New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Huh? Appears To Be Universally Understood

In multiple languages, a word that sounds a lot like "huh?" signals that the utterer needs to have verbal information repeated or restated. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

What’s the most universal utterance in languages across the globe?

Male voice: Huh?

Correct!


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.


Male voice: Huh?

That’s right.

Male voice: HUH?

Exactly. Because a new study finds that everybody around the world does indeed say “huh?” The finding is the journal PLOS One. [Mark Dingemanse Francisco Torreira and N. J. Enfield, Is “Huh?” a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items]

The researchers were exploring linguistic tools people use to assure fluid communication. In this case, they were looking for an interjection that signals that a listener missed something, and prompts the speaker to repeat or rephrase the original statement. In other words, something that works like the English word “Huh?”

So they eavesdropped on nearly 200 conversations in 10 different tongues, from Italian to Icelandic. And they found that, in language after language, a word that sounds a lot like “huh?” gets the job done. For example, [international huhs]. It’s short and sweet so it’s likely to stop the speaker before the listener gets too lost. And it sounds like a question [more international huhs], so it warrants a response.

The sound appears not to be innate. Babies don’t use it before they say mama. But most five-year-olds are masters of “huh?” No matter where they come from.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

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