How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation

by N.J. Enfield

We all had teachers who scolded us over the use of um, uh-huh, oh, like, and mm-hmm. But as linguist N. J. Enfield reveals in How We Talk, these "bad words" are fundamental to language.

Whether we are speaking with the clerk at the store, our boss, or our spouse, language is dependent on things as commonplace as a rising tone of voice, an apparently meaningless word, or a glance--signals so small that we hardly pay them any conscious attention. Nevertheless, they are the essence of how we speak. From the traffic signals of speech to the importance of um, How We Talk revolutionizes our understanding of conversation. In the process, Enfield reveals what makes language universally--and uniquely--human.

Genres: Nonfiction, Linguistics, Language, Science, Sociology, Communication, Business

257 pages, Hardcover

First published November 14, 2017

Reviews

[Willow Anne · Rating 1 out of 5]

While looking for books on the Korean language at the library, I just randomly came across this book in the languages section. I read the back and it looked super interesting so I decided to pick it up. But looks can be deceiving, and in this case they were. I said about a quarter of the way through the book that it was getting interesting, but that was a lie. It never got interesting.

"Conversation is where language lives and breathes. Conversation is the medium in which language is most often used."

This was the only quote I wrote down from the whole book, it was near the start, and this was the best it got. It only went downhill from there. I did like thinking about how linguistics often studies language in its perfect form, even though that's not the way it's used on a day-to-day basis. The guy was right, studying language through real conversation gives you a much better picture of how language functions as a whole.

So it wasn't that this was a bad book, just that it was too lengthy for what it was trying to say. It had a few interesting thoughts, but they all could've been summed up into something much briefer that packed more of a punch. Instead, it said a lot without really saying much and none of it very memorable. It's an interesting topic though!

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't know who this is for. If you know the basics of linguistics then this book is useless, but why would you buy this if you don't know the basics of linguistics? On the other hand, the things in the book are explained in such technical dry language that only people who are into linguistics seem to even follow it, as indicated by the other reviews. The testimonials are misleading fluff. Most of the observations in this book seem like they're from about 1970, with conversational excerpts from the same period. I checked multiple times to see if I had the publication date wrong. Bizarre waste of text.

[Adam Raimondo · Rating 2 out of 5]

It reads too much like a textbook to be enjoyable. Most chapters just seemed to recite random information without any kind of narrative or main focus. Wasn't a fan.

[Dan Ust · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great intro to how conversation works from a linguistics perspective. Things like how turn taking has an order, what happens during pauses, the use of “huh,” and comparisons with other species are covered.

Like a great conversationalist, he doesn’t cover everything but goes over enough areas in just the right amount of detail. I didn’t feel overwhelmed by examples. Even when he plops down some fairly technical details — how long turn taking typically takes or the vowel chart — he takes time to explain it.

I would like to know more about how children learn conversation, theories on how conservation evolved, and how adults grasp conversation in a second language (he doesn’t cover this at all). In other words, I’d like to see a follow up.

[Mike Putnam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, the book does a solid job of making the case for universal exchange/cooperation strategies in human conversation. The bulk of the book reads as a primer for conversation analysis (which isn't a bad thing). In the final chapter, the author "raises the battle flags" and attempts to set the course for productive research in linguistics moving forward. Although I agree with many of the tenets that he sets forth, I find some of his more vitriolic comments about mainstream research to be slightly misguided (mostly because it is very difficult to pin down exactly which aspects aside from UG are under attack). If the term "mainstream" is taken to mean "generative", this also technically applies to formal and explicit grammars that are agnostic in many respect to the domain-general vs. domain-specific debate, thus some of these statements require more qualification. In summary, Enfield does make a strong case for universal exchange/cooperation strategies in conversation that enriches our understanding of which particular aspects of human language (and cognition) may truly be "universal."

[dangerous at every speed · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm pretty biased, both because I study linguistics and I just nerd out over books like this, but this was incredibly fascinating. There was so much information that could be easily lifted and used - and remembered - which I think is a testament to Enfield's skills. If the premise entices you at all, definitely give this a go. It's fairly easy to read and filled with fascinating information.

[Basmaish · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think the sub title of the book is a little misleading. It should be called why we use "uh" and "um" or something along that line.

I didn't know what to expect going into this book and reading the first few chapters I was very on board. To me, it was something new brought into the discussion of conversations that I've never read about before. It essentially looks into why we use words such as "uh", "um"..etc, how these are considered bad fillers or bad words and language experts don't approve of them, how phrases like that influence the dynamic of a conversation flow and the correlation between those words and pausing mid-conversation or prior to answering ..etc. Some of the insights in here really are interesting and I never thought of it this way before.

However, after a while I started to feel like it was somehow becoming repetitive even though each chapter is different. I read one of the reviews here saying that it reads like a text book and that is exactly how I felt after the first few chapters. It felt like it kind of dragged on, and I started to skim looking for his concluding insights after each point and there are two or three chapters that I skipped all together. I’m very conflicted about this book.

[Dave · Rating 2 out of 5]

Putting aside how Enfield says that linguists don't really study conversations (a weird and probably purely rhetorical statement; how couls a professor of linguisics not know that applied linguistics exists?), there's really not that much to this book.

Tldr: speakers of all languages take conversational turns quickly, and more quickly than we think. Also, all languages have the equivalent of "huh", so it should be treated as a word, andbythewayimnotlikeallthoseotherstuffylinguistsandhectoringschoolmarms.

[Dirk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enfield’s book is an excellent introduction into current research in interaction all linguistics and related field. Written in a very readable style the book picks out particular phenomena of human everyday communication and shows their bearing on the study of language. Highly recommended!

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a really fascinating look into the split-second timing that we use to actually have proper conversations. I was really interested to learn that "huh" is practically a universal word! Every-day conversations are much more information-rich than I had thought.

[TEMI · Rating 4 out of 5]

fun read. makes its arguments pretty well and convincing with a nice enough set of examples. only issue is it sometimes gets repetitive and drags on but it's like pretty good

[chsmiley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good primer on conversation from a linguistic perspective.

[Jo-Ann Duff · Rating 3 out of 5]

An expert guide to how conversation works, from how we know when to speak to why huh is a universal word
We all had teachers who scolded us over the use of um, uh-huh, oh, like, and mm-hmm. But as linguist N. J. Enfield reveals in How We Talk, these “bad words” are fundamental to language.
Whether we are speaking with the clerk at the store, our boss, or our spouse, language is dependent on things as commonplace as a rising tone of voice, an apparently meaningless word, or a glance–signals so small that we hardly pay them any conscious attention. Nevertheless, they are the essence of how we speak. From the traffic signals of speech to the importance of um, How We Talkrevolutionizes our understanding of conversation. In the process, Enfield reveals what makes language universally–and uniquely–human.
I’m not sure I should have read How We Talk. It’s bad enough suffering from mild social anxiety in situations, and now I’ll be consciously registering an inflection, longer pause than usual or side glance from the person I’m speaking to! That small worry aside, this book is really fascinating. N.J. Enfield guides the reader through the minefield that is everything else outside of the spoken word. Pauses, inflection, tone of voice and body language make up so much of our communication it’s a wonder not more research has been done on the innocent ‘Ummm’ and ‘Uhhh’.

There are so many interesting nuggets of information to be picked up in this book. I don’t want to give away too many spoilers, but one anecdote I found interesting was that of Margaret Thatcher, and how journalists and interviewers found her to be incredibly hard to talk to. Research shows that her voice and tone didn’t rise and fall like most people, and she paused at odd times. Interviewers took her pauses as a signal of the end of her sentence and a chance to respond or to ask another question, when in fact, she was far from finished.

How We Talk – The Difference Between ‘Ummm’ and ‘Uhhh’
You will also find out in these pages the difference between ‘Ummm’ and ‘Uhhh’, along with the unwritten rules of conversation. For example; if you ask a question which isn’t answered within a second or two, it’s human nature to repeat the question, get annoyed, or assume the delay in response means a no. Either way, the person asking the question is more than likely to follow up if that second isn’t filled with a response.

We’ve all had many conversations that start off one way, happy and calm, when a brief look, or signal that communicates that one party isn’t listening derails the whole exchange which then explodes into a batsh*t crazy disagreement. We’ve all misread a text, or email because we don’t have the non-verbal signs, or the tone and inflections of voice to keep it in context, so our brains take what little there is and completely misread it. This is all done subconciously with our brains constantly reading, misreading, and processing many signals with every interaction. No wonder people on the autism spectrum find verbal communication so scary and confusing.

How We Talk does get a bit ‘sciencey’ at times, and numbers, letters and graphs danced around my eyes a bit. But, the information that you get in between the academic bits is worth the read. The research is across 10 or so languages and even covers animal behaviour too, so there’s plenty to be gained in giving this book a bit of your time.

A solid read and a great book gift for the the chatterbox, or linguistic fan in your life.

3 out of 5 – A lot of knowledge stuffed into 207 pages.
Thanks to Hachette for the opportunity to read and review this book.
Share

[Brieuc · Rating 2 out of 5]

TL;DR : the info in the book is interesting, but an article would have been the appropriate length for the few info of the book.

The information contained in this book is certainly interesting, to an extent. The book might be a great read for aliens. However, as humans, we're already quite experienced in conversation. The facts presented in these books are not so surprising that we need a lot of evidence about those. In fact, I would argue that this book is kind of science going a long way to prove things that we people already know from experience. The point that the author makes to state humans are so unique blablablah is also really cliche and annoying.
Now, I want to highlight that being able to converse does not imply being able to describe what happens in a conversation. This is where the information of this book is useful. It may even be practical, e.g. understanding why you understand that someone is reluctant to grant a request or answer a question. A few pages of the book highlight very nicely the importance of the listener in the telling of a story (basically, if the listener does not acknowledge the story or make appropriate, small, comments, the narrator is going to go off rails, to become unsure of whether the story is interesting or understood, etc.).

The book would have been more interesting if it had spent less time on convincing the reader of things that are pretty acceptable (basically, all the uses of ''huh''), and included more material on other topics, e.g., implicature, individual differences in how we talk, etc.

[amaya the cactus · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really, really wanted to like this one. As a self-proclaimed 'language nerd', this book immediately caught my attention when I came upon it in the library, and I was very excited to start reading it. I've been curious about this subject for ages and was looking forward to learning more.

This was such a slog, though. I wanted to give up so many times; it was like reading a flat research paper, and the focus was primarily on two things: turn-taking in conversation, and how we remedy confusion when it arises.

The writer has obviously dedicated his life to the study of language, and I can absolutely appreciate that - but I'd anticipated a much more engaging read and was disappointed in how tedious it ultimately felt.

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like reading a research paper.

[Stven · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's some good, interesting information here about how ordinary conversation works. The author and a number of researchers with whom he associates have done a lot of painstaking work to nail down some things most of us have probably never noticed about how people cue each other that they're ready for somebody else to pick up the conversation and, on the other hand, how we let each other know that we're paying attention so that when somebody gets to the point, they feel like the other person has acknowledged that the point is made. Although he is constantly name-checking other researchers, which is not very interesting to those of us not in the field and thus not rubbing shoulders with this crowd, he does want his reader to understand that the research he's writing about has been undertaken in a careful, logical manner, so I'm happy to let him emphasize that even while I'm skimming past the names of the people who were in on it.

The odd thing, to me, is that a linguist would write imprecise sentences. The worst one was about a quarter of the way through the book when he uses the word "belies" in such a way that it's apparent he thinks it means exactly the opposite of what it does mean. There are other sentences scattered throughout that don't quite say what he seems to want them to say. But I like this better than writing so dense and stilted that I give up on reading it at all.

This pairs nicely with the contention of Michael Tomasello's book Origins of Human Communication that the fundamental unit of communication distinguishing us from the beasts is our ability to point at something and have the other human understand that the pointing is being done as an aid. The fundamental unit of conversation which Enfield finds exists in every language is the particle "huh?" (or some other syllable pronounced in practically the same way, in the same part of the mouth, because it is so easy to produce a sound from that physiological spot) which I think can be regarded as a way of pointing at -- drawing attention to -- something vocally.

[Art · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing. After a few universal maxims about conversation, this light book goes too deep into scientific lab reports. A better book would fall between these extremes.

Children learn their native language through conversation. In every language, “no” will come quicker than “yes” in answer to a question. Conversation features a rapid system of turn-taking with a universal one-second window to respond while relying on lubricants such as “mm-hmm,” “mmm” and “huh?” These universal traffic signs signal that the talk should continue. Do-gooders cannot eliminate these, argues the author. Repair of a conversation happens every ninety seconds or so, requiring us to say “huh?,” “what,” or “say again” to clarify on the fly.

In written language, the audience does not see the act of production. But conversation links the creation and comprehension in real time.

While a conversation unfolds as an improvised duet, public speech flows as a solo performance.

As a form of public speaking, NPR in recent years began to use a few newscasters and hosts who talk in a sing-song style with emphasis on the wrong words. That drives me crazy. The better ones speak and inflect naturally, as though they are talking to a friend.

People on the radio talk to thousands or millions at a time, but each of us receives those words and thoughts alone or with one or two others, as friends of a kind. And that’s our public conversation. The rules would differ from one-on-one conversation, but the observations may make interesting reading. After all, it’s part of How We Talk.

[blacklinguist · Rating 4 out of 5]

How We Talk is a nice glimpse into interactional linguistics via conversation analysis. There's more than a passing comment from the author's desire to see grammar expanded beyond solely theoretical linguistic definitions, which is an interesting slant. Reads really smoothly, though I half-expected to get a Results section every now and then [actually wanted one for the speed differences in transitions across different languages].

Enfield spends about half of the book diving into turn-taking and its possible foundation rooted in social interactions, cooperation, and accountability. I appreciate the context provided for what 'fast' really means for human conversation. Later in the book, we hit repairing and the universal 'Huh?', both satisfying as a fan of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics.

As much as I appreciate theoretical linguistics, I do lean towards the applied linguistics side for my own studies and research interests, so I was very happy to come across this book. There's a lot of Chomsky mention, though none in favor (a relief for me), and I have some new names to look up in a relatively new field, which is exciting.

Language does not exist in a vacuum, and neither do the structures that funnel language through families, communities, and societies. Examining the intersections between language and tacit societal norms is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of what makes humans human, and I am intrigued by the possibilities encountered in this book.

[Erica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of this book feels like a string of information that’s kind of interesting and well explained, very accessible as someone who has never studied linguistics - but there’s also a bit of, ok, so what does that *mean*? What are the implications? However, the conclusion really blows everything out to look at the bigger picture and woAh.

You can kind of see the building blocks Enfield is making in his arguments, but I wish everything had been more tied to this larger point: conversation is a fundamental part of language, and perhaps is the social force that shapes the grammar of languages. To get here, first you need to believe conversation is structured, one of those structures being timing, and there are also all these parts of language to support conversation: signaling when you’re going to talk, signaling confusion. This builds up to “huh” as a universal word across languages (as far as they can prove), which holds fundamental importance in everyday conversation as a way to signal confusion - and so, the word exists Because of conversation!

And from there you get to more interesting questions, I think.

It feels right that conversation is what shapes a language and its grammar - just thinking about the many and wild ways that English grammar has adapted to the way people converse on the internet. And so interesting to wonder, then, what societal forces shaped the grammars of so many other languages??

[Riccardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

How we talk is a partial but masterful introduction to how we talk with each other, combining qualitative insights, with quantitative/statistical inferences and experimental manipulations.

The starting point is Conversation Analysis and ethnomethodology, highlighting the qualitative insights this approach has produced on turn-taking, backchannels, and repairs as foundational mechanisms in conversations. However, the book does not stop at cute examples and anecdotes, but it highlights the quantitative patterns that can be observed in large and cross-linguistic corpora. E.g. How frequent is backchannel? How strongly is it modulated by the social context? Further, the book reports of experimental investigations in people's interpretation of conversational snippets containing these phenomena and the effects of manipulations of contexts, timing, prosody and wording.

Nick Enfield produces a thought-provoking first sketch of our current scientific understanding of conversations. Many elements might end up deeply revised, other mechanisms have been neglected here, but it is a necessary step and the evidence is intriguing.

[Roger Smitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enfield challenges us to think about communication in a sophisticated way. The book challenges what we are taught about communication. He’s not the stereotypical teacher English who wants everyone to speak in the “correct” way.

Early on he introduces a theme for the book:

A language teacher might say that “Huh?” …should not be used, but rather one should say “Pardon?” or “Excuse me?” But these are prescriptive statements about English, not about what actually happens in language.” (p. 7)

A few pages later he tells us “When we talk, we collaborate in constructing long, complex, and tightly timed dialogues on the fly” (p. 127). It’s amazing!

The book doesn’t tell us how to talk in a particular way to be a better sales person or to find a mate. Some readers might be drawn to the book as a tool to make communication work for us. They will be disappointed.

If I were still teaching, I might make the book required reading in a class on interpersonal communication or in conflict resolution.

[Zane Riley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is like having someone passionately explain what’s new and exciting in their career. Looking at the differences in timing between how people respond in conversation, the similarities between language, and what’s happening cognitively has given me a new appreciation for what seems to be such a simple activity—talking with others.

It’s moderately short, but it went by so fast because the enthusiasm and clear language made it exciting to get through. Loved the book, even if I won’t recall or use the much of the information.

Some people won’t enjoy the lack of narrative, it does read like a textbook in that it’s new information after new information. But for someone who’s new to the field, it was a great dive.

[Popup-ch · Rating 2 out of 5]

A shortish (but still too long) overview of recent research in verbal communication.

Modern linguism has advanced well beyond etymology and classical grammar to include research on how real people actually behave in conversations, and this book tries to summarize the state of research.

It's a bit too detailed, yet repetitive and feels like it's not getting anywhere. I only read about a third, but it feels like the results could have been summarized on a single page with loss of generality. (People abhor silences, and interpret sentence rhythm and prosody in order to anticipate when to butt in.)

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got fascinated with the science of conversation when I worked on Jibo. This book confirmed something I’d felt but could never explain: the bar for replicating human dialog is outrageously high. It’s not just about the complex layers of implicit context. This book focuses on what happens in the gaps between words—and there’s a LOT. We start processing what someone says before they’re done, and we have an incredible ability to sense when someone is about to be done speaking and start preparing a response. Milliseconds matter.

I’d recommend this to anyone working in VUI.

[Jeremy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a look at some of the intricacies of conversation. It is not really interesting, in a popular science sense, which was the way I read it. If you're interested in linguistics, it's probably right up your alley, otherwise there's not much here for the layperson. I mainly skimmed the book.

My main takeaways are the importance of feedback in conversations (mm-hmm, etc.), and that "huh" is a universal word - it seems every language has a sound very similar to "huh" that means what it means in English.

[Erikka · Rating 3 out of 5]

I ended up skimming the last half of this because it for very repetitive and a little too lab-reporty. That being said, the concept of conversation being an undiscovered country in the land of linguistics is very intriguing. This book covers several core concepts, including the pacing of conversation, the universal "huh?", and the altruism that governs our discussions with each other. It's worth a read, but not necessarily a close one. It's worth a skim.

[Ellie Chin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating introduction to the intricate and subtle world of linguistics! Perfect for beginners who are curious about the field and novices that want to deepen their knowledge. Particularly fascinating to me was the discussion about prosodics and the discussion about filler particles in the English language. I learned a lot from this surprisingly easy to digest book from a renowned field scholar. I look forward to reading further writings.

[Betsy Mills · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enaging read about the secrets beind what makes a successful conversation. Outlines the cues we use unconsciously to help conversation on track in terms of signaling when will finish speaking, whether we are not properly understanding the other person or how we prep we know we are giving a response the other person doesnt want to hear. Delightful read!

[Bobbi Galvin · Rating 2 out of 5]

This reads like a textbook, and honestly, this could be a really fun topic. Most chapters seemed to recite random information without any kind of focus. It is about language and conversation cues as opposed to the responses given. It's also about timing, rules, responding with relevance, and the words "huh?" and "um."
What about language bias? What about non-verbal language?