While what you are saying is not wrong, it is only part of the story. You are assuming some sort of intention, however opaque, on the part of the speaker, when some speakers actually use these interjections and hesitations as a way to stall for time, apparently because they don't really know what they're going to say next. It particularly annoys me to hear this in podcasts or pre-recorded radio shows, and I have been known to write to the producer(s) to ask them to work with the (sometimes nervous or inexperienced) broadcasters to overcome their distracting verbal tics and get to their point, or if that is not possible, to excise these "fillers" from the recording before it airs. (Somewhat to my surprise, I have actually noticed improvements after sending these messages!)
May I draw a distinction between "opaque" and "unconscious?" I'm not saying that every utterance of "well" is calculated. What I am saying is that when people want to change the topic, indicate agreement or disagreement, start an aside, and so on, these words are often how they do it. I argue that no one says "so," or "well," meaning nothing at all by it. The meaning is nonparaphrasable, and not part of the content of the discourse, rather it's a marker about how the flow of the discourse will change. One part that I left out is the fact that these words function in informal spoken language in a similar way to how "furthermore," "thus," "on the other hand," and other transitional words and phrases work in more formal settings.
TL;DR: I believe that even when stalling for time... like... the speaker reveals a lot with the words they choose.
The historical incidents that riveted my attention to the issue of verbal fillers involved a local entrepreneur, who was given a recurring radio spot with another more experienced broadcaster, to discuss issues relating to their common interests. I found that I could not hear or understand anything he was trying to say because he peppered his speech liberally with "I mean, like, ya know." The problem was that we didn't know, even if his colleague may have, and his saying this string of meaningless fillers two or three times in every sentence was no help.
Well, yes. I agree with you there. That environment demands different speech than does a casual conversation. And I'm not trying to say that "ah, uh, uh..." has meaning. I think "I mean, like, ya know" might, in the mind of the speaker, but is certainly irritating in a context where a listener isn't participating in the framing of the discourse. You're on to something here.
So, in the past twenty years or so it became a thing to start a conversation or a fairly formal speech with “So,” Oxford comma or no.
And another thing (terribly OT) even Obama would repeat “is” as in “the thing is, is...” didn’t he?
I should do a Lingua, Frankly about the Oxford comma. All I can offer at the moment is this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBUmH9tWCGw
While what you are saying is not wrong, it is only part of the story. You are assuming some sort of intention, however opaque, on the part of the speaker, when some speakers actually use these interjections and hesitations as a way to stall for time, apparently because they don't really know what they're going to say next. It particularly annoys me to hear this in podcasts or pre-recorded radio shows, and I have been known to write to the producer(s) to ask them to work with the (sometimes nervous or inexperienced) broadcasters to overcome their distracting verbal tics and get to their point, or if that is not possible, to excise these "fillers" from the recording before it airs. (Somewhat to my surprise, I have actually noticed improvements after sending these messages!)
May I draw a distinction between "opaque" and "unconscious?" I'm not saying that every utterance of "well" is calculated. What I am saying is that when people want to change the topic, indicate agreement or disagreement, start an aside, and so on, these words are often how they do it. I argue that no one says "so," or "well," meaning nothing at all by it. The meaning is nonparaphrasable, and not part of the content of the discourse, rather it's a marker about how the flow of the discourse will change. One part that I left out is the fact that these words function in informal spoken language in a similar way to how "furthermore," "thus," "on the other hand," and other transitional words and phrases work in more formal settings.
TL;DR: I believe that even when stalling for time... like... the speaker reveals a lot with the words they choose.
The historical incidents that riveted my attention to the issue of verbal fillers involved a local entrepreneur, who was given a recurring radio spot with another more experienced broadcaster, to discuss issues relating to their common interests. I found that I could not hear or understand anything he was trying to say because he peppered his speech liberally with "I mean, like, ya know." The problem was that we didn't know, even if his colleague may have, and his saying this string of meaningless fillers two or three times in every sentence was no help.
Well, yes. I agree with you there. That environment demands different speech than does a casual conversation. And I'm not trying to say that "ah, uh, uh..." has meaning. I think "I mean, like, ya know" might, in the mind of the speaker, but is certainly irritating in a context where a listener isn't participating in the framing of the discourse. You're on to something here.