Filled Pauses
In the field of linguistics, a “filled pause” refers to some kind of word or emphatic sound consciously or subconsciously filling what would otherwise be silence in a conversation.
The most common use for such fillers, which include things like “harrumphs” and grunts and words like “um” and “uh,” is occupying a “blank” space in a conversation (sometimes called “turn-holding”) to indicate that we’re not done speaking yet.
Filled pauses are just one type of “filler” frequently deployed in verbal communication, as we also tend to use placeholder terms, like “that guy” or “whatchamacallit” to reference indexed concepts, but these pauses stand out as being incredibly common across all studied languages, and as being derided as indicators of negative attributes in those who use them.
Their frequency across such a broad array of languages is likely the result of their utility: having some kind of “let me think for a moment” sound that can be woven into a conversation is useful, especially since the alternative is either unthoughtful, no-filter conversation, or back-and-forths riddled with silences that make establishing a balanced conversational rhythm difficult—those involved never quite sure when the other person has finished a thought, and thus more prone to accidental interruption.
Such fillers also provide additional context clues for listeners as to the tone and intended meaning of what’s being said, providing a sort of meta-data atop the literal, definitional content of the words being spoken. This can make conversation more fluent (in the sense of being more clear and comprehensible to everyone involved) despite such filler sounds sometimes being perceived as disfluencies that need to be corrected.
The derision that’s been aimed at these fillers seems to be the consequence of a misunderstanding of their purpose and utility.
Many people associate dropping “ums” and “uhs” into conversation with sluggish, unthoughtful communication, and though they often indicate the opposite, ultra-formal conceptions of “proper” speaking (in part differentiated by fluid diction and an absence of fillers) have been integrated into educational and cultural norms to such a degree that there’s a common bias against fillers and those who use them.
It’s been speculated that part of why these fillers have become so widely dismissed is that the members of society who use them most—young people, and young women in particular—are also often the target of derision and dismissal; anything associated with these groups is assumed to be thoughtlessly sloppy and purposeless, rather than intentionally formed (if not in a strict, streamlined, or even conscious way).
The prejudices we might have against filler words, then, don’t seem to be backed up by research, and the apparent (though difficult to prove) rationale for avoiding them seems to be an attempt to distinguish ourselves from more casual communication norms, to associate ourselves with those who adhere to those stricter standards, or to distinguish ourselves from those looked-down-upon groups, even if we might sacrifice some of our subtle communication cues in the process.