New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Our Uhs and Ums May Help Children Learn Language

We think we should remove any ums and uhs when we talk, especially when teaching children language. New research finds that such pauses may be useful. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

"Uh, we'll be um right back um after, um this message."


Now does that sound like a pro speaker? It's better to remove ums and uhs right?—so we’ve been told all our lives.

"We'll be right back after this message."

Well not always, according to new research in the journal Developmental Science. [Celeste Kidd, Katherine White and Richard Aslin, Toddlers use speech disfluencies to predict speakers’ referential intentions] When it comes to teaching our toddlers how to speak uhs and ums help the child to focus on words that follow.

Researchers studied children between the ages of 18 and 30 months as they sat on their parents’ lap in front of a monitor. The screen displayed two images. One was familiar, such as a   banana, and the other an abstract made-up object. A recorded voice said things like: I see a banana, or There is uh, um, uh a banana. When the voice stumbled, children who were more than 24 months tended to look at the made-up object more often than at the familiar object. Because children who’ve reached that age understand that uhs often precede unknowns.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Not that, uh, you’d want to, uh, riddle your um sentence with, uh, uhs. But on your next trip to the museum with the little one, it’s ok if you point to a skeleton and say, "Oh, that’s an uh, uh um, a velociraptor!"

—Christie Nicholson

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe