Communication essay
4
Engaging in Verbal Communication
Funerals are sad occasions, so why did hundreds of onlookers cheer as horses slowly pulled the pine coffi n through down- town Detroit? Why did Julian Bond tell the
onlookers, “The entity in this casket deserves to be dead” (Krolicki, 2007)? Who deserves to be dead? Who was in the casket?
Actually nobody was in the casket; no person was being buried. This funeral was for the N-word. On Monday, July 9, 2007 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) held a public burial for the N-word. This word had hurt many who attended its funeral. It was a mean, hateful word that “deserved to be dead.”
Perhaps, as a child, you heard the nursery rhyme, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” By now, most of us have fi gured out that the nursery rhyme would be more accurate if it were revised to say, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can really hurt me.” Words can harm us, sometimes terribly. Children often bully each other with name calling (Nicholson, 2006). As children get older, the verbal bullying continues, with some of the cruelest verbal attacks occurring among adolescent girls (Greenfi eld, 2002; Simmons, 2002). If you’ve ever been called hurtful names, you know how deeply words can wound.
A different language is a different vision of life. Federico Fellini
1. How are language and thought related?
2. What abilities are possible because humans use symbols?
3. What are the practical implications of recognizing that language is a process?
4. How do rules guide verbal communication?
FOCUS QUESTIO NS
69
Words can also enchant, comfort, teach, amuse, and inspire us. Have you ever read a poem or heard a song that captivated you? Have you ever felt bad and talked to a friend who said just the right thing—healing words? Have you ever been inspired to change something about yourself because of a great speech you heard? In the weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the national anthem was played on television and radio stations, and people who normally didn’t express patrio- tism sang along. The words mattered to us; their meaning was revitalized by the threat to our country.
Language is our most powerful tool. It allows us to plan, dream, remember, evalu- ate, refl ect on ourselves and the world around us, and defi ne who we are and want to be. In short, our ability to use language gives us the power to create reality. Because language is so powerful, we need to understand it and use it in responsible, ethical ways. This chapter will enhance your understanding of human language and your ability to use it effectively. The FYI box on page 70 shows how language creates reality.
In this chapter, we take a close look at verbal communication and explore its power. We begin by defi ning symbols and discussing principles of verbal commu- nication. Next, we’ll examine how language enables us to create meanings for our- selves, others, and our experiences. Finally, we’ll identify guidelines for effective verbal communication. In Chapter 5, we’ll explore the companion system, nonver- bal communication.
“The entity in this casket deserves to be dead.”
© Bi
ll P ug
lia no
/G et
ty Im
ag es
70 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
Language and Meaning Language consists of symbols, which are representations of people, events, and all that goes on around us and in us. All language is symbolic, yet not all symbols are linguistic. Nonverbal communication includes sym- bols that aren’t words, such as facial expres- sions, posture, and tone of voice.
Features of Language According to Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker (2000, 2008), humans are “verbi- vores”—a species that lives on words. Verbal communication, or language, consists of sym- bols in the form of spoken or written words. For instance, your name is a symbol that rep-
resents you. Dormitory is a symbol for a particular kind of building. Democracy is a symbol for a specifi c political system. Love represents an intense feeling. In combi- nation with nonverbal symbols, verbal symbols form the core of the human world of meaning. As a fi rst step in understanding the power of language, we’ll examine three characteristics of symbols: arbitrariness, ambiguity, and abstraction.
Arbitrariness Language is arbitrary, which means that verbal symbols are not intrin- sically connected to what they represent. For instance, the term chat room has no natural relationship to virtual spaces for online interaction. Certain words and terms seem right because as a society we agree to use them in particular ways, but they have no inherent correspondence to their referents. Because meanings are arbitrary instead of necessary, they change over time. The word apple used to refer exclusively to a fruit, and mouse and hamster used to refer to rodents, whereas today all three words are likely to be used to refer to computers as well.
Language also changes as we invent new words or imbue existing words with new meanings. The English language now has 500 times the number of words that it had only 400 years ago (Wurman, 1989). Through mass communication, commentators have enlarged the political vocabulary with such terms as Obamamania, gender gap, and political correctness. Cyberspace, hyperlink, information superhighway, buddy list, instant messaging, hypertext, and World Wide Web are terms we’ve created to refer to communication technologies. To express feelings in online communication, people have invented emoticons (also a newly coined word) such as :) for “smile,” :( for “frown,” :D for “grin,” :/ for “frustrated,” and ;) for “wink.”
Because language is a living thing, it changes as the people who use it change. In America, language continually incorporates words from people of diverse cul- tures and social communities. For example, terms from the hip-hop subculture such as dis (to disrespect) have entered into mainstream English. Words such as machismo and karma come from other languages and have been incorporated into
Talking a Union into Existence In Poland in the 1980s, the trade union
Solidarity was born. The birth was not a dramatic event. There were no fi reworks. There was no grand announcement of a powerful new union. Instead, the union grew out of words—simple, face-to-face conversations among 10 or so workers in a Gdansk shipyard. They talked with each other about wanting freedom from oppressive conditions, about the need for change. Then, this handful of individuals talked with other workers who talked with others and so on. Within just a few months, the Solidarity trade union had more than 9 million members.
ENGAGEMENT fyi
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 71
English relatively recently. The English language includes many older words that originated in other cultures (Carnes, 1994): Chocolate comes from the language of the Nahuatl Native American tribe, cotton comes from Arabic, klutz comes from Yiddish, khaki comes from Hindi, and zombie comes from language used by the Kongo group.
Language is so dynamic that publishers of The Oxford English Dictionary have a new word team whose job is to consider which new words should be added to for- mal dictionaries. In the most recent edition of The Oxford English Dictionary, words added included ego-surfi ng (searching the Internet for references to your name), irrit- ainment (programming that irritates viewers but that viewers feel compelled to watch), and fashionista (a devotee of cutting-edge fashions) (Smith, 1999).
Ambiguity Language is ambiguous, which means it doesn’t have clear-cut, precise meanings. The term good friend means someone to hang out with to one person and someone to confi de in to another. The words Christmas, Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah have distinct connotations for people with different religious and cultural backgrounds, and Thanksgiving may mean different things to Native Americans and European Americans. The meanings of these words vary according to cultural contexts and indi- viduals’ experiences. The language is the same, but what it means varies in relation to personal experiences, interests, identities, and backgrounds.
Language Creates Reality In naming things, language brings them into human consciousness. Here are a few examples
of phenomena that all of us are aware of but which became social realities only when they were given names:
Blog % entered the language only in recent years. First there was the Web, and then there were weblogs, soon shortened to blogs. You can read more about “net language” by going to the book’s online resources for this chapter and clicking on WebLink 4.1. Domestic partners % refers to gay and lesbian couples or cohabiting, unmarried heterosexuals. Birth mother % designates a woman who gives birth but does not keep the child. Date rape % is a term created to defi ne as criminal an activity that for a long time took place without being named. Environmental justice % refers to a movement to ensure that environmental dangers such as sites for storing toxic wastes are distributed fairly instead of being the burden of poor communities (Cox, 2008, 2009; Pezzullo, 2001, 2007). Blended family % refers to a family that includes children from one or both partners’ previous relationships. Although such families have long existed, only in recent years were they named.
What terms can you add to illustrate how naming things gives them a social reality that they cannot otherwise have?
TECHNOLOGY fyi
72 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
Although language doesn’t mean exactly the same thing to everyone, within a cul- ture many words have an agreed-upon range of meanings. In learning to communi- cate, we learn not only words but also the meanings and values of our society. Thus, all of us know that the word dogs refers to four-footed creatures (and occasionally to hot dogs), but each of us also attributes personal meanings based on dogs we have known and how our families and cultures regard dogs. In some cultures, dogs are food for human consumption—not a meaning of dogs in the United States! Conversely, many Westerners eat beef, whereas in Hindu cultures cows are sacred.
The ambiguity of language can lead to the misunderstandings that sometimes plague communication. A friend recently told me of misunderstandings that arose when he tried to negotiate a contract with a Japanese fi rm. My friend, Erik, said that when he made his initial proposal, O-Young, who represented the Japanese company, nodded his head and said, “This is very good.” Encouraged, Erik made additional suggestions, and O-Young smiled and responded, “This is a fi ne idea,” and “I admire your work on the project.” Yet O-Young consistently refused to sign the contract that contained Erik’s proposals. Finally, another American businessperson explained to Erik that Japanese culture regards it as rude to refuse another person directly. To someone socialized in Japanese society, outright disagreement or rejection causes another person to lose face, and that is to be avoided at all costs. Once Erik understood that apparently favorable responses did not mean O-Young agreed with him, their negotiations became much more productive. The United States developed a training program in cultural sensitiv- ity to prepare delegates to participate in the United Nations Conference on Women. The delegates were told that many Asian women would not sign agreements and con- tracts even if they gave what Americans perceive as verbal and nonverbal indications of agreement. Like O-Young, many women in Asian countries are reluctant to disagree overtly.
Problems arising from the ambiguity of language can cause misunderstandings between people. A supervisor criticizes a new employee for “inadequate quality of work.” The employee assumes the supervisor wants more productivity; the supervi-
sor means that the employee should be more careful in proofi ng material to catch errors. Spouses often have different meanings for “doing their share” of home chores. To many women, it means doing half the work, but to men it tends to mean doing more than their fathers did, which is still less than their wives do (Hochschild & Machung, 2003).
© 19
96 by
G. B.
Tr ud
ea u.
Re pr
int ed
by pe
rm iss
ion of
Un
ive rsa
l P res
s S yn
dic ate
.
RON
A while ago, I told my girlfriend I needed more independence. She
got all upset because she thought I didn’t love her anymore and was
pulling away. All I meant was that I need some time with the guys
and some for just myself. She said that the last time a guy said he
wanted more independence, she found out he was dating out on her.
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 73
Ambiguous language is a common source of misunderstandings in relationships. For instance, Anya might ask her husband, Bryan, to be more loving, but she and he have different understandings of what “more loving” means. Consequently, Bryan may do more housework to express his love, whereas Anya wanted them to spend more time together. Suggesting that a co-worker should be more responsive doesn’t specify what you want. To be clear, more-specifi c language is advisable. For instance, you might say to your co-worker, “I’d like you to give me feedback on the ideas I present.”
Abstraction Finally, language is abstract, which means that words are not the concrete or tangible phenomena to which they refer. They stand for those phenome- na—ideas, people, events, objects, feelings, and so forth, but they are not the things they represent. According to Steven Pinker (2008), who sees language as a window to human nature, the words we use say far more about us than the world outside of us. Pinker believes that words refl ect our attitudes, values, and sense of relationship with others. In using language, we engage in a process of abstraction in which we move further and further away from external or objective phenomena. Words vary in their degree of abstractness. Reading matter is an abstract term that includes everything from philosophy books to the list of ingredients on a cereal package. Book is a less abstract word. Textbook is even less abstract. And Communication Mosaics is the most concrete term because it refers to a specifi c textbook.
Our perceptions are one step away from the phenomena because perceptions are selective and subjective, as we learned in Chapter 3. We move a second step away from phenomena when we label a perception with language that is value laden. We abstract even further when we respond, not to behaviors or our perceptions of them, but to the labels we impose. This process can be illustrated as a ladder of abstraction (Figure 4.1), a concept developed by two early scholars of communication, Alfred Korzybski (1948) and S. I. Hayakawa (1962, 1964).
As language becomes increasingly abstract, the potential for confusion mush- rooms. One way this happens is by overgeneralization. Mass communication often relies on highly general, abstract language to describe groups of people. Terms such as inner-city youth, immigrant, and senior citizen encourage us to notice distinc- tions between young people who live in the hearts of cities and young people who live elsewhere, between people who immigrate to the United States and those who were born here, between people who are elderly and people who are not. At the same time, highly general terms for social groups, such as Asian American, Hispanic American, or African American, incline us to see commonalities among people within the categories but not to recognize distinctions among them. The FYI box on page 75 shows how labels for racial and ethnic groups have changed and how, with these changes, our perceptions of groups have evolved.
Overly general language can distort how partners think about a relationship. They may make broad, negative statements, such as, “You never go along with my preferences” or “You always interrupt me.” In most cases, highly abstract communi- cation involves overgeneralizations that are inaccurate. Yet by symbolizing experi- ence this way, partners frame how they think about each other. Researchers have shown that we are more likely to recall behaviors that are consistent with how we’ve labeled people than to recall behaviors that are inconsistent (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). When we say a friend is insensitive, we’re likely to notice instances in which he is insensitive and to overlook times when he is sensitive. Similarly, if we label
74 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
a co-worker lazy, we pre- dispose ourselves to notice her lazy behav- iors and not to perceive behaviors that show she is conscientious.
We can minimize mis- understandings by using specifi c language instead of abstract terms. Saying, “You interrupted me a moment ago” is clearer than saying, “You’re so dominating.” It’s clearer to say, “I would like you to look at me when I’m talk- ing” than to say, “I wish you’d be more attentive.” The Sharpen Your Skill box provides an oppor- tunity for you to develop skill in reducing the con- fusion caused by ambigu- ous language.
Principles of Communication Now that we understand that language is arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract, we’re ready to consider three principles of communication. These principles help us under- stand how we create meaning for our interactions.
Interpretation Creates Meaning Because language is abstract, ambigu- ous, and arbitrary, we have to inter- pret it to determine what it means (Duck, 1994a, 1994b; Shotter, 1993). Interpretation is an active, creative process we use to make sense of expe- riences. Although we’re usually not conscious of the effort we invest in interpreting words, we continually engage in the process of constructing meanings.
John Searle (1976, 1995) distin- guishes between brute facts and institutional facts. Brute facts are objective, concrete phenomena and activities. Institutional facts are the meanings of brute facts based on
Figure 4.1 THE LADDER OF ABSTRACTION
Concrete Phenomena Andrea moves around a lot; she says she is worried about making
a good grade in the course, and she asks many questions.
Most concrete
Most concrete
Perceived Behavior Andrea asks a lot of questions during the meeting.
Label Applied Andrea is taking more than her share of time.
Judgment Andrea is a selfish and immature person.
Action Avoid interacting with Andrea.
Most abstract
Most abstract
Communicating Clearly
To express yourself clearly, it’s important to translate ambiguous words into concrete language. Practice translating with these examples:
Ambiguous Language Concrete Language
You are rude. I don’t like it when you interrupt me.
We need more team spirit.
I want more freedom.
Let’s watch a good program.
Your work is sloppy.
That speaker is unprofessional.
unicating Clearly
SHARPEN YOUR SKILL
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 75
human interpretation. Borrowing an example from Searle (1976), during a football game one brute fact is that periodically people gather into roughly circular clusters. We name that activity the huddle, or huddling, and the institutional fact is that the players are planning their next play. Searle’s point is that we create meaning with lan- guage that represents institutional facts, or the social meanings we attribute to brute facts.
If someone says to you, “Get lost,” you have to think about the context and the person who made it to decide whether it’s an insult, friendly needling, or a colloquial way of saying you are out of line. People for whom English is a second language fi nd idioms such as “get lost” even more diffi cult to interpret than native speakers of English do (Lee, 2000). Go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 4.2 to learn more about idioms that can be confusing to people for whom English is a second language. What the words mean depends on the relation- ship between communicators as well as the self-esteem and previous experiences of the person who is told to get lost. Similarly, if you say “hello” to someone who makes no response, you have to decide how to interpret the silence. Is the person ignoring you, angry with you, or preoccupied? How you interpret others’ communication has at least as much to do with you as with what other people say or do.
Communication Is Guided by Rules Although each of us draws on his or her indi- vidual experiences to interpret language, the process of interpretation is not entirely
The Languages of Race and Ethnicity Our labels for races and ethnicities have changed over time (Davis, 1997; Delgado, 1998;
Johnson, 1999; Martin et al., 1996; Orbe & Harris, 2001; Tanno, 1997). In America’s early years, Irish Catholic and Eastern European immigrants were not defi ned as % white. Today they are. Historic and current labels for African Americans include % Negroes, coloreds, African Americans, people of color, blacks, and Afro-Americans. Historic and current labels for indigenous people of Alaska include % Eskimo and Inuk. Historic and current labels for Asians and Asian Americans include % Asians, Asian nationals, and Orientals, as well as more-specifi c ethnic labels such as Japanese, Korean Americans, and Vietnamese Americans. Native Americans may be called % Indians or Native Americans or by labels that reference their specifi c nations, such as Oneida and Sioux. European Americans may be called % whites, Caucasians, European Americans, or just plain Americans, which refl ects the naive presumption that, in America, white is the “normal” race. Labels for South Americans include % Hispanics, Latinos and Latinas, Chicanos and Chicanas, and more-specifi c labels, such as Cubanos and Mexicans.
DIVERSITY fyi
76 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
personal. Without realizing it, we learn rules in the process of being socialized into a particular culture, and these rules guide our communication and how we inter- pret the communication of others (Argyle & Henderson, 1985; Shimanoff, 1980). Communication rules are shared understandings among members of a particular culture or social group about what communication means and what behaviors are appropriate in various situations. Children often are taught that please and thank you are magic words that they should use. We learn that sir and ma’am are polite words to use when addressing our elders or people who have authority over us. In the course of interacting with our families and others, we unconsciously absorb rules that guide how we communicate and how we interpret others’ communication. Research shows that children begin to understand and follow communication rules by the time they are 1 or 2 years old (Miller, 1993).
Two kinds of rules guide our communication (Cronen, Pearce, & Snavely, 1979; Pearce, Cronen, & Conklin, 1979). Regulative rules regulate interaction by speci- fying when, how, where, and with whom to communicate about certain things. For instance, European Americans generally don’t interrupt when someone is making a formal presentation, but in more-informal settings interruptions may be appropriate. Some African Americans follow a different rule; it specifi es that audience members should participate in public speeches by calling out responses. Thus, for some African American audiences at speaking events, the call–response pattern is an appropriate form of communication. The rules of some cultures say that interrupting in any context is impolite.
Some families have a rule that people cannot argue at the dinner table, whereas other families regard arguments as a normal accompaniment to meals. Families also teach us rules about how to communicate in confl ict situations (Honeycutt, Woods, & Fontenot, 1993; Jones & Gallois, 1989; Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1990). Did you learn that it’s appropriate or inappropriate to yell at others during confl ict? Regulative rules also defi ne when, where, and with whom it’s appropriate to show affection and disclose private information. Regulative rules vary across cultures; what is considered appropriate in one society may be regarded as impolite or offensive elsewhere.
Constitutive rules defi ne what a particular communication means or stands for. We learn that most people regard specifi c kinds of communication as showing respect (lis- tening attentively, not correcting), professionalism (speaking effectively, taking a voice), and rudeness (talking over others). We also learn what communication is expected if we want to be perceived as a good friend (sharing confi dences, defending our friends when others criticize them), a responsible employee (making good contributions in group meetings, creating supportive climates), and a desirable romantic partner (offer- ing support, expressing affection). Like regulative rules, constitutive rules are shaped by cultures. The Sharpen Your Skill box on page 78 allows you to refl ect on rules that you follow in your communication.
Rules guide our everyday interactions by telling us when to communicate, what to communicate, and how to interpret others’ verbal and nonverbal communication. Casual social interactions tend to adhere to rules that are widely shared in a society. Interaction between intimates also follows rules, but these are private rules that refl ect special meanings partners have created (Duck, 2006; Wood, 2006). Television net- works follow rules for what can and cannot be said and shown during specifi c times and rules for how often they insert commercials. Online chat rooms and forums develop
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 77
specifi c and often unique rules for how people express themselves and respond to one another. Every organization develops a distinctive culture, which includes rules about how members interact.
Few rules are rigidly fi xed. Like communication itself, most rules are subject to change. When we decide that a rule is not functional, we negotiate changes in it. A company may fi nd that its rule for making decisions by consensus no longer works once the company triples in size, so voting becomes a constitutive rule to defi ne decision making. When we don’t have a rule for a particular kind of interaction, we invent one and often negotiate and refi ne it until it provides the assistance we want in structuring communication. When couples have a child, they often fi nd that they don’t have any guidelines for new communication situations, so they develop rules: “It is appropriate to tend to the baby while talking with each other,” “We take turns eating so one of us is free to hold the baby,” or “Interrupting our conversation when the baby cries does not count as rudeness.”
It’s important to understand that we don’t have to be aware of communication rules in order to follow them. For the most part, we’re really not conscious of the rules that guide how, when, where, and with whom we communicate about various things. We may not realize we have rules until one is broken, and we become aware that we had an expectation. Becoming aware of communication rules empowers you to change those that do not promote good interaction, as Emily’s commentary illustrates.
EMILY My boyfriend and I had this really frustrating pattern about planning what to do. He’d say, “What do
you want to do this weekend?” And I’d say, “I don’t know. What do you want to do?” Then he’d suggest
two or three things and ask me which of them sounded good. I would say they were all fi ne with
me, even if they weren’t. And this would keep on forever. Both of us had a rule not to impose on the
other, and it kept us from stating our preferences, so we just went in circles about any decision. Well,
two weekends ago I talked to him about rules, and he agreed we had one that was frustrating. So we
invented a new rule that says each of us has to state what we want to do, but the other has to say if
that is not okay. It’s a lot less frustrating to fi gure out what we want to do since we agreed on this rule.
Punctuation Aff ects Meaning We punctuate communication to interpret meaning. Like the punctuation you studied in grammar classes, punctuation of verbal com- munication is a way to mark a fl ow of activity into meaningful units. Punctuation is our perception of when interaction begins and ends (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
Before we can attribute meaning to communication, we must establish its bound- aries. Usually this involves deciding who initiated communication and when the interaction began. If a co-worker suggests going out to lunch together, you might regard the invitation as marking the start of the interaction. If you return another person’s phone call, you might perceive the original call as the beginning of the epi- sode. If someone insults you, you might regard the insult as the act that marks the start of a quarrel.
When we don’t agree on punctuation, problems may arise. If you’ve ever heard chil- dren arguing about who started a fi ght, you understand the importance of punctuation.
78 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
Communication on the Internet often is punctuated differently by partici- pants who join the dialogue at differ- ent times. I once read a message that was a defense of fl aming (dramatically disparaging others on the Internet). Because I view fl aming as discouraging freedom of speech, I wrote a critical response to the message. The person to whom I wrote replied that the mes- sage that disturbed me was a sarcastic reply to an earlier message that I had not seen. Because people enter elec- tronic dialogues at different times, it’s diffi cult to know who launched a par- ticular topic or which messages initiate ideas and which are responses to ear- lier messages. Similarly, new members of organizations may not understand relationships (allies and enemies) or policies.
In personal relationships, a common instance of confl icting punctuation is the demand–withdraw pattern (Figure 4.2; Bergner & Bergner, 1990; Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000; Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Wegner, 2005). In this pattern, one person tries to create closeness through personal talk, and the other strives to maintain autonomy by avoid- ing intimate discussion. The more the
fi rst person demands personal talk (“Tell me what’s going on in your life”), the more the second person with- draws (“There’s nothing to tell”). The people involved may be friends, romantic partners, or a parent and an adolescent child (Caughlin & Ramey, 2005). Each person punctuates the interaction as having started with the other: The demander thinks, “I pursue because you withdraw,” and the withdrawer thinks, “I withdraw because you pur- sue.” There is no objectively correct punctuation, because it depends on subjective perceptions.
When people don’t agree on punctuation, they don’t share mean- ings for what is happening between them. To break out of uncon- structive cycles such as demand–withdraw, people need to realize that they may punctuate differently and should discuss how each of them experiences the pattern. The Sharpen Your Skill box on the next page encourages you to check perceptions to see if you and another person are punctuating congruently.
Interpretation, communication rules, and punctuation infl uence the meaning we assign to language. These three principles highlight
I am withdrawing more because
you are pursuing harder.
I pursue because
you withdraw.
I pursue harder
because you
withdraw further.
I withdraw because you pursue me.
Figure 4.2 THE DEMAND–WITHDRAW PATTERN
Communication Rules
Think about the regulative and constitutive rules you follow in your verbal communication. For each item listed here, identify two rules that guide your verbal behavior.
Regulative Rules
List rules that regulate your verbal communication when
1. Talking with elders
2. Interacting at dinnertime
3. Having fi rst exchanges in morning
4. Greeting casual friends on campus
5. Talking with professors
Constitutive Rules
How do you use verbal communication to show
1. Trustworthiness
2. Ambition
3. Disrespect
4. Support
5. Anger
After you’ve identifi ed your rules, talk with others about their rules. Are there commonalities among your rules that refl ect broad cultural norms? What explains diff erences in individuals’ rules?
munication Rules
SHARPEN YOUR SKILL
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 79
the creativity involved in constructing meaning to make sense of commu- nication. We’re now ready to explore the power of symbols by discussing uniquely symbolic abilities.
Symbolic Abilities The ability to use language allows humans to live in a world of ideas and meanings. Instead of reacting without refl ection to our concrete environments and experiences, we think about them and sometimes transform what they mean. Philosophers of language have identifi ed six ways in which symbolic capacities affect our lives (Cassirer, 1944; Langer, 1953, 1979). As we discuss each, we’ll consider how to recognize the constructive power of language and minimize the problems it can cause (Figure 4.3).
Language Defi nes Phenomena As we noted earlier in this chapter, the most basic symbolic ability is defi nition. We use words to defi ne ourselves, others, experiences, relationships, feelings, and thoughts (Monastersky, 2002). In turn, the labels we use affect how we perceive what we have labeled. You see a car on the lot at a dealership and it is “a car.” You test drive it, decide to buy it, and it becomes “my car,” and you perceive it differently than when it was “a car.” What has changed is not the car, but what you have attached to it by way of the label.
A friend of mine puts his savings into separate accounts designated for travel, retire- ment, and emergencies. Last spring, he told me he couldn’t afford a summer vacation because he’d used up his travel fund. I pointed out that he had extra money in his emergency fund that he could use for a vacation. “No,” he replied, “that account isn’t for vacations.” He had defi ned the accounts in specifi c ways that shaped his view of the money available for travel. The symbols we use defi ne what things mean to us.
The labels we use to defi ne others affect how we perceive them. When we label someone, we focus attention on particular aspects of that person and her or his activities. At the same time, we nec- essarily obscure other aspects of that person’s identity. A person might be a loving father, a conservative, a con- cerned citizen, and a demanding supervisor. Each label directs our attention to certain aspects of the person and away from others. We might talk with the conservative about editorials on government policies, discuss commu- nity issues with the concerned citizen, seek advice on child rearing from the father, and try to clarify the expectations of the supervisor. If we defi ne someone as a Latina, that may be all we notice about the person, although there are
Punctuating Interaction
The next time you and another person enter an unproductive cycle, stop the conversation and discuss how each of you punctuates interaction.
1. What do you defi ne as the start of interaction?
2. What does the other person defi ne as the beginning?
3. What happens when you learn about each other’s punctuation? How does this aff ect understanding between you?
ating Interaction
SHARPEN YOUR SKILL
Figure 4.3 SYMBOLIC ABILITIES
1. Symbols defi ne phenomena.
2. Symbols evaluate phenomena.
3. Symbols allow us to organize experiences.
4. Symbols allow us to think hypothetically.
5. Symbols allow self-refl ection.
6. Symbols defi ne relationships and interactions.
80 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
many other aspects of her identity. This implies that we have an ethical responsibil- ity to consider how our language shapes our perceptions of others. Orest’s refl ection makes this point clearly.
Totalizing is responding to a person as if one label totally represents that person. We fi x on one symbol to defi ne someone and fail to recognize many other aspects of the per- son. Some people totalize gay men and lesbi- ans by noticing only their sexual orientation. Interestingly, we don’t totalize heterosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Totalizing also occurs when we dismiss people by saying,
“She’s old,” “He’s just a jock,” or “She’s an illegal alien.” Totalizing is not the same as stereotyping. When we stereotype someone, we defi ne the person in terms of the char- acteristics of a group. When we totalize someone, we negate most of that person by spotlighting a single aspect of his or her identity. Reneé points out a form of totalizing that really bothers her.
The symbols we use affect how we think and feel. If we describe our work in terms of frustrations, problems, and disappointments, we’re likely to feel negative about it. On the other hand, if we
describe rewards, challenges, and successes, we’re likely to feel more positive about our work. The way we defi ne experiences in relationships also affects how we feel about them. Several years ago, my colleagues and I asked romantically involved cou- ples how they defi ned differences between them (Wood et al., 1994). We found that some people defi ned differences as positive forces that energize a relationship and keep it interesting. Others defi ned differences as problems or barriers to closeness. We noted a direct connection between how partners defi ned differences and how they acted. Partners who viewed differences as constructive approached their dis- agreements with curiosity, interest, and an expectation of growth through discussion. In contrast, partners who labeled differences as problems dreaded disagreements and tried to avoid talking about them.
People who consistently use negative labels to describe their relationships heighten their awareness of aspects of the relationships that they don’t like and diminish their awareness of aspects that they do like (Cloven & Roloff, 1991). In contrast, partners who focus on good facets of relationships are more conscious of virtues in partners and relationships and are less bothered by fl aws (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991).
Mass communication also defi nes people and events in ways that can shape our perceptions. Conservative commentators sometimes refer to “knee-jerk liberals” and “tree huggers,” whereas the same groups of people are called “pro- gressives” and “environmentalists” by more-liberal commentators. Depending on which commentators you listen to, you might have different perceptions of these groups.
OREST
A lot of people relate to me as Asian, like that’s all I am. Sometimes in
classes, teachers ask me to explain the “Asian point of view,” but they
do not ask me to explain my perspective as a pre-med major or a
working student. I am an Asian, but that is not all that I am.
RENÉE Okay, here’s my issue. I love fashion—I mean I really love great clothes, jewelry, shoes, makeup—all
of it! I’m always the fi rst to wear a cool new style. So a lot of people brand me ditsy or silly. But I’m
also Phi Beta Kappa and I’ve been accepted to law school. Why do people think that if you’re into
fashion, you can’t also be smart and serious?
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 81
Language Evaluates Phenomena As we noted when we discussed the ladder of abstraction, language is not neutral; it is laden with values. We describe people we like with language that accents their good quali- ties and downplays their fl aws (“My friend is self-confi dent”). The reverse is true of our language for people we don’t like (“My enemy is arrogant”). We might describe people who speak their minds as honest, assertive, outspoken, courageous, or authoritarian. Each word has a distinct connotation. Restaurants deliberately use words that enhance the attractive- ness of menu entries. A dish described as “tender, milk-fed veal sautéed in natural juices and topped with succulent chunks of lobster” sounds more appetizing than one described as “meat from a baby calf that was kept anemic to make it tender, then slaughtered, cooked in blood, and topped with the fl esh of a crustacean that was boiled to death.”
The language we use also has ethical implications in terms of how it affects others. Most people with disabilities prefer not to be called “disabled,” because that total- izes them in terms of a disability. The term African American emphasizes cultural heritage, whereas black focuses on skin color. Hispanic defi nes people by the Spanish language spoken in countries of origin, whereas Latina and Latino highlight the geo- graphic origin of women and men, respectively.
Loaded language is words that slant perceptions, and thus meanings, exceedingly. Loaded language encourages extreme perceptions. Terms such as geezer and old fogey incline us to regard older people with contempt or pity. Alternatives such as senior citizen and elder refl ect more respectful attitudes.
An interesting communication phenomenon is the reappropriation of language. This happens when a group reclaims a term used by others to degrade its members, and treats that term as a positive self-description. Reappropriation aims to remove the stigma from term that others use pejoratively. For instance, some women and feminist musicians have reappropriated the term girl to resist the connotations of childishness. One collective of punk rock female bands calls itself Riot Grrrls. Some gay men and lesbians have reappropriated the term queer and use it as a positive statement about their identity. Southern writer Reynolds Price developed cancer of the spine that left him paraplegic. He scoffs at terms such as differently abled and physically challenged; he refers to himself as a cripple and to others who do not have disabilities as tempo- rarily able-bodied. Perhaps the most controversial example of reappropriation is some African Americans’ use of a word that was a racial epithet for years. In his book Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (2002), Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy traces the word’s history and found that the word nigger is derived from niger, which is the Latin word for the color black. By the 18th century in America, it had become a particularly offensive racial slur. Today, Kennedy notes, the word is still a vile slur when used by non-blacks, but some blacks have reappropriated the term and use it as a positive term among themselves.
MAYNARD I’m as sensitive as the next guy, but I just can’t keep up with what language off ends what people
anymore. When I was young, Negro was an accepted term, then it was black, and now it’s African American. Sometimes I forget and say black or even Negro, and I get accused of being racist. It used to be polite to say girls, but now that off ends a lot of the women I work with. Just this year, I heard that we aren’t supposed to say blind anymore, and we’re supposed to say visually impaired. I just can’t keep up.
82 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
Probably many of us sympathize with Maynard, who was 54 when he took a course with me. Keeping up with changes in language is diffi cult, and occasionally we may offend someone unintentionally. Nonetheless, we should try to learn what terms hurt or insult others and avoid using them. We also should tell others when they’ve referred to us in ways we dislike. As long as you speak assertively but not confrontationally, oth- ers are likely to respect your ideas.
Language Organizes Experiences Words organize our perceptions of events and experiences. As we learned in Chapter 3, the categories into which we place people infl uence how we interpret them and their communication. A criticism may be viewed as constructive if made by someone we categorize as a friend but insulting if made by someone we classify as an enemy. The words don’t change, but their meaning varies depending on the category into which we place the person speaking them. Because symbols orga- nize our perceptions, they allow us to think about abstract concepts such as justice, integrity, and good family life. We use broad concepts to transcend specifi c con- crete activities and enter the world of conceptual thought and ideals. Because we think abstractly, we don’t have to consider each object and experience individually. Instead, we can think in general terms.
Our capacity to abstract can also distort thinking. A primary way this occurs is by stereotyping, which is thinking in broad generalizations about a whole class of people or experiences. Examples of stereotypes are “Management doesn’t care about labor,” “Teachers are smart,” “Jocks are dumb,” “Feminists hate men,” “Religious people are good,” and “Confl ict is bad.” Notice that stereotypes can be positive or negative generalizations.
Common to all stereotypes is the classifi cation of a phenomenon into a category based on general knowledge of that category. When we use terms such as Native American, lesbian, white male, and working class, we may see only what members of each group have in common and not perceive differences among individuals in the group. Clearly, we have to generalize; we simply cannot think about each and every thing in our lives as a specifi c instance. However, stereotypes can blind us to impor- tant differences among phenomena we lump together. Therefore, we have an ethical responsibility to monitor stereotypes and to stay alert to differences between things we place in any category.
Language Allows Hypothetical Th ought Where do you hope to be 5 years from now? What is your fondest childhood memory? What would you do if you won the lottery next week? To answer these questions, you must engage in hypothetical thought, which is thinking about experiences and ideas that are not part of your concrete, daily reality. Because we can think hypothetically, we can plan, dream, remember, set goals, consider alternative courses of action, and imagine possibilities.
Language allows us to name and imagine possibilities beyond what currently exists. Technology experts have conceived of many possibilities, such as implantable memory chips that will allow us to speak another language without having learned it. This kind of memory chip is still on the drawing boards of technology innovators, but we can
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 83
think about it now because we have the term implantable memory chip. Not too many years ago, technology innovators imagined worldwide networks that con- nected people through computers; today that is a reality.
Hypothetical thought is possible because we are symbol users. Words give form to ideas so that we can hold them in our minds and refl ect on them. We can contemplate things that have no real existence, and we can remember our- selves in the past and project ourselves into the future. Our ability to inhabit past, present, and future explains why we can set goals and work toward them, even though we do not realize the goal immediately (Dixson & Duck, 1993). For example, you’ve invested many hours in attending classes, studying, and writ- ing papers because you have the idea of yourself as someone with a college degree. The degree is not real now, nor is the self that you will become once you have the degree. Yet the idea is suffi ciently real to motivate you to work hard for many years. You can imagine yourself wearing academic regalia at your graduation, think of yourself as having a degree, and visualize yourself working in the career you plan to enter.
Hypothetical thought can enrich personal relationships by allowing intimates to remember shared moments. One of the strongest glues for intimacy is the abil- ity to remember a history of shared experiences (Bruess & Hoefs, 2006; Cockburn- Wootten & Zorn, 2006; Wood, 2006). Because they can remember rough times they have weathered, intimates can often get through trials in the present. Language that symbolizes a shared future (“When we’re rocking on the porch at 80”) also fuels inti- macy. We interact differently with people we don’t expect to see again and with those who are ongoing parts of our lives. Talking about future plans and dreams, another use of hypothetical thought, knits intimates together because it makes real the idea that more is yet to come (Acitelli, 1993; Wood, 2006).
Hypothetical thought also allows us to imagine being in places we have never vis- ited. Television programs and websites show us faraway countries and expose us to people with different values, traditions, and ways of living. When we listen to or see programs or visit sites to learn about other cultures, we can think about these cultures and imagine visiting them.
Thinking hypothetically helps us improve who we are. We notice progress we have made when we can remember earlier versions of ourselves, and we motivate further self-growth when we envision additional improvements in ourselves. Your ability to think hypothetically enables you to chart a path of continuous growth. As Duk-Kyong points out, remembering ourselves at earlier times also allows us to notice progress we make toward achieving our goals.
Couples communicate about past experiences and family events. How does this aff ect intimacy?
© Ju
lia T.
W oo
d
84 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
DUK-KYONG Sometimes I get very discouraged that I do not yet know English perfectly and that there is much I still
do not understand about customs in this country. It helps me to remember that when I came here 2
years ago I did not speak English at all, and I knew nothing about how people act here. Seeing how
much progress I have made helps me to not be discouraged with what I do not yet know.
Language Allows Self-Refl ection Just as we use language to think about times in the past and future and to shape our perceptions of others, we use it to refl ect on ourselves. We think about our exis- tence and refl ect on our actions. In his classic work in this area, George Herbert Mead (1934) noted that self-refl ection is the foundation of human identity. Since Mead’s original work, other scholars have developed his ideas and reaffi rmed their importance (Atkinson & Housley, 2003; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006; Sandstrom, Martin,
& Fine, 2001). According to Mead, the self has two aspects: the I and
the me. The I is the spontaneous, creative self. The I acts impulsively in response to inner needs and desires, regardless of social norms. The I is the part of you that wants to send a really nasty e-mail message to a chat room visitor whom you fi nd offensive.
The me is the socially conscious part of self that moni- tors and moderates the I’s impulses. The me refl ects on the I from the social perspectives of others. The me is the part of you that says, “Hey, don’t send that message, or you’ll get fl amed.” The I is impervious to social conven- tions, but the me is keenly aware of them. If your super- visor criticizes your work, your I may want to tell that boss off, but your me censors that impulse and reminds you that subordinates are not supposed to criticize their bosses.
Because we have both spontaneous and refl ective parts of ourselves, we can think about who we want to be and set goals for becoming the self we desire. We can feel shame, pride, and regret for our actions—emotions that are possible because we self-refl ect. We can control what we do now by casting ourselves forward to consider how we might feel about our actions later—a point that Tiffany makes in her commentary.
TIFFANY My mother-in-law thinks it’s wrong that I go to school instead of being a full-time homemaker and
mother. She constantly criticizes me for neglecting my children and home. So many times I have
wanted to tell her to butt out of my family, but I stop myself by reminding myself that in the long term
it’s important to me and my husband and the kids to maintain decent relations.
When my niece Michelle told me she had learned to read, she was bursting with pride. How might refl ecting on this accomplishment aff ect how Michelle thinks about herself?
© Ca
ro lyn
C. W
oo d
T
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 85
As Tiffany’s commentary points out, self-refl ection also empowers us to moni- tor ourselves. When we monitor ourselves, the me notices and evaluates the I’s impulses and may modify them based on the me’s awareness of social norms. For instance, during a discussion with a co-worker you might say to yourself, “I’m just sitting here like a lump on a log. I need to show that I’m interested in what he’s saying.” Based on your monitoring, you might listen more carefully, give feedback, and ask questions to show interest. Effective public speakers monitor audiences. If members of the audience start looking bored, speakers adapt by changing speak- ing pace or volume or by introducing a visual aid to add interest. When interacting with people from different cultures, we monitor by reminding ourselves that they may not operate by the same values and communication rules that we do. Self- refl ection allows us to monitor our communication and adjust it to be effective and ethical.
Self-refl ection also allows us to manage the image we present to others. When talk- ing with teachers and supervisors, you may consciously use language that represents you as respectful, attentive, and responsible. When interacting with parents, you may repress some language that surfaces in discussions with your friends. When commu- nicating with someone you’d like to date, you may use language that is personal and conveys friendliness. We continually use language to manage the images we project in particular situations and with specifi c people.
Language Defi nes Relationships and Interaction A sixth way in which language creates meaning in our lives is by defi ning relation- ships and interaction. Our verbal communication conveys messages about how we perceive ourselves and others. “Mr. Buster” symbolizes a more formal relationship than “Phil.” We also use language to regulate interaction. We signal that we want to speak by saying, “Excuse me” or “Let me jump in here.” We invite others to speak by saying, “Do you have an opinion about this?” or “I’d like to hear what you think about the issue.” You’ll recall that in Chapter 1 we discussed two levels of mean- ing: the content level and the relationship level. Verbal communication, as well as nonverbal communication, conveys three dimensions of relationship-level meanings (Mehrabian, 1981).
Responsiveness One facet of relationship-level meaning is responsiveness. Through questions and statements of agreement or disagreement, we show our interest in others’ communication. When we give thoughtful feedback to a colleague, we show responsiveness. When we ask an interviewee to elaborate ideas, we demonstrate inter- est in him or her. Different social and cultural groups learn distinct rules for showing responsiveness. For instance, women generally display greater verbal responsiveness than men do (Montgomery, 1988; Ueland, 1992), and Koreans tend to limit verbal responses more than Americans typically do.
Liking A second dimension of relationship-level meaning is liking. We express liking verbally when we say, “I really enjoy being with you,” “I’m glad we’re working on the same team,” and so forth. Conversely, we verbally communicate dislike by saying, “I don’t have time for you right now,” or “I don’t want to work with you on the team.” In addition to these general rules shared in Western society, particular social groups
86 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
instill more-specifi c rules. Masculine socialization emphasizes emotional control and independence, so men are less likely than women to verbalize their feelings of affec- tion for most other people. Feminine socialization encourages many women to verbal- ize inner feelings.
Power The third aspect of relationship-level meaning is power. We use verbal com- munication to defi ne dominance and to negotiate status and infl uence. Men typically exceed women in efforts to establish control over others. Research has shown that men are more likely than women to exert control verbally by controlling conversa- tions, having the last word, interrupting, and correcting others (DeFrancisco, 1991). People in positions of power in organizations often express control with authorita- tive statements such as, “That’s how it’s going to be” and “I’ve heard all I want to hear.” Like many aspects of communication, the power dimension of relationship meaning is infl uenced by culture. Western cultures tend to favor competitiveness and overt displays of power more than many other cultures. For example, in nego- tiations Japanese tend to understate their initial position, stress areas of agreement with other negotiators, and work to avoid failure, or loss of face, for any of the nego- tiators. This is quite different from American negotiating tendencies, such as over- stating initial positions to appear strong, being adversarial, and trying to make sure they win and other negotiators lose (Weiss, 1987).
Summing up, we use language to defi ne and evaluate phenomena, organize experi- ences, think hypothetically, self-refl ect, and defi ne relationships and interaction. Each of these abilities helps us create meaning in our personal, professional, and social relationships.
Guidelines for Eff ective Verbal Communication Because language is arbitrary, abstract, and ambiguous, the potential for misunder- standing always exists. In addition, individual and cultural differences foster varying interpretations of language. Although we can’t completely eliminate misunderstand- ings, we can minimize them by following four guidelines for using verbal communica- tion effectively.
Engage in Person-Centered Communication The single most important guideline for using language effectively is to be per- son-centered in your communication. Recall from Chapters 1 and 3 that person- centered communication is adapted to specifi c, unique individuals with whom we interact. Effective communicators are aware of other people and their perspectives, and this awareness is refl ected in the talk of effective communicators (Muehlhoff, 2006). When I talk with colleagues about communication theories, I use language that is specialized and incomprehensible to people who aren’t specialists. When I talk with undergraduate students about the same theories, I adapt my language to students’ experiences and knowledge. Medical doctors need highly specialized
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 87
vocabularies to discuss medical problems with other doctors, but they should trans- late that vocabulary into ordinary language when talking with patients. In public presentations, speakers adapt their language to the knowledge and attitudes of lis- teners. If listeners already favor what a speaker advocates, the speaker can use more impassioned language than if listeners are opposed to what he or she advocates. Person-centered communicators try to understand and adapt to the perspectives of listeners.
Be Aware of Levels of Abstraction We can reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings by being conscious of levels of abstraction. Much confusion results from language that is excessively abstract. For instance, a professor says, “Your papers should demonstrate a sophisticated conceptual grasp of material and its pragmatic implications.” Would you know how to write a paper to satisfy the professor? Probably not, because the language is so abstract that it is hard to fi gure out what the professor wants. Here’s a more concrete description: “Your papers should include defi nitions of the concepts and specifi c examples that show how they apply to your personal life.” This second statement offers a clearer explanation of what the professor expects.
Abstract language is not always inadvisable. The goal is to use a level of abstrac- tion that suits particular communication objectives and situations. Abstract words are appropriate when speakers and listeners have similar knowledge about what is being discussed. For example, long-term friends can say, “Let’s just hang out” and understand the activities implied by the abstract term hang out. More-concrete language is useful when communicators don’t have shared experiences and inter- pretations. For example, early in a friendship the suggestion to hang out would be more effective if it included specifi cs: “Let’s hang out today—maybe watch the game and go out for pizza.” Abstract language may also be useful when a commu- nicator wants to create strategic ambiguity, in which meaning is not crystal clear. Politicians routinely use abstract language because it allows them to claim later that what they are saying is consistent with the strategically ambiguous statements made earlier.
Although abstract language is appropriate in some situations, it often contributes to misunderstandings. For example, online communication is easily misunderstood because it lacks many of the nonverbal cues that clarify meaning, and it is often condensed into phrases and incomplete thoughts. Abstract language may also pro- mote misunderstandings when people talk about changes they want in one another. For example, “I want you to show more initiative in your work” could mean that the person who is speaking wants the other person to work more hours, take on new projects, or seek less direction from supervisors. Vague abstractions promote misunderstanding when people don’t share concrete referents for the abstract terms they use.
Qualify Language Another strategy for increasing the clarity of communication is to qualify language. Two types of language require qualifi cation. First, we should qualify generalizations so that we don’t mislead ourselves or others into mistaking a general statement for an absolute one. “Politicians are crooked” is a false statement because it is overly general.
88 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
A more accurate statement would be, “A number of politicians have been shown to be dishonest.” Qualifying reminds us that our perceptions are tied to specifi c times, places, and circumstances.
We should also qualify language when describing and evaluating people. A static evaluation is an assessment that suggests that something is unchanging. Static evalu- ations are particularly troublesome when applied to people: “Ann is selfi sh,” “Don is irresponsible,” “Vy is rude.” Whenever we use the word is, we suggest that something is fi xed. In reality, we aren’t static but continually changing. A person who is selfi sh at one time may be generous at other times. A person who is irresponsible on one occa- sion may be responsible in different situations. Ken’s commentary illustrates that static evaluations can be both inaccurate and irritating.
KEN Parents are the worst for static evaluations. When I fi rst got my license 7 years ago, I had a fender
bender and then got a speeding ticket. Since then, I’ve had a perfect record, but you’d never know it
from what they say. Dad’s always calling me “hot rodder,” and Mom goes through this safety spiel
every time I get ready to drive somewhere. You’d think I was the same now as when I was 16.
One technique for qualifying language is to index words. Indexing is a technique to remind us that our evaluations apply only to specifi c times and circumstances (Korzybski, 1948). To index, we would say “Ann June 6, 1997 acted selfi shly,” “Don on the task committee was irresponsible,” and “Vyin college was rude.” See how indexing ties description to a specifi c time and circumstance? Mental indexing reminds us that we and others are able to change in remarkable ways.
Own Your Feelings and Th oughts We often use verbal language in ways that obscure our responsibility for how we feel, think, and act. For instance, people say, “You made me mad,” “You hurt me,” or “You made me do that,” as if what they felt or did were caused by someone else. When a person says, “You’re so demanding,” the person really means that she or he feels pressured by what someone else wants or expects. Feeling pressured is that person’s response. Although others can infl uence us, they seldom actually determine how we feel. Our feelings and thoughts result from how we interpret others’ communication. Although how we interpret what others say may lead us to feel certain ways, it is our interpretation, not others’ communication, that guides our responses.
In certain contexts, such as abusive relationships, others may powerfully shape how we think and feel. Yet even in these extreme situations, we need to remember that we, not others, are responsible for our feelings. We can disapprove of what oth- ers do without surrendering control of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Telling others they make you feel some way is also likely to arouse defensiveness, which doesn’t facilitate healthy personal or professional relationships. Effective communi- cators take responsibility for themselves by using language that owns their thoughts and feelings. They claim their feelings and do not blame others for what happens within themselves.
To take responsibility for your feelings, rely on I-language, not you-language. I-language identifi es the speaker’s or perceiver’s thoughts and feelings, whereas
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 89
you-language attributes intentions and motives onto another person. Figure 4.4 gives examples of I- and you-language.
There are two differences between I-language and you-language. First, I-statements own responsibility, whereas you-statements project it onto another per- son. Second, I-statements are more descrip- tive than you-statements. You-statements tend to be accusations that are abstract and unspecifi c. This is one reason that you-language is ineffective in promoting change. I-statements provide concrete descriptions of behaviors without holding the other per- son responsible for how we feel.
Some people feel awkward when they fi rst start using I-language. This is natural because most of us have learned to rely on you-language. With commitment and prac- tice, however, you can learn to communicate using I-language. Once you feel comfort- able using it, you will fi nd I-language has many advantages. First, it is less likely than you-language to make others defensive, so I-language opens the doors for dialogue. Second, I-language is more honest. We deceive ourselves when we say, “You make me feel . . .” because oth- ers don’t control how we feel. Finally, I-language is more empowering than you-language. When we say, “You did this” or “You made me feel that,” we give control of our emotions, thoughts, and actions to others. This reduces our personal power and our motivation to change what is happening. Using I-language allows you to own your feelings while also explaining to others how you interpret their behaviors.
Learning to Use I-Language
For the next 24 hours, pay attention to instances in which you use you- language. Catch yourself saying, “You made me angry,” “You’re being pushy,” or engaging in other uses of you-language. Whenever you do so, change your language to I-language: “I feel angry when you . . . ” or “I feel pressured when you . . .” Do your thoughts and feelings about what is happening change when you substitute I-language for you-language?
g to Use I Language
SHARPEN YOUR SKILL
CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 89
You-Language I-Language
You hurt me. I feel hurt when you ignore what I say.
You’re really domineering. When you shout, I feel dominated.
You humiliated me. I felt humiliated when you mentioned my problems in front of your friends.
Figure 4.4 I- AND YOU-LANGUAGE
Summary In this chapter, we’ve explored the nature and power of verbal communication. Verbal symbols shape who we are, what we do, and what our experiences mean. Because they are arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract, words do not have objective concrete meanings. Instead, their signifi - cance refl ects our life experiences and the views of the culture and the social groups to which we belong.
To create meaning with language and to interact with others, we follow rules of communication, and we punctu- ate interaction. As we have seen, regulative rules specify
when, where, with whom, and how we communicate ver- bally. In addition, we follow constitutive rules, which defi ne the meanings of specifi c forms of verbal commu- nication within particular social groups. A fi nal aspect of creating the meaning of communication is punctuation of the beginnings and endings of interactions.
The ability to use language allows us to create mean- ing. By defi ning, evaluating, and classifying phenomena, language allows us to order our experiences and feelings. In addition, we use language to think hypothetically, to
90 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS
self-refl ect, and to defi ne relationships and interactions. Our ability to use symbols is a key part of the founda- tion of communication and human life. We increase the effectiveness of our verbal communication when we are person-centered and conscious of levels of abstraction,
as well as own our thoughts and feelings, and when we qualify language appropriately. In Chapter 5, we’ll see how nonverbal communication complements and extends verbal communication by allowing us to create meaning.
Review, Refl ect, Extend The Key Concepts, For Further Refl ection and Discussion questions, Recommended Resources, and Experience Communication Case Study that follow will help you review, refl ect on, and extend the infor- mation and ideas presented in this chapter. These resources, and a diverse selection of additional study tools, are also available online at the Premium Website
for Communication Mosaics. Your Premium Website includes a student workbook, interactive video activities, a book companion website, Speech Builder Express, and InfoTrac College Edition. For more information or to access this book’s online resources, visit www.cengage. com/login.
abstract, 73 ambiguous, 71 arbitrary, 70 brute facts, 74 communication rules, 76 constitutive rules, 76 hypothetical thought, 82 I, 84 I-language, 88 indexing, 88 institutional facts, 74
loaded language, 81 me, 84 nonverbal communication, 70 punctuation, 77 reappropriation, 81 regulative rules, 76 static evaluation, 88 symbol, 70 totalizing, 80 verbal communication, 70 you-language, 88
KEY CONCEPTS
1. To appreciate the importance of symbolic capacities, imagine the following: living only in the present without memories or hopes and plans; thinking only in terms of literal reality, not what might be; and having no broad classifi cations to organize experience. With others in the class, discuss how your life would be different without the symbolic abilities discussed in this chapter.
2. In the chapter, we learned that language names experiences and that language is continuously evolving. Can you think of experiences, feelings, or other phenomena for which we don’t yet have names? What is a good term to describe someone with whom you have a serious romance? Boyfriend and girlfriend no longer work for many people.
Do you prefer signifi cant other, romantic partner, special friend, or another term?
3. Visit chat rooms and online forums and notice the screen names that people use. How do the names people create for themselves shape perceptions of their identities? What screen names do you use? Why did you choose them?
4. The national Student Voices Project was created in 2000 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Over the years, it has been launched in multiple cities. Learn more about this project by going to the book’s online resources for this chapter and clicking on WebLink 4.3. See if there are contributors from your state or even your school.
FOR FURTHER REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION