Gender differences in the duration of filled pauses (FPs) in North American English
Eric Acton, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University
Can the phonetic realization of um and uh help explain gender differences in their usage?
Introduction
The Experiment
Mo#va#ng Background Finding:
On average, women use um rather than uh
at a much higher rate than men
(Acton 2010; To:e 2011; Acton 2011)
Tokens of
um
Women
2,814
Men
Tokens of Combined um/uh
uh
ra>o
1,263
4,077
2.23
1,692
2,789
4,481
0.61
Table 1. Speed Da>ng Corpus: Women’s um/uh ra>o
more than 3.5 >mes that of men
…But why?
Clues from reac#ons to um and uh?
Results
RESULT 1: umV / umC ra>o significantly smaller for women than men*
Hypotheses: On average,
• Takeaway: The vowel seg makes up a smaller
por>on of um for women than for men
• H2: vowel seg of women’s FPs shorter than men’s
Close your mouth, please, Michael;
we are not a codfish
-­‐Mary P oppins
The S peed Da>ng Corpus, 2005 (SDC):
In this sample: women’s avg. umV/umC
ra>o (1.97) smaller than men’s (2.72)
• speed dates between grad students
• par>cipants wore mics on sashes
• female-­‐male dyads, four minutes in length
• data for this study: first of three sessions (19 W, 19 M)
RESULT 2: Vowel segment of women’s FPs shorter than men’s
… but not sta>s>cally significantly so**
In this sample: Women’s FP vowel
segments shorter than men’s on
average, and less widely distributed
(not pictured: male outlier of 1008 ms)
Example responses:
“…The open sound of uh just doesn't seem to
carry any sense of femininity with it”
Rela>ve to men, women tend to disprefer
sustained vocalic segments in producing FPs,
thereby op>ng for um over its coda-­‐less
counterpart at a higher rate than men
Stereotypes, courtesy o f Clueless:
Um, do you want to go swimming?
Figure 1. Token of u m from female speaker 123
Methodology:
• Data: 1st two turn-­‐ini>al ums and u hs for ea. speaker, where
available (to control for discourse func>on)
• V owel’s beginning and end: F2 intensity (and freq. for um)
Women
uh
287
um
259
um & u h
265
Men
Difference
391
-­‐103
268
-­‐9
337
-­‐72
Table 2. A verage FP vowel segment
dura>on (ms) by gender and FP type
o transient/formant transi>ons (otherwise)
Figure 3. Distribu>on of FP vowel segment
dura>on (ms) by gender -­‐ um & u h
• Waveform/auditory cues consulted where especially noisy
Coeff. on FP type in mixed-­‐effects
model of log(FP dura>on):
• Clips too noisy to analyze were thrown out
Women
Men
Total
Many thanks to Robert J. Podesva and Penelope Eckert for their guidance and insight.
• Takeaway: Results consistent with women
having s horter FP vowel segs.
In addi#on: Women’s ums signif. longer than
their uhs. Not so for men.
• Ques#on: Does um step in where an uh
would be too long?
In Brief:
Together, results support the idea that, rela>ve
to men, women tend to disprefer sustained
vowels in producing FPs
…All else equal, this
considera>on makes um
preferable to uh for
women
[m]
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION: Um significantly longer than uh for women
… but not for men
o loss of formant intensity (silence)
H2: Correct direc#on, but not stat. signif.
Women’s FP vowel segments shorter than
men’s on average, and less widely distributed
[m] to the rescue!
**Coeff. on gender in mixed-­‐effects model of log(vowel d ur.): 0.12 (t = 0.93, p = 0. 356).
• [m]’s end located based on:
Tokens analyzed:
Uh, but I would like to say this: Tardiness is not something
you can do all on your own.
The difference is sta>s>cally significant
(p = 0.038)
Figure 2. Distribu>on of umV/umC
dura>on (ms) by gender
*Coeff. on gender in mixed-­‐effects model of umV/umC: 0.76 (t = 2.13, p = 0. 038).
• uh sounds more ‘dumb,’ ‘lazy,’ & ‘ignorant’
Overarching Hypothesis:
Review of Hypothesis:
H1: Borne out. The ra>o of umV to umC is
smaller for women than for men, on average
• um sounds more ‘careful,’ ‘polite,’ & ‘nervous’
(Acton 2010)
• H1: ra>o of dura>on of vowel segment of um
(umV) to dura>on of consonant segment of um
(umC) smaller for women than for men
Respondents to a s urvey on um and uh
report that:
“…It would be more ladylike to have the mouth
closed while finding what to say next”
Discussion
um
uh
• Women: 0 .43 (t = 3.17, p = 0. 003)
37
14
51
10
18
28
• Men: 0.22 (t = 1.38, p = 0. 177)
W -­‐ uh W -­‐ um M -­‐ uh M -­‐ um
Figure 4. FP dura>on (ms) by gender and FP type
Conclusions
• Phone>c realiza>on of um and uh provides clues
to understanding their distribu>on, sugges>ng
strong links between form, func>on, and perhaps
social meaning
• Next step: examine less noisy corpora, coding for
discourse func>on
• Q1: What leads to a stronger aggregate dispref.
for sustained vowels in producing FPs for women?
• Q2: What can we learn from looking at the level of
the individual and at other social factors?
eacton@stanford.edu