but then the speakers that bring in those innovations clearly are finding a need for it. And like is a perfect example of that. Like has a bunch of different purposes and historically has been in the language a long time. So we find verb like. Obviously, it was more like lice at the time, but that comes in around the 12th century into English. And gradually over time, by the time we hit the 15th and 16th century, all of a sudden,

like could be a preposition and like could be a conjunction. That doesn't mean we always like the new forms of those speech features. And even conjunction like is still thought of as being incorrect in grammar books. So if you look at contemporary grammar books, a lot of times they'll tell you do not use like as a conjunction. It's just sort of an example of how these forms shift over time. we often don't like them when they're doing it. But the newest forms of like are ones that are not directly related to the literal meaning of a sentence. And I think that's why people have a lot of problems with them. But they have a lot of power and purpose. So you can use like as an approximator. So it tells you I'm estimating something. I'm giving imprecise information on purpose. And that's when

we use it instead of about. So if I say he's like 12 years old, I could have said he's about 12 years old. It's a one-to-one shift. No one is more meaningless than the other. But simply younger speakers prefer to do what would like. Older speakers prefer about. So it's really just a generational divide in that case. We also find it as a sentence particle. And that's where we just sort of put it in for some sort of relational information that it's giving a listener. So it's telling a listener, what I'm about to say is connected in some way to what I just said. And that's usually when you say it's sentence initially. So you might say, I don't think I'm going to go to that party. Like, I'm too tired. And that's where I'm saying, I'm going to give you an example or a reason that's

subjective, that gives you more information on what I just said. So it's connecting the two phrases. And the final use is something we call quotative verb, which is be like. So that's when you're using it instead of the verb to say to give off the sense that it's not verbatim. The verb two say really implies this verbatimness to it. It's not really what I'm thinking while this is happening. It's more what I was saying while this is happening. But if I want to convey to you that I was thinking something when an event in the story was happening, the verse is to say doesn't allow that kind of subjectivity, but say, I am like, I was like, that allows that extra piece of information that this is my subjective interpretation of events, this is my

thought process, and it doesn't mislead someone into thinking it was a verbatim quote. So that's, it's power. It does these extra things that we don't have without that feature. In terms of so, there are a couple different soes and several of them are new in our speech. One is the sentence initial so. Is that the one that you were thinking about? Yes. Or as a transition. Yeah, it's the same thing. Everybody's so. Okay. Like, so, I wonder what you're doing today. A lot, I've heard about that one a lot. I get a lot of email saying I hate the so that comes out at the beginning of the sentence. And it's so funny that people, and there I use this, so, it's, there's so is everywhere. It's very funny that people dislike that one because there are so many different features we use

to connect sentences. So if I say something like, therefore, thus, hereafter, no one's says those are crappy and don't use them. I might not have friends to go drink at the bar because those sound are a little bit weirdly formal, but they are connectors. And sew is doing the same kind of work. For some reason, people are particularly opposed to sew. I think it's because it's become pretty prevalent. But the sew there functions as something called backstory sew. So what it does is it tells somebody, I just said something, or you just said something. And now I need to connect what I'm going to say to what you said, but I can't jump directly in because there's a whole backstory you need to know before I get to telling you what you just asked me. And I think people don't like it because sometimes

it seems like you're going off topic because it's introducing this backstory. But a lot of times it's because the speaker feels like that backstory is important to progressing in the conversation. So it has a power and a purpose because it's introducing supplemental material that otherwise would feel odd without some sort of indicator by a speaker of what its purpose is. and that's how we all interpret that so. It is amazing to me how much work these very tiny words do for us. And I appreciate you articulating

just the way these words work. I mean, they're almost like Swiss Army knives that can help us in so many different situations. You brought up a point that I didn't realize was a pet peeve until I heard you speaking. At the beginning of phrases, before people have even said anything, they'll say, I mean and you know.

And they haven't said anything. So I don't know. What's up with that? A lot of times people say them when you're in conversation. And so I mean is usually an indicator that you're going to refine or provide some sort of additional information on something or clarify something that was previously said. And it's often something that was either said several turns ago that you said or it's something that someone asks about or someone makes a comment about that you want to refine

their understanding in terms of interpreting what you were saying. So if someone will say, I mean, I didn't really think that, but I guess now that you say it, it's true. Where it's sort of saying, okay, yes, I'm stepping back to further explicate how what I'm saying relates to what you're saying. You know is interesting because it invites audience inference. That is the idea of, you know. So when I say, well, I was doing this, you know, and then this happened, what it's doing is it's involving the listener in a sort of collective storytelling or collective conversation building. And that is why I say, you know, it's because I want to involve the listener in some way in this collaborative process. But because it's inviting listener inference, sometimes listeners don't interpret it positively because they feel like you're asking them to do work.

It's asking the listener to refine their thinking or to do extra work in thinking when it's not their turn. And I think part of the reason that people dislike you know is because they don't want to feel involved at that level in someone else's turn. So it's a mismatch, I think, between my attempts to involve you as a listener in our conversation collaboratively and your attempt to be sort of just a static listener and not have to get involved all the time. It's definitely age-driven. I find that discourse markers tend to be used more by young women. Some studies have supported that. And older men in particular find them disfavorable, which can then hurt women in these professional contexts because that's underlying. an evaluation that no one might be aware they're making, but they may feel like a woman's being

less certain or less sure or less authoritative because she's inviting inferences from the audience. And we found, though, when we look at studies of who uses these, it tends to be people that on psychological tests prove to be more conscientious. So it seems to be women because historically they've been forced to be more the organizers, the conscientious ones, the ones that manage conversation, and that makes them more useful to them. You've really opened up my mind. mind to these phrases that had been bothersome to me. And it strikes me that, you know, and I mean, are really helping one of the two functions of language, which is the social, emotional aspect of it. And that research you shared is fascinating. And it certainly highlights

the point that the words we use and the way we use those words impact how people see us and what they think about us. And part of the reason why I think what you study is so important for everybody to really take time to understand is judgments are being made about how you are using language. It's not just are you communicating your information well, one of the purposes of language, but the impact of that in terms of the socio-emotional relationship is really playing out. In my world, as somebody who focuses on spoken communication, filler words loom large, the us and the ums. They can be very distracting, especially when repeated too often. many people are given the advice to get rid of these.

I'm wondering, what is the purpose of them because they're ubiquitous? And do they help us in some way? And to your point you just made, are there differences in terms of gender, age, expertise when it comes to filler words? Yes, that's a big question. So I'm going to unpack it in a bunch of different little levels. Let's first tackle the idea of filled pauses, which is what linguists refer to as um and a, which are slightly different than filler words more generally, from a cognitive standpoint and also from a function standpoint.

So things like you know and like don't actually pattern the same way as a and um. So when we things don't pattern the same way, we kind of separate them. So Phil pauses are things that seem to signal cognitive processing load. So they occur mainly before we're doing really hard cognitive retrieval. So that means they're going to be more likely before difficult words, more abstract words, less common or familiar words, as well as more hierarchical, intensive. syntactic structures. What I mean by that is, for example, at the very beginning of a sentence, they're going to occur more often, as we find in research, because my brain has to build the

entire structure of the sentence before I get started. And so the um or the a are signaling, okay, I'm really working hard here. So I think it's interesting. We hate them so much when actually they're signaling someone's doing really hard work in that conversation. And people that choose very familiar words don't um and uh as often because they're not doing such con. Con, retrieval. Now, that doesn't mean they're doing dumb things. It simply means when I do use them, I'm really working hard at coming up with things that are less familiar for me. The other thing is they have a communicative part. And so when I, um or a, not only does it signal I'm doing some heptychognitive retrieval, but it also signals to a listener that I need

a break. I need a pause. And I'm not done with my turn yet. Because we find that when people are either giving lectures or telling stories or talking to computers, all these contexts where we're not expecting to be interrupted, they um and uh less often, which tells us there's something intentional and communicative about using those. And since we do it when we're in conversation more often, what that signals is I'm telling you, back off, buddy, this is my turn and I just need a second. And the really fascinating thing is when we study what happens after the um or the uh, we find that uh is preceding shorter delays than um, which suggests that I'm actually intentional in telling you as a listener, this is going to be just

to second and I'm coming right back, or um means I'm doing more cognitive work and it's going to take me a little bit longer. So we really seem to signal very specific information by our choice of whether we, uh, or um, and because they signal cognitive processing load, which generally occurs with new or harder information, listeners seem to become more attentive when we use an uh or an um before words. And when we set them up in eye tracking experiments or with ERP type brain scan measurements, what we find is it increases. their speed at word recognition. And this one is the one that makes me really impressed. It also seems to help them remember those words that were preceded by a or um better than when they weren't

preceded by those in the tests that we give them later on. So the funny thing to me is how much we despise um and uh, how much we tell people to get rid of them when really there's nothing from a linguistic standpoint that's not beneficial. However, from a social standpoint, clearly they're not well loved. and that means people might perceive you badly when you use them. But I think what we can do in terms of training ourselves, if we're worried about our ums and us, is use the information that linguistics can give us to look at how we can be more effective speakers

from a social standpoint by taking what we know linguistically and applying it to our own practice. So to do that, we need to make things more familiar, make things less difficult, and make things less abstract. Because we know that the more we do that, the better we will be in terms of lowering our rate of um And so the more I practice and the more I'm prepared and familiar with my material, the less likely I am in those contexts to use um and ah because the whole point is I won't need to be doing as much

cognitive activation. And so there are ways that we can use this linguistic knowledge to help us with our social knowledge as well. There are so many things that Amina seem to do to really help us. I learned so much from you in that answer. The fact that it signals cognitive processing, which means we're doing good work on behalf of our audience, and yet the fact that as audiences we might see the amina in a very different light, the person's nervous, isn't prepared, etc., is fascinating. I'd love for you to talk to me about how we end our sentences in terms of vocal quality. Some of us go up at the end of our sentences to make them sound like questions,

even though they're not. And others of us can get really quiet, or even what's known as this vocal fry where you get it really gravely at the end of sentences. Does this serve a purpose at all? And is it troublesome in terms of language and language use? I think it's only troublesome to those that really dislike it and to the people that are affected by those who dislike it. Up Talk and Vocal Fry are both things that have been strongly associated with women's voices in contemporary American culture. And this can be really problematic for women because women tend to be innovators. They generally lead in language change.

and women's voices also historically are not welcomed in many public forums. So when you take voices that are inherently biased against anyway, and then you make them innovators and you do noticeable things like invent new forms and fashions and speech, it doesn't usually go well for you. And that seems to be what's happening with both Uptalk and Vocal Fry. Both of those are ways to signal social meaning. And usually they signal something about either you want to make sure people know you're going to continue your turn.

So up talk in the way that you're talking about where it's not actually a rising intonational question, but it's rising intonation on a statement that has been used primarily to signal continuation of a speech stream. And so women might be using this more often because often they are talked over. So if we look at research particularly in public domains like professional or educational settings, even though there's a strong belief women talk more in those settings, they generally do not. and in fact often don't speak up because they're not treated very well when they do. They don't feel like their voices are welcome. And so it has made them maybe be a little more clear that they're not done with their speaking term

because in those contexts, we do find women that tend to get interrupted more often. There was a really interesting study of Supreme Court justices where they found in oral arguments, female Supreme Court justices get interrupted at a much higher rate than male Supreme Court justices, both by men and women. It wasn't just men doing it. it was both groups just seemed to interrupt women more. So one solution is to rise your intonational pattern to make sure people are not misreading, your turn is being done.

So that's a really effective strategy. It's not troublesome in the way that it's actually a very ingenious way to try to get the turn. But it's troublesome in that people tend to really strongly associate this upward intonation pattern with question formation. And because even though they know you're not doing a question, because they're very strongly tied to these norms of what they think speech should be used for and intonational patterns being one way and not another, they often call attention to it. The other one you talked about was vocal fry, which is sort of the opposite pattern where you drop in pitch. That seems to signal I'm getting

to the end of my sentence. So that's a totally different cue. So instead of signaling continuation, signaling, I'm done with my thought. And it does also seem to be something prevalent in women's speech in the United States. But interestingly, if you look at the studies on vocal fry, historically, it tends to be more of a male feature, and it was considered a hyper-masculine feature when studied in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s. And in fact, even in smartphone data that was called and studied in 2021 to look at the distribution of vocal fry in British speech, again, it was strongly a male tendency, not a female tendency. But what has really prompted its use here is, again, the need for women to adjust their voice to be taken seriously. And we find a correlation with vocal fry and ratings of professionalism, urbanity, and sort of intimacy and relaxed tone.

And that seems to be what's driving young women to use it these days in American speech to get that sort of professional boost and that competence and leadership boost that is associated with low pitch and men's voices. Again, both of these are signaling social cues to help people understand how to relate. you've certainly underscored the power and status transfer of information that comes through the language we use, the words we use, but also the way in which we say it. I'd like to switch gears here and get to two questions that are rather personal in nature. Several years ago in my strategic communication class at the business school, I asked if emojis were appropriate in business communication. And again, several years ago, I'd say the results were about 50-50 from my students. And just recently, knowing I was going to be speaking with you, I asked exactly the same question. And the result was dramatically different.

Virtually everybody said that emojis are appropriate in business communication. As a linguist, what do you think of emojis? Are they appropriate in our communication? Are they serving a purpose and function that words aren't doing for us? I think they absolutely are. There have been some studies in the early 2000s on texting speech or computer mediating. communication, and they looked at things like emojis, and they found that they were actually quite rare at that time. They were only about 4% of our communications in that forum. But I think

you're right that in the last 15 years or so, it has grown exponentially how much we use those kinds of meta messaging in our texts and our emails. And I think it's because there has been such an explosion, especially with the pandemic, but even before that, with our forms of communication in the workplace, we have gone to. from communicating over the phone and face-to-face to communicating primarily over email and texts. I have two teenagers and I don't think they even know how to use a phone. I'm not kidding. My younger son yelled at me for calling him on the phone. I'm like, that's what it's for. He's like, no, no, no, no, this is a texting device. Exactly. So it has shifted so dramatically how much

we use these different kinds of techniques of getting in touch. But what the problem is when you're not face-to-face is the communication of all these social messages that we give when we talk on the phone or we talk face to face are not available to us. And things can be misconstrued. So if you say, what are you doing? Well, when we're in person, I might say, what are you doing? Well, that's clear from my intonation that you're doing something wrong. But if I say, hey, what's you doing? That's clear from my tone, a voice that I'm just like, what's going on? Let's hang out. So very, very different things for the exact same words. But when you're on a text or an email, that kind of social messaging isn't available to you. But what is, are the

these other new forms of transmitting these emotional and social messages. And emojis are huge in that. And they're more effective in many ways than some of the things like exclamation points in all caps, because there are so many different forms of them that you can convey all sorts of emotion. So irony, laughter, love, all of those things are available and accessible. Now, I don't think I would suggest sending your boss a heart emoji is maybe the right choice. But certainly, I think if you say something, and he wanted to be taken tongue-in-cheek or as sort of, I don't want to be confrontational here. I'm trying to just convey information. Like, I need that report by five. I'm not yelling at you. I'm just requesting. And there's no way to indicate that unless you use additional information.

So I might yell at you by writing all caps. But if I'm just conveying that I need that report by five and, hey, we're cool, a smiley face can do a lot of that kind of work for us. So I absolutely think it's fine. But I also think this is a case where you need to know your audience. And if you know that you have a, you know, curmudgeon as a boss that probably has never used an emoji in his life, that wouldn't be the best choice to use one with him. You just need to be very careful in your wording not to come across as too direct or as somewhat rude, which I think email often can be a forum where that can happen easily. I predict that if you and I were to have this conversation five, 10 years from now, that sending your boss a heart emoji might be acceptable. It is a

is changing so quickly and so fast that evolution is going to happen, I'm convinced. I do agree that the subtle cues that you can put in through emojis are really helpful and can help reduce friction and misunderstanding. Now, this question is incredibly personal. As a linguist, I'd love to get your take on the very ungrammatical name of this podcast, Think Fast, Talk Smart. Do we get a failing grade from a linguist? Oh, no, you definitely get an A plus. Well, first of all, it's really not ungrammatical. So if we were outside in Tahoe and 20 feet of snow and I threw a snowball at you and I said, think fast. It would be completely appropriate. So it's not really ungrammatical if you situationally place it. But what I love is how you're using one of the first lessons of marketing and branding, which is make yourself memorable. And if we are all saying the same thing, then saying something different,

makes us stand out. And so it's a very effective way to make a name or a title be different, stand out, have more marketing and branding value because it's more memorable when it's not just the same old, same old. And by doing something slightly atypical, you are making people notice it more. So I love the name. Well, thank you for that. We'll be right back to finish our conversation. But first, a quick word from one of our sponsors. Their support allows us to bring you this show free of charge. If you've ever felt like you're trying to do everything yourself, especially when the stakes are high, you're not alone. One of the biggest shifts I see in effective leaders growing their organizations comes from focusing on the right things.

But that's hard to do when you're stretched thin. You need to be able to delegate some tasks to competent professionals. That's where Upwork can really help. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across areas like marketing, development, data and analytics, and more. It gives you fast access to specialized talent so you can move quickly, fill key gaps, and scale your work without taking on full-time overhead. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get support scoping your project so you can hire with confidence. It's a simple way to focus your time where it matters most. Visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free.

That's upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upw-w-org. Upwork.com. And now, back to our conversation. So, Valerie, before we end, I would love to ask you the same three questions that I ask everybody. And I'm going to be very curious about the words you choose because I know words are so important to you. If you were to capture the best communication advice you ever received as a five to seven word presentation slide title, what would it be? Sometimes listening is more important than speaking.

Okay. That was some great advice I got when I first became an academic. I joined my department as a tenure track professor. And as anybody who's in a university knows, tenure is one of those things where everybody who votes on you is your colleague. So you have to be very diplomatic and very careful. And I asked a mentor, I had what her advice was for how I should approach conversations with my colleagues, participation in departmental meetings. And that was really good advice, she said, listening is sometimes more important than speaking because a lot of people want to hear themselves talk, but very few people want to answer the questions they're asked. And if you take the time to listen to what people need from you, you'll be a much more effective speaker and a much

more effective teacher. And I think that really has paid off over the years in my classes and in my interactions with people. Well, your advice there and the advice you were given is really important. and listening is, I think, the most important part of communication. And clearly, somebody who does what you do, you've demonstrated throughout our conversation, that you listen very astutely, not just for the meaning, but for the use of words and how it plays out. Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? Now, this is a tough one because I'm torn between ones that I, you know, historically have had a lot of respect for and ones that I, think are great communicators in the modern era in ways that people would not expect. So am I allowed to?

I'll give you two. I'm very curious now. You've teased me. Okay. So I think if I was just going to say who's a great orator and who I feel has a wonderful cadence and an emotional resonance in the way he talks that has been appealing to many, many people, I'd say Martin Luther King, of course. You cannot listen to I have a dream without feeling like you have a dream and there is this dream. So it captures you. It's The cadence, it's such a clear message. I don't think many people would argue that he was a great communicator. But I think young women in the modern era, in terms of their ability to be great communicators and really resonate with an audience, which may not be the audience people want them to resonate

with, but the audience that they intend to resonate with and who they reached the most, I would say Taylor Swift is actually a great communicator. I think a lot of people don't give her credit for that. She has an incredible influence on young people and young women in particular. She's also very eloquent, but she's also using the norms and the functions and the features of today's young women. So she really resonates and reverberates with that group. And I think that's really the mark of an effective speaker. I think you picked two very, very effective speakers, very, very different audiences, very, very different times.

But both leveraging many of the things you've talked about, the way in which words are constructed and used to get attention and get messages across. All right, final question. Question number three. What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe? To listen well. Second, to respond kindly and compassionately. And third, to relax. Everything you're worried about in speech of people that may not talk like you will work itself out. And it'll become our new norms or they'll be on the wayside. And it's not going to cause the decay of English. So I think relax would be my third word. in that case. And I think that is really important advice. I do a lot of work, and I'm sure you do as well, with non-native speakers in our case to English. And there's a lot of stress to say it right, you know, whatever that right is. And to relax and understand that there is some give in language and that it will change over time is really important. Well, Valerie, thank you so much. I have to admit that speaking to a linguist, I was very worried about my word choice and you made it very

comfortable and natural to speak with you. And we learned a lot about not just the purpose of language in terms of transmission of meaning, but of transmitting connection and social relationships and how all of these things came to be. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Thank you for having me on. Thanks for joining us for another episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business. This episode was produced by Jenny Luna, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrams. Our music was provided by Floyd Wonder. For more information and episodes,

find us on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, and please make sure to subscribe and follow us on LinkedIn. Before we wrap up, I just want to say thank you for listening. It really means a lot to hear how people all over the world are using these ideas in their own lives. It inspires me and the whole team that brings you this show. If you want more episodes and resources,

feel free to follow, subscribe, and explore past conversations. We're grateful for your support of Think Fast Talk Smart.