Hear, Hear Vs Here, Here

Are you preparing for a debate with someone? Train yourself to exclaim, “hear, hear” when you agree with the speaker… Or should it be “here, here”? It’s one of the most often confused phrases of this time and can cause a heated debate amongst writers. 

Continue reading to learn the difference between “here, here” and “hear, hear.” This guide will also show you the origin of the phrases while providing relevant examples.

It can be super easy to get this wrong because they sound exactly the same. But the correct use of it in a sentence is “hear, hear” when writing narrative or dialogue.

Hear, Hear

Hear, hear (usually with a comma and set apart as a self-contained sentence) is the conventional spelling of the colloquial exclamation used to express approval for a speaker or sentiment. It’s essentially short for hear him, hear him or hear this, hear this, where these phrases are a sort of cheer.

Here, Here

Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.

What Does “Hear! Hear!” Mean? Origin and Examples in Writing

With words like roommate vs room mate, many get confused between “hear, hear” and “here, here” because they sound the same. But “hear, hear” is the correct expression that means an agreement with someone’s point. It’s short for “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!”

Instead of an exclamation point, the expression typically uses a comma to separate the self-contained sentence, “hear, hear.” or “hear, hear!” It’s a well-established phrase often used in the legislative process, scriptwriting, historical fiction, and more.  Examples:

“Only that it was awesome,” she said, “and that the Bronco Bowl was the only concert venue that ever mattered.” Hear, hear. [Dallas Observer]

“I think we need to go back to old-fashioned basics and hard work in the nets and not try and re-invent the wheel.” Hear, hear! [Daily Telegraph]

“Hear, Hear” in the Seventeenth Century

This colloquial saying dates back to the 17th century, which the UK Parliament used to direct attention to anyone speaking. It was also short for “hear him, hear him!” and was later shortened to “hear, hear!”

“Hear him, hear him” became popular since debates were a massive part of the Parliament. It’s also worth noting that no ones used “hear her, hear her” in history. That’s because the first female Parliament member was only elected in the 20th century.

“Hear, Hear” in the King James Bible

The King James Bible also used the verb “hear” in the same context. In Bible stories, it indicated a command for people to listen. 

Examples:

“Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed…” [Genesis 37:6].

“Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob.” [Genesis 49:2].

“Hear, Hear” at Present

From as far back as the eighteenth century, the phrase has been used in many forms. “Hear ye, hear ye!” became “hear him, hear him!” and then eventually morphed into “Hear, hear!”. 

Saying “hear, hear” in the twentieth century and modern times means you agree with what someone says. It’s like saying “yeah” or “that’s so true!” The use of expression depends on the formality of the situation, as what the UK parliament originally meant.

You’ll often hear it in school debates, government assemblies, and corporate meetings. You might also encounter it in new movies and shows with themes of history, royalty, or aristocracy.

“Hear, hear” is also an appropriate expression to draw attention. Imagine being in a large room where people are chatting with each other, but you want to make a special announcement. 

Use “hear, hear” to get everyone to notice you. Once everyone’s eyes are on you, proceed with your good news.

Some also use the phrase to cheer. You’ll hear people saying “hear, hear” at the end of a toast instead of clapping, especially in gatherings that prohibit the act. 

“Here, Here” or “Hear, Hear”: What’s the Difference?

You already know that “hear, hear” is a famous saying that expresses agreement with someone’s sentiments. But some people still confuse it with “here, here” because the two are homophones.

Homophones are words with the same pronunciations yet distinguishable spellings, definitions, or origins. Note that “hear” is a verb while “here” is an adjective. Therefore, it makes sense to use “hear, hear” to command, agree, or cheer since they are actions.

“Here, here” is still common in the English language. It’s more commonly used at the moment. But it could be for a different circumstance or context. When someone’s looking for their keys, and you found them, you can say, “here, here!”

here here or hear hear English

In the End

“Hear, hear” is the correct way to say you agree with someone. Now you can settle any lively debates you might have with anyone who says otherwise. The phrase holds a heavy cultural significance because of the long history of parliamentarism.

No one will notice the issue if you accidentally shout, “here, here!” when you are in favor of someone’s sentiment. But in writing, don’t forget to use the expression “hear, hear.”

100 thoughts on “Hear, Hear Vs Here, Here”

  1. That’s funny, because I’m sure I read somewhere that “Here, here!” was the proper spelling, being originally a shout meaning, “Here is the person to whom we should all be paying attention.” (Picture the shouter gesturing toward the speaker with his open hand.) I guess I’m easily duped, because this didn’t sound nonsensical or silly to me.

    Reply
  2. “With a comma, usually set apart as a self-contained sentence”…

    What a bunch of sanctimonious clap-trap!

    Unless Occam has lost some of his authority: “Hear! Hear!” requires no additional rules other than the usual implicit “You” associated with all interjections…

    Reply
    • Ooh dear, I think you’re getting your “here”s and “hear”s mixed up! One may “hear” something “here”, however one may not “here” something “hear”…

      Reply
    • That is precisely what I thought and it still makes more sense to my logic.

      As in, “Everyone, HEAR what has been said HERE!”

      I still check it now and again just to see if it has changed.

      Alas, we’re outnumbered.

      Unfortunately for us, grammar yields to consensus over logic.

      Reply
      • As noted by the ever-present use of ‘me’ as a subject, i.e. “He is older than me,” or “Who said that?” “Me!” Oh, woe is me!

        Reply
        • ‘Me’ in the sense of your examples functions not as an object pronoun but as an *emphatic* pronoun, and is perfectly legitimate nowadays. In fact, the use of the soon-to-be-archaic use of ‘I’ in these expressions is already considered to be quite stilted and old-fashioned in most quarters.
          The same thing occurs in French: “C’est moi!” translates to “It’s me,” and the more strictly grammatical “C’est je!” is rarely if ever heard.
          Languages change and logic is rarely involved in the process. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says about Pluto being demoted to dwarf planet status, “Get over it!”

          Reply
          • Better a down-to-earth – or in this case found-in-earth – Neandertal (the ‘h’ was removed in a German spelling reform in 1900) than a stuffed shirt!

          • I would note that, in “It’s me,” ‘it’ is the subject and ‘me’ is the object. (:
            It’s the same for all those examples, actually, even if the literal subject is not included in the sentence. It can still be implied.

          • I would argue that you are incorrect there. Just because there is no action being performed does not mean that there is no object (triple negative eat your heart out!). By the use of ‘is’ in ‘It’s’, there certainly is a verb even if it is considered an irregular helping verb.

          • “It’s me” means “it is me” means “it *equals* me.” Both are subjects in the nominative case and are synonyms of each other. Also, “to be” is not a transitive verb so it does not take a direct object! “It’s me” is the same kind of sentence as “I am a carpenter,” where “I” = “carpenter.” Get it? The Russian language, for example, does not use the present tense of “to be” at all; a Russian would say “I carpenter” (Ya plotnik), which should make the meaning crystal clear.
            Everyone should be required to study at least one foreign language, preferably an inflected one like Latin or Russian where these relationships are made explicit in the spelling.

      • Historically, it’s directly related to, and stemming from, the old cry of “hear ye, hear ye”. Any other explanation is merely a modernistic extrapolation and, in the correct context, logistically unsound.

        Reply
          • I too agree…. Moreover, I assumed he meant “logically unsound”. And now I leave it to the reader to critique my use of the ellipsis in my opening sentence and my use of the word “Moreover” following it. Have fun!

          • While at first I tended to agree with your assertion, I looked up the definition of logistic and one could hypothetically stretch the listed definition – “symbolic logic” – to fit in this case (since words are clearly symbols and logic would have been an acceptable word to use in his statement. Sorry :P

      • All things but science lead to consensus over logic, but still even the science world is being overcome by foolish political jargon.

        Although I do believe “Hear, hear” makes the most sense… See, if humans can be swayed more without the use of logic, it can be more logical to use these techniques to persuade the listener. This is simply because repetition has a grander effect than a lone statement. Am I right or am I right?

        George Carlin tends to use repetition to audience’s and makes his points loud and clear to all types of people with varied beliefs.

        Reply
      • Logic is that it’s repeated for emphasis. As in Listen, listen. Or better “Listen well.” Think of the town crier shouting out in the town square, “Hear ye, Hear ye, know ye well by these words…” He’s not shouting hey you, over here. He’s saying listen, listen…

        Reply
    • Hahaha, you still flipped the “here’s!” You meant you can “hear this here in this spot…” but nice try with the word play.

      Reply
  3. Many thanks Grammarist! Although we may disagree on certain words; such as “favour”, “colour”, “capitalisation” or even the pronunciation of words like “tomato”, I have found your “Hear, Hear” article most informative! Keep up the good work!

    Reply
  4. I’ve always assumed it comes from “Oyez! oyez!” (Hear! Hear!) as when it’s traditionally said when a court comvenes. Every session of the US Supreme Court begins:

    “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the
    Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and
    give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United
    States and this Honorable Court.”

    Reply
  5. Jim, the context is different between the Biblical example(s) and the Parliamentary ones. The phrase may have been used prior to the late 17th century, but the meaning was not the same.

    In the Biblical phrases you cited, “Hear, hear” is used to attract another’s attention — more along the lines of “Hear ye, hear ye” preceding an announcement, or Richard Grayson’s (below) example of “Oyez! Oyez!” used to announce a judge’s arrival in a court of law.

    In the Parliamentary usage, the phrase is uttered to concur with a speaker *after* a statement is made. That is the usual context when “Hear, hear!” is used today.

    Reply
  6. As I understood, the intention of the colloquial phrase ‘hear hear’ was to exhort others to pay attention to the speaker as you enthusiastically endorse the speech yourself (I hear you and please listen to this person). There are folks here who seem to strongly support the notion that it could be ‘hear here’.
    While I do hear you, it does not seem logical (not that language needs logic). Note that ‘Here, here’ is used to get attention in a crowd to yourself. That being the case, when you are endorsing someone else’s speech, here does not sound logical.

    Learn the facts, but not from someone’s opinion – Anon

    Reply
  7. I still want to argue for “Here, here now!” as in “Listen here now!” Could it be that both meanings are used in conversation even though the second one does not have literary backing; that the reality of the usage is not either, or but both? And why should one have to be correct and the other incorrect?

    Reply
    • I hear, “Here, here!” as a statement placing something or someone. Even if it was used to attract attention to someone saying something important enough to a listener who wants others to hear what was being spoken, they’d still just be doing just that. It is still not saying, “Hear, hear!” in a general tone of agreement for others to acknowledge. How about we use both. “Here, here!” and once they come over, physically, then draw them in further with, “Hear, hear!” and both will be covered.

      Reply
      • I hear it as a shortening of a toast, as at a dinner party.

        “Here[‘s a toast to what was just said!]”, repeated for emphasis. “Here, here!” Everyone who agrees raises a toast. Everyone drinks.

        Reply
        • Though, the original may have been a shortening of “Hear ye, hear ye!”? Or a repetition of “Hear [well (and understand) what was just said]!” Don’t know…

          Reply
  8. IF I had my way, both would be used… “Hear, hear” implies that you are actually going to say something. “Here, here” is more of a statement of affirmation for the words of another, as in “I support those remarks.” I stand here in affirmation.

    Reply
    • I’m still more of an ‘abbreviated toast’ man myself. “Here[‘s to what was just said]!” That’s how I’ve always kind of perceived it.

      “Here, here!” *Literally or figuratively raises a toast and/or everyone drinks.*

      Yeah?

      Reply
  9. I have always thought that both were acceptable. “Hear, hear,” as in what has been described above, and “Here, here,” as in I am in total agreement with what has been said both in form (literally and figuratively) and thought; in essence “echoing” the speaker’s statement(s).

    Reply
  10. I always imagined that original form was ‘here’, indicating that here was a person who agrees with the speaker, like a roll-call or show of hands. The more ‘here’s’ you heard from the audience, the more support was present in the room, which is, after all, the way its actually used. From that, one can easily see how it would have become ‘here here’ for strong agreement, giving the impression that more people are in support.

    Reply
  11. I can just hear Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention saying, “Hear Ye. Hear Ye.” It’s an Old English form of speaking.

    Reply
  12. It’s “Here.” A speaker would say, “Here, Here” to indicate approval–“Here–I agree too. Right here!” The word “Hear” makes no sense.

    Reply
  13. Funny, because I generally say (and assumed logically) that it was “Hear here”, as in “Hey, listen to this guy over here”. I’ll just keep doing it my way, it makes the most sense to me.

    Reply
  14. I find it amusing that the article says “…there are ways to logically justify [here, here’s] use.” then fails to mention any of them. ;)

    Reply
    • For instance, metaphorically raising a toast “Here’s to what was just said!” with repetition for emphasis, shortened to “Here[…], here[…]!”

      As opposed to a commandment to “Hear what has just been said!” with repetition for emphasis, shortened to “Hear[…], hear[…]!”

      I could see it going either way…

      Reply
  15. The real education about “Hear, hear vs. here, here” is now presented in the comment section. “Hear, hear”? “Here, here”? “Hear, here”? “Here, hear”?
    They all seem right when a logical context is presented.

    Reply
  16. I’ve seen “here, here” in the context of a rebuke, as in, “Here, here, sir, you’ve no cause to say a thing like that!” Since the speaker disagrees with the person, she would not call for him to be heard, but would be saying, in effect, “Look here, mister…”

    Reply
  17. “listen and hear” is a common expression in the Bible (James of England) so I assumed it was ‘hear’; but thanks for the confirmation! Hear, hear! :=D

    Reply
  18. Oh me oh my, what have I stumbled upon. It is as though Sir Humphrey Appleby, from the television programme Yes Minister has been cloned many fold. As an international junk food manufacturer would say… I’m lovin it.

    Reply
  19. The source, for “Hear, hear” is Samuel II 20:16.

    Then cried a wise woman out of the city: ‘Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab: Come near hither, that I may speak with thee.’

    Reply
  20. You’re all wrong. That is only because the sounding of the phrase has been morphed over the years. Look back into it and you’ll find that the original phrase is “hare hair”, which, when dissected, makes much more sense than any other explanation, since the phrase is used to imply strong agreement with what has just been said. It is a shortened version of the then common phrase “I agree with what you said so completely, any difference in our arguments could not be measured by the width of a HARE’s HAIR!”

    I am flabbergasted by the fact that nobody else has been able to identify this historic origination.

    Reply

Leave a Comment