As a court reporter, I’ve spent countless hours in depositions, hearings, and trials, capturing every spoken word to create an accurate, impartial, and comprehensive record. Over the years, I’ve noticed a recurring moment that often sparks confusion amongst attorneys and judges: the infamous “uh-huh” versus “huh-uh.”
Many attorneys and judges, with good intentions, will instruct witnesses to answer only “yes” or “no” during depositions and trials. I often hear some version of, “Please answer with a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because the court reporter can’t type ‘uh-huh.'” The idea behind this request is understandable: attorneys want clarity in the record. But here’s the truth that often gets lost: we court reporters can absolutely write ‘uh-huh,’ ‘huh-uh,’ and any other utterance. In fact, we already do.
Let me pull back the curtain a bit. Court reporters write phonetically using a shorthand system, typically a stenotype machine, designed to capture sounds quickly and accurately. Every utterance with meaning—whether it’s a formal “yes,” a casual “yeah,” a hesitant “mmm-hmm,” or a subtle “uh-huh”—makes it into the transcript. These utterances are not lost because of our limitations. Rather, they make it into the record exactly as they were spoken.
So where does the confusion come from?
The problem doesn’t lie in our ability to capture these sounds; it lies in the interpretation afterward. Unlike a straightforward “yes” or “no,” the sounds “uh-huh” and “huh-uh” can be ambiguous on paper. To the ear, they’re usually clear because tone, inflection, and context tell you what was meant. But when those utterances appear in a transcript as “uh-huh” or “huh-uh” (or some variation of phonetic spelling), it can be difficult for someone reading the transcript to know whether the witness meant “yes” or “no.”
This lack of clarity can lead to arguments between counsel. I’ve witnessed attorneys debate the meaning of these utterances during trials or deposition reviews. I’ve seen transcripts annotated, questioned, and even contested over what should be a straightforward affirmation or negation. This confusion is compounded by the fact that, for more than a century, there hasn’t been an industry-wide standard for how court reporters write these specific utterances. Different reporting schools teach different phonetic spellings, and different regions may adopt their own conventions.
In other words, it’s not that we can’t type it—it’s that the reading of it later isn’t as simple as reading “yes” or “no.”
A perfect example of the issue arose in a recent trial, when an attorney said:
“You can say ‘yeah,’ actually. ‘Yeah’ is totally fine. What His Honor was talking about was if you say ‘uh-huh,’ then it comes out ‘u-h, dash, h-u-h’ and we have no idea whether that’s ‘uh-huh’ or ‘huh-uh.’ But ‘yeah’ is totally fine.”
This quote reflects the common misconception. The issue isn’t the court reporter’s ability to transcribe; it’s that, absent clarification, someone reading the transcript later may second-guess what was meant.
A simple solution: establish the meaning at the outset.
Attorneys can easily resolve this confusion with one small procedural step. At the beginning of a deposition or proceeding, counsel can state for the record:
“For the purposes of this deposition, when I or the witness say ‘uh-huh,’ it will be understood to mean ‘yes,’ and when I or the witness say ‘huh-uh,’ it will be understood to mean ‘no.'”
By making this clarification up front, you create a key for interpreting those utterances throughout the transcript. This statement becomes part of the official record, leaving no room for later disagreement. Any reader—whether it’s another attorney, a judge, or an appeals panel—can refer to that clarification and confidently understand the meaning.
Imagine how much smoother proceedings could be if this simple declaration became standard practice. You wouldn’t have to interrupt a witness mid-sentence to demand a formal “yes” or “no.” The conversation could flow more naturally. And, most importantly, no time would be wasted later debating what “uh-huh” or “huh-uh” meant.
Why it matters to the court record.
Court reporters take pride in creating a verbatim record. Our goal is not to paraphrase or translate but to capture exactly what was said. We don’t interpret; we transcribe. That’s why we transcribe “uh-huh” as “uh-huh” and “huh-uh” as “huh-uh,” instead of arbitrarily replacing them with “yes” or “no.” Substituting those words would cross the line into interpretation, which is outside the scope of a reporter’s role.
But a procedural statement by counsel empowers the transcript to retain both fidelity and clarity. Once that clarification is on record, the phonetic utterances can be left as-is in the transcript, with no danger of misinterpretation. Everyone wins: the court reporter remains neutral and verbatim, and the attorneys preserve clarity for later reference.
A professional partnership.
Attorneys and court reporters are partners in creating the record. We each bring professional expertise to the table, with a shared goal of accuracy and clarity. Misunderstandings about our capabilities—such as the mistaken belief that we “can’t type ‘uh-huh'”—are easy to clear up with open communication.
Rather than relying solely on instructing witnesses to say “yes” or “no” (which, let’s be honest, doesn’t always work—people revert to their natural speech patterns under pressure), consider adopting the procedural clarification method. It’s a proactive, practical approach that respects the roles of everyone involved.
In closing, I encourage attorneys to think of court reporters not as limited in what we can capture, but as highly skilled professionals trained to record every sound with precision. We can—and do—type “uh-huh” and “huh-uh.” The key to avoiding confusion isn’t in our keyboard; it’s in providing a simple interpretive statement at the outset of the proceeding.
With that one small step, we can eliminate unnecessary interruptions, reduce ambiguity in the record, and foster smoother proceedings for everyone involved.
After all, the best transcript is one that needs no guesswork.
Let’s work together to make it that way.
STENOIMPERIUM 