Formulaic Utterances: I

Formulaic utterances are chunks of spoken or written language that have a fixed form. They include fillers such as "um," "like," or "well." And they include more elaborate constructs such as "That's a difficult question but I'll try to answer it as best I can…" or "Let me start by saying/noting/observing that…". Estimates are that formulaic utterances account for 25-70% of all discourse. Like all communication, formulaic utterances transmit information, but transmitting information might not be their primary function.

The meanings formulaic utterances actually transmit might differ from their literal meanings. For example, "with all due respect" can actually transmit contempt or disrespect. Two relatively recent additions, "his or her" and "he or she," convey not an ambiguity of gender, but rather the speaker's (writer's) acknowledgment of the neutrality of gender relative to the topic at hand. One of the shortest of the formulaic utterances, "um," has no literal meaning whatsoever.

How formulaic utterances can be risky to use

An important Some formulaic utterances — fillers — let
the speaker collect his or her thoughts while
keeping control of the audio "channel,"
and not risking its loss to someone elsefunction of some formulaic utterances is the "filler" role. They give the speaker the ability to keep control of the audio "channel" without risking its loss to someone else while the speaker collects his or her thoughts. Investigations of the use of fillers have shown elevated use when the speaker experiences high cognitive load — that is, when the speaker must devote significant resources to managing memory of elements of the communication exchange. One can reasonably suppose that use of fillers might become elevated when the subject of the exchange is unfamiliar, complex, or otherwise a source of stress to the speaker.

Fillers include "like," "um," "That's a great question," or even, at times, "indeed." By culture-specific convention, listeners grant speakers a quota of fillers. Speakers who exceed their quotas pay penalties in the form of loss of audience attention or loss of credibility. Repeat offenders might experience career stagnation.

Using other formulaic utterances at work can present risks in other forms. Some examples of characteristics that present risk include:

• Out of place in the workplace culture
• Too closely identified with low social status
• "Unprofessional"
• Overused to the point of being trite
• Too bulky
• Condescending
• Sexist or racist
• Excessively and too predictably sarcastic
• Graphically depicting violence
• Otherwise generally offensive

Formulaic utterances that can be risky to use

Some examples of formulaic utterances that present risk to the user:

• Very, very
• Very, very, very
• In your face
• How all this will play out
• Keep in mind that
• Remember that
• On the front lines
• You've got to be/must be kidding
• Excuse me?
• Seriously?
• Really?
• Hang on a minute
• Not so fast
• Hold on there, chief
• We can walk and chew gum at the same time
• I get that
• News flash
• The biggest thing I hear from them is
• You know
• You know what I mean
• You know what I'm saying
• I mean
• I have neither the time nor the inclination to
• So I asked myself
• Let that sink in
• Break down the silos
• Do more with less
• Work smarter, not harder
• Throw her/him/them under the bus
• Drink the Kool-Aid
• It is what it is
• Take it offline
• Tee it up
• Off the rails
• Opening a can of worms
• This is about X, This is not about X
• The fact of the matter is

The most important characteristic of any formulaic utterance is that it is formulaic. It isn't original. It's familiar to (nearly) all speakers of the language, or to (nearly) all participants in the micro-culture in which the utterance is in wide use. In Part II of this survey, we'll examine some properties of formulaic utterances that present advantages to their users. And we'll include examples.  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Mudfights

When we steer the discussion away from issues to attack the credibility, motives, or character of our debate partners, we often resort to a technique known as the ad hominem attack. It's unfair, it's unethical, and it leads to bad, expensive decisions that we'll probably regret.

Getting Into the Conversation

In well-facilitated meetings, facilitators work hard to ensure that all participants have opportunities to contribute. The story is rather different for many meetings, where getting into the conversation can be challenging for some.

When the Answer Isn't the Point: II

Sometimes, when we ask questions, we're more interested in eliciting behavior from the person questioned, rather than answers. Here's Part II of a set of techniques questioners use when the answer to the question wasn't the point of asking.

How to Listen to Someone Who's Dead Wrong

Sometimes we must listen attentively to someone with whom we strongly disagree. The urge to interrupt can be overpowering. How can we maintain enough self-control to really listen?

Conversation Irritants: I

Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming November 30: Avoiding Speed Bumps: II

Many of the difficulties we encounter when working together don't create long-term harm, but they do cause delays, confusion, and frustration. Here's Part II of a little catalog of tactics for avoiding speed bumps. Available here and by RSS on November 30.

And on December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts

Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info