In the midst of a
social media crackdown on the most vapid sounding language trends, the last
thing I ever thought I would do is defend their worth. Nor do I wish to fall into the trap of
defending women for what are admittedly irritating habits in speech. But here I am. And it isn’t only because men aren’t
receiving the same language shaming these last few weeks, though that is in
fact a big bone of contention. It is
also because these language trends enrich our social vocabulary in important
ways! Read on for the top 3 reasons I
will continue to use mitigating language, uptalk and vocal fry when I speak. (Though perhaps not all in one sentence.)
For three weeks, I have
been reading articles about women, and directed only at women, about how our
speech habits are holding us back in the professional world, and in some cases
these articles were even written by
successful women. First I came across
this article advising against using the word “just” too much. Initially I supported the idea, because women
in the business world probably do self-efface and apologize too much for
everything, including their own success in an effort to come across as less
threatening. Here is another blog article supporting the idea that we as a gender overuse the word just. And who better to give
advice to women about how to be successful than a successful business woman, in fact a former google executive!? But then I decided that removing the word ‘just’
altogether would probably be disastrous for society. And then I got angry that no one counts words
that men might overuse, and writes shaming articles to call men out on how they
are standing in the way of their own success because of their gender-specific
linguistic choices. But I will (deep breaths) come
back to the gender discussion, because there are many nuances to the topic.
The first topic at hand
is the word ‘just,’ which is a form of mitigating language. Mitigating language is designed to soften a
blow, or make delivering bad news a little less harsh. Also it is associated with a polite way to
address a superior in many cases. Notice that I am staying gender neutral. Mitigating
language can be extremely helpful in relating touchy, volatile or potentially
offensive information. Here are some
popular catch phrases that I would consider mitigating language and some of
their functions.
1. Just
in case, just so you know, just checking
a. Implies
deference, and also respect for the other person’s ability/capacity/intelligence
2. Like,
you know (alone or in combination)
a. Serves
primarily as a buffer before saying something that might be hard to hear.
b. Gives
the listener time to process or prepare for the shoe to drop.
3. On
the off chance
a. Signals
to the listener that the speaker already thought it unlikely, which can be
self-preserving or help the listener save face depending on context.
Does it sometimes sound
apologetic? Probably. Is it always appropriate? No!
Mitigating language is, however, a form of social lubricant, without which
we might too often find ourselves in confrontational situations. This is useful for any person who has a boss. So if we tell women to remove this word, thus is born a fun catch-22 – sound confident by
eliminate mitigating language and see that promotion sooner, but at the risk of
being chastised for sounding “bossy.”
This leaves us (women?) forever on the pendulum of over-correcting,
never finding that porridge speech equivalent in the middle that’s juhhhst right.
I have my own reasons
for thinking “just” is a
four-letter-word, and for
that matter so is “easy.” When someone
is in a teaching, parenting, or managing position those two words should be
used maybe never because all they do
is cause the learner to feel slow and stupid.
An evolved learner might recognize these words as crutches their teacher uses when he or she is frustrated and out of ideas how to rephrase the lesson, but most
learners are feeling too vulnerable to be in touch with anything other than
their own failure in that moment, so it falls to the teacher to be aware of
their own use of language and its implications.
Then someone posted an
article about uptalk, also known as
valley-girl speak, upspeak, or rising terminal. I might be a fan of
the movie “Clueless,” but I don’t actually have conversations that sound like
that. So ‘Sure,’ I thought ‘get rid of
it!’ And then I started hearing it among
family members, and noticed my best friend using it, and oh the horror, I even
heard myself doing it! So I did some
deep reflecting and found that there are some really worthwhile reasons to use
uptalk. In fact, a well placed bit of
uptalk could save your relationship with a spouse or co-worker (or at least
prevent a misunderstanding).
1. Uptalk
is a way of creating a conversational comma:
a. Subtext
“Don’t interrupt me, I’m not finished expressing my thought.”
i.
Listener should not interject their own
fully-formed thoughts, because what comes next could change their mind, or add
vital information to the discussion at hand.
2. Uptalk
can be used by a speaker to be sure the audience is still engaged instead of
daydreaming:
a. Subtext
“Are you with me?”
b. Subtext
“Do you understand?”
i.
Listener on phone should usually respond
“uhuh, uhmmm”, in person silent nodding or eye-contact might be enough.
3. Uptalk
can inject enthusiasm into an otherwise boring story:
a. Lilting
tones of voice keep your listener from wandering off mentally, since we have
the attention span of a fruit fly and it seems to be getting shorter and
shorter! (Congratulations, by the way,
on reading this far. You must not yet be
converted to the Twitter-esque character consumption limitations descending
tragically on future generations.)
b. No
one ever complained (in my hearing) of an Australian or New Zealand accent,
which is sing-song and riddled with delicious and sexy uptalk…
In conclusion, there
are parts of the world where uptalk is a consistent part of the vocal sing-song
and conversational vocabulary of expression and intonation, and the desire to
label it as a sign of being vapid or even specific to a (female) gender is
enraging me. I know that boys and men
use uptalk as well!
The third article I came upon back in July, and perhaps the hardest vocal trend for me to
defend is vocal fry, or vocal creak. The article implored young women to give up the vocal fry. It can happen with your first speaking
of the day, pre-coffee, without any meaning behind it at all. It can happen accidentally if you run out of
breath at the end of a sentence. As
Jessica Grose commented in her recent NPR interview, it can happen as a result of over-correcting for uptalk. (Another shining example of the porridge
being too hot, or too cold.) It can also
happen because you’re tired. But I’ve
observed it can also have meaning in certain context:
1. Vocal
fry can convey exhaustion
a. Seeks
sympathy nods, signals a need for support on a rough day
2. Can
also convey boredom
a. Signal
to change the topic, or be more engaging
3. Or
can convey ennui, or world-weariness
a. Feeling
hopeless or helpless, seeks comforting, or a desire to be asked “What’s wrong?”
This glottal vibration
doesn’t have to mean anything, and if we spend our time modulating our breath,
intonation and word choice, we the speaker and we the listener can be
completely thrown off and distracted. I
know I was when I did my YouTube hunt for examples of men using vocal fry and
uptalk.
And that would be the real
shame. The real shame would be if your
listeners are so caught up in looking for uptalk, vocal fry, or counting the
occurrence of the word “just” in your presentation that they are deaf to the content
of your presentation. There is a brain
phenomenon called inattentional blindness which is a kind of temporary blindness. This is illustrated brilliantly in this
Smithsonian Magazine article, but of course you will all be brilliant instead of being tricked
because I’ve prepared you in advance, so congratulations!
In a fit of outrage on
behalf of my gender in the last few weeks, I found myself trolling YouTube in
search of footage of well-respected men giving speeches or being interviewed to
illustrate that men use these same vocal trends as well, but are not
scrutinized for the way their voice peaks (Mr. George Bush, Mr. William F.
Buckley) or creaks (Mr. Clinton). During
this searching, I experienced the auditory version of inattentional blindness (perhaps it should be named inattentional deafness?) and realized that
I had heard but not understood a single word.
In my effort to notice language styles, intonations or count words I could not
have told you what they were trying to explain or express. I long for an age when people can drop the
filters relating to who is delivering the message and how, in favor of a
respectful dialogue or dare I even dream – a discourse.
I do agree that it is
annoying when voice and speech trends like this catch on like wildfire and lose
their original purpose, hence my reluctance to champion them. But I also caution against the total
elimination of them. Anything done to
excess becomes irritating (even political correctness) but let’s not throw the
baby out with the bathwater just yet. I
for one am not ready to retire all signs of uptalk, mitigating language or even
the occasional creak from my vocabulary.
While stripping the world of all of these language habits might make
some folks really happy, I think removing them entirely would potentially
diminish or hamper our nuanced communication.
I wrote most of this on August 2nd, 2015. Then I wanted to tweak and edit, and my blog went dormant until today...There was yet another fantastic KQED radio show critiquing women for tentative speech, and I knew I had to put down my red pen and publish this post in all its imperfection. I thoroughly enjoyed the Amy Schumer bit on women apologizing as well.
I know I am not alone, and here is an article from December 2014 written by Marybeth Seitz-Brown stating many similar points, and stating them well and clearly, and strongly.
Let's all put down our auditory red pens and start listening for content!
