Article published In: Discourse linguistics: Theory and practice
Edited by Karin Aijmer and Anita Fetzer
[Functions of Language 21:1] 2014
► pp. 6–29
On the use of uh and um in American English
Published online: 7 April 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot
This study examines the use of uh and um — referred to jointly as UHM — in 14 conversations totaling c. 62,350 words from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English. UHM was much less frequent than in British English with 7.5 vs. 14.5 instances per million words in the British National Corpus. However, as in British English the frequency of UHM was closely correlated to extra-linguistic context. Conversations in non-private environments (such as offices and classrooms) had higher frequencies than those taking place in private spaces, mostly homes. Time required for planning, especially when difficult subjects were discussed, appeared to be an important explanatory factor. It is clear that UHM cannot be dismissed as mere hesitation or disfluency; it functions as a pragmatic marker on a par with well, you know, and I mean, sharing some of the functions of these in discourse. Although the role of sociolinguistic factors was less clear, the tendencies for older speakers and educated speakers to use UHM more frequently than younger and less educated ones paralleled British usage, but contrary to British usage, there were no gender differences.
References (35)
Aijmer, Karin. 1997.
Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity
. London: Longman.
Bortfeld, Heather, Silvia D. Leon, Jonathan E. Bloom, Michael F. Schober & Susan E. Brennan. 2001. Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender.
Language and Speech
441. 123–147.
Chafe, Wallace. 1992. The importance of corpus linguistics to understanding the nature of language. In Jan Svartvik (ed.),
Directions in corpus linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm
, 4–8 August 1991, 79–97. Berlin: Mouton.
Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking.
Cognition
841. 73–111.
Corley, Martin & Oliver W. Stewart. 2008. Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech.
Language and Linguistics Compass
21. 589–602.
Corley, Martin, Lucy J. MacGregor & David I. Donaldson. 2007. It’s the way that you, er, say it: Hesitations in speech affect language comprehension.
Cognition
1051. 658–668.
Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino & Susanna Cumming. 1992.
Discourse transcription
. Santa Barbara, CA: The University of California.
Erard, Michael. 2007.
Um... Slips, stumbles, and verbal blunders, and what they mean
. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Erman, Britt. 1987.
Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of
you know
,
you see
and
I mean
in face-to-face conversation
. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: the functional polysemy of discourse particles. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.),
Approaches to discourse particles
, 427–447. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fox Tree, Jean E. 1995. The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech.
Journal of Memory and Language
341. 709–738.
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2008. Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In J. Romero-Trillo (ed.),
Pragmatics and corpus linguistics. A mutualistic entente
, 119–149. Berlin: Mouton.
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Sylvie De Cock. 2011. Errors and disfluencies in spoken corpora.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
161. 141–172.
Goldman-Eisler, Frieda. 1961. A comparative study of two hesitation phenomena.
Language and Speech
41. 18–26.
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Stefan Evert, Nicholas Smith, David Lee & Ylva Berglund-Prytz. 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCweb – A practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003.
Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think
. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Maclay, Howard. & Charles E. Osgood. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech.
Word
151. 19–44.
O’Connell, Daniel C. & Sabine Kowal. 2005.
Uh and um revisited: Are they interjections for signaling delay?
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
341. 555–576.
Rayson, Paul, Geoffrey Leech, & Mary Hodges. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: Some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
21. 133–152.
Rühlemann, Christoph, Andrej Bagoutdinov & Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2011. Windows on the mind: Pauses in conversational narrative.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
161. 198–230.
The Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English
. [URL].
1992. Discourse markers. In William Bright (ed.),
International encyclopedia of linguistics
, 361–363. New York, NY: OUP.
Shillcock, Richard, Simon Kirby, Scott McDonald & Chris Brew. 2001. Filled pauses and their status in the mental lexicon.
DISS’01
. 53–56.
Shriberg, Elizabeth E. 1994.
Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies
. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley PhD thesis.
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1990. Pauses in monologue and dialogue. In Jan Svartvik (ed.),
The London-Lund corpus of spoken English. Description and research
, 211–252. Lund: Lund University Press.
Stenström, Anna-Brita & Jan Svartvik. 1994. Imparsable speech: Repeats and other nonfluencies in spoken English. In Nelleke Oostdijk & Pieter de Haan (eds.),
Corpus-based research into language. In honour of Jan Aarts, 241–254. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Swerts, Marc. 1998. Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure.
Journal of Pragmatics
301. 485–496.
Tottie, Gunnel. 2011.
Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
161. 173–196.
Forthcoming a. Turn management and ‘filled pauses’, uh and um
. In Karin Aijmer & Christoph Rühlemann (eds.),
Corpus pragmatics. A handbook
. Cambridge: CUP.
Forthcoming b.
Uh and um in speech and writing.
Cited by (35)
Cited by 35 other publications
Carrasco, Patricia Sánchez, Imke Wets & Lotte Hogeweg
2025. Uhm… The use of hesitation markers on the social media platform X in Dutch and Spanish. Nota Bene 2:2 ► pp. 252 ff.
Holliday, Nicole R.
Solon, Megan, Travis Evans-Sago & Kaitlin Moen
2025. Acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. In Research at the Intersection of Second Language Acquisition and Sociolinguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 43], ► pp. 260 ff.
Verdonik, Darinka, Peter Rupnik & Nikola Ljubešić
Yang, Seung-Yun, Akiko Fuse, Diana Sidtis & Seung Nam Yang
Böttcher, Marlene & Margaret Zellers
Pham, Catherine T. & Navin Viswanathan
Agmon, Galit, Manuela Jaeger, Reut Tsarfaty, Martin G. Bleichner & Elana Zion Golumbic
Clin, Elise & Mikhail Kissine
Dubois, Tanguy
2023. The Complexity Principle and lexical complexity in the English and Dutch
dative alternation. In Ditransitives in Germanic Languages [Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 7], ► pp. 325 ff.
Bernaisch, Tobias
Fedriani, Chiara & Piera Molinelli
2022. Managing turns, building common ground, planning discourse. Pragmatics & Cognition 29:2 ► pp. 347 ff.
Kosmala, Loulou & Ludivine Crible
Garg, Sparsh, Utkarsh Mehrotra, Gurugubelli Krishna & Anil Kumar Vuppala
Jucker, Andreas H
Staley, Larssyn & Andreas H. Jucker
Dinkar, Tanvi, Ioana Vasilescu, Catherine Pelachaud & Chloe Clavel
Goulart, Larissa, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples, Amanda Black, Aisha Shelton, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert & Stacey Wizner
Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long
2020. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 59 ff.
Kosmala, Loulou
Kosmala, Loulou
2022. Exploring the status of filled pauses as pragmatic markers. Pragmatics & Cognition 29:2 ► pp. 272 ff.
Kosmala, Loulou, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba, S. Prévost & A. Steuckardt
Revis, Melanie & Tobias Bernaisch
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
Erker, Daniel & Joanna Bruso
Fetzer, Anita
Tottie, Gunnel
2016. Planning what to say. In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 97 ff.
TOTTIE, GUNNEL
[no author supplied]
2020. Dualistic approaches to language and cognition. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 27 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
