Re Ilan Stavans’s “A needless layer of butter to the toast’’ (The Word, Ideas, Sept. 4): In his tirade against what he considers superfluous modifiers, Stavans seems to have lumped together several language mannerisms that have quite different functions.

While I share his irritation with the jarring rat-a-tat of “likes’’ that often sputter through the speech of young Americans, I do often find myself using phrases such as “as it were.’’ But I do so only when talking. And here is where Stavans’s argument becomes cloudy.

Speech exists in time, and speakers will often need a moment to select the most apposite word. One can pause in silence, but that can sometimes mean losing the attention of one’s audience, or providing an opportunity for someone else to interrupt. Or one can cover the hiatus with a daft, deer-in-the-headlamps “uhhhhhh.’’ I find that using such qualifiers as “to some extent’’ or “on the whole’’ is far more graceful than a gaping grunt.

Of course, one may also rely on the sort of gestural ploy so effectively used by the former British prime minister, Harold Wilson, who, when asked an awkward question, would make much of lighting his always-ready pipe. By the time the smoke appeared, he had formulated a reply, having revealed nothing of his initial disquiet.

Andrew Horn

Somerville

The writer is head of English at Curry College.