As you communicate, you use two major signal systems—the verbal and the nonverbal. Verbal messages are messages sent with words. It’s important to remember that the word verbal refers to words, not to orality; verbal messages consist of both oral and written words. In contrast, verbal messages do not include laughter; vocalized pauses you make when you speak (such as er, hmm, and ah); and responses you make to others that are oral but don’t involve words (such as ha ha, aha, and ugh!). These vocalizations are considered nonverbal—as are, of course, facial expressions, eye movements, gestures, and so on.
As explained in Chapter 1, your messages normally occur in “packages” consisting of both verbal and nonverbal signals that occur simultaneously. Usually, verbal and nonverbal behaviors reinforce or support each other. For example, you don’t usually express fear with words while the rest of your body relaxes. You don’t normally express anger with your body posture while your face smiles. Your entire being works as a whole—verbally and nonverbally—to express your thoughts and feelings.
This chapter focuses on the verbal system (the next will examine the nonverbal system) and discusses the principles of verbal messages, the concepts of confirmation and disconfirmation, and the ways you can use verbal messages most effectively.
Also recognize that as you change, you also change the meanings you created out of past messages. Thus, although the message sent may not have changed, the meanings you created from it yesterday and the meanings you create today may be quite different. Yesterday, when a special someone said, “I love you,” you created certain meanings. But today, when you learn that the same “I love you” was said to three other people, or when you fall in love with someone else, you drastically change the meanings you perceive from those three words.
As already noted in Chapter 2, this principle is especially important in intercultural communication, as meanings for the same words are often drastically different between members of different cultures. This became especially obvious after the tragedy of the World Trade Center attack: Terms like justice, suicide, and terrorism were given totally different meanings by those from different cultures.
A failure to recognize this important principle is at the heart of a common pattern of miscommunication called bypassing. Bypassing is a type of miscommunication that occurs when the sender’s and the receiver’s meanings are not the same (Haney, 1973). Bypassing can take either of two forms: two people in conversation using different words that have the same meaning or two people in conversation using the same words that have different meanings.
Take another example: Compare the term migrants (used to designate Mexicans coming into the United States to better their economic condition) with the term settlers (used to designate Europeans who came to the United States for the same reason) (Koppelman, 2005). Though both terms describe essentially the same activity (and are essentially the same denotatively), migrants is often negatively evaluated and settlers is often positively evaluated (they differ widely in their connotations).
Semanticist S. I. Hayakawa (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1989) coined the terms “snarl words” and “purr words” to clarify further the distinction between denotative and connotative meaning. Snarl words are highly negative (“She’s an idiot,” “He’s a pig,” “They’re a bunch of losers”). Sexist, racist, and heterosexist language and hate speech provide lots of other examples. Purr words are highly positive (“She’s a real sweetheart,” “He’s a dream,” “They’re the greatest”). Although they may sometimes seem to have denotative meaning and to refer to the “real world,” snarl and purr words are purely connotative in meaning. They don’t describe people or events; rather, they reveal the speaker’s feelings about these people or events.
Similarly, the meaning of a given signal depends on the other behavior it accompanies or is close to in time. Pounding a fist on the table during a speech in support of a politician means something quite different from that same gesture in response to news of a friend’s death. Focused eye contact may signify openness and honesty in one culture and defiance in another. In isolation from the context, it’s impossible to tell what meaning was intended by merely examining the signals. Of course, even if you know the context in detail, you still may not be able to decipher the meaning of the message.
Perhaps the most important contexts to consider are the cultural and the gender contexts.
The principle of cooperation holds that in any communication interaction, both parties will make an effort to help each other understand each other. That is, we assume cooperation. The ways in which we assume cooperation are identified in the principle’s four corollaries or maxims. As you read down the list, ask yourself how you follow these maxims in your everyday conversation.
This principle holds that when you communicate your primary goal is to maintain peaceful relationships. This means that you would never insult anyone and you may even express agreement with someone when you really disagree, a principle that violates the principle of cooperation and the maxim of quality (Midooka, 1990).
Face-saving messages are polite; they are messages that preserve the image of the other person and do nothing to insult the person or make him or her appear in a negative light. The principle holds that you should never embarrass anyone, especially in public. Always allow people to save face, even if this means avoiding the truth—as when you tell someone he or she did good work although the job was actually poorly executed. Many Asian and Latin American cultures stress the value of indirectness because it helps people avoid overt criticism and the loss of face.
The principle of self-denigration advises you to avoid taking credit for accomplishments and to minimize your abilities or talents in conversation (Gu, 1997). At the same time, you would raise the image of the people with whom you’re talking.
The popular stereotype in much of the United States holds that women tend to be indirect in making requests and in giving orders and that this indirectness communicates a powerlessness and
discomfort with their own authority. Men, the stereotype continues, tend to be direct, sometimes to the point of being blunt or rude. This directness communicates men’s power and comfort with their authority. Deborah Tannen (1994a) provides an interesting perspective on these stereotypes. Women are, it seems, more indirect in giving orders; they are more likely to say, for example, “It would be great if these letters could go out today” than “Have these letters out by three.” But, Tannen (1994a, p. 84) argues, “issuing orders indirectly can be the prerogative of those in power” and does not necessarily show powerlessness. Power, to Tannen, is the ability to choose your own style of communication.
Men also can be indirect, and they are more likely to use indirectness when they express weakness, reveal a problem, or admit an error (Rundquist, 1992; Tannen, 1994a, 1994b). Men are more likely to speak indirectly when expressing emotions (other than anger). They are also more indirect when they refuse expressions of increased romantic intimacy. Men are thus indirect, the theory goes, when they are saying something that goes against the masculine stereotype. A few theories of gender differences are highlighted in the accompanying Understanding Theory and Research box.
There are also gender similarities. One of the best pieces of evidence comes from studies showing that when messages spoken by men and women are transcribed, native speakers of English cannot identify which were spoken by men and which by women (Mulac, 2006). There are also studies identifying specific similarities. For example, in both the United States and New Zealand, men and women seem to pay compliments in similar ways (Holmes, 1995; Manes & Wolfson, 1981), and both men and women use politeness strategies when communicating bad news in an organization (Lee, 1993).
Direct messages (“Write me a recommendation,” “Lend me $100”) are usually less polite that indirect messages (“Do you think you could write a recommendation for me?” “Would it be possible to lend me $100?”). The reason that indirect messages are usually more polite is because they allow the person to maintain autonomy and provide an acceptable way for the person to refuse your request (thus helping to maintain the person’s negative face needs). Direct messages may infringe on a person’s need to maintain negative face.
Indirect messages allow you to express a desire without insulting or offending anyone; they allow you to observe the rules of polite interaction. So instead of saying, “I’m bored with this group,” you say, “It’s getting late and I have to get up early tomorrow,” or you look at your watch and pretend to be surprised by the time. Instead of saying, “This food tastes like cardboard,” you say, “I just started my diet.” In each instance you’re stating a preference but are saying it indirectly so as to avoid offending someone.
The Internet has made anonymity extremely easy, and there are currently a variety of websites that offer to send your e-mails to your boss, your ex-partner, your secret crush, your noisy neighbors, or your inadequate lawyer—all anonymously. Thus, your message gets sent but you are not identified with it. For good or ill, you don’t have to deal with the consequences of your message.
One obvious advantage of anonymity is that it allows people to voice opinions that may be unpopular and may thus encourage greater honesty. In the case of RateMyProfessor.com, for example, anonymity ensures that the student writing negative comments about an instructor will not be penalized. An anonymous e-mail to a sexual partner informing him or her about your having an STD and suggesting testing and treatment might pass along a message that would never be shared in a face-to-face or phone conversation. The presumption is that anonymity encourages honesty and openness.
Anonymity also enables people to disclose their inner feelings, fears, hopes, and dreams with a depth of feeling that they may be otherwise reluctant to do. A variety of websites that enable you to maintain anonymity are available for these purposes. And, in these cases, not only are you anonymous but the people who read your messages are also anonymous, a situation that is likely to encourage a greater willingness to disclosure and to make disclosures at a deeper level than otherwise.
An obvious disadvantage is that anonymity might encourage people to go to extremes—as there are no consequences to the message—to voice opinions that are outrageous. This in turn can easily spark conflict that is likely to prove largely unproductive. With anonymous messages, you can’t evaluate the credibility of the source. Advice on depression, for example, may come from someone who knows nothing about depression and may make useless recommendations.
Assertive people are more positive and score lower on measures of hopelessness than do nonassertive people (Velting, 1999). Assertive people are willing to assert their own rights. Unlike their aggressive counterparts, however, they don’t hurt others in the process. Assertive people speak their minds and welcome others’ doing likewise.
Do realize that as with many other aspects of communication, there will be wide cultural differences when it comes to assertiveness. For example, the values of assertiveness are more likely to be extolled in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures. Assertiveness will be valued more by those cultures that stress competition, individual success, and independence. It will be valued much less by those cultures that stress cooperation, group success, and interdependence of all members on one another. American students, for example, are found to be significantly more assertive than Japanese or Korean students (Thompson & Klopf, 1991; Thompson, Klopf, & Ishii, 1991). Most people are nonassertive in certain situations. If you’re one of these people and if you wish to modify your behavior, here are some suggestions for communicating assertiveness (Bower & Bower, 2005; Dryden & Constantinou, 2005). (If you are always nonassertive and are unhappy about this, then you may need to work with a therapist to change your behavior.)
A note of caution should be added to this discussion. It’s easy to visualize a situation in which, for example, people are talking behind you in a movie, and with your newfound enthusiasm for assertiveness, you tell them to be quiet. It’s also easy to see yourself getting smashed in the teeth as a result. In applying the principles of assertive communication, be careful that you don’t go beyond what you can handle effectively.
Lying refers to the act of (1) sending messages (2) with the intention of giving another person information you believe to be false.
Despite the identification of “lying behaviors,” it is still very difficult to detect when a person is lying and when telling the truth. The hundreds of research studies conducted on this topic find that in most instances people judge lying accurately in less than 60 percent of the cases, only slightly better than chance (Knapp, 2008). And there is some evidence to show that lie detection is even more difficult (that is, less accurate) in long-standing romantic relationships—the very relationships in which some of the most significant lying occurs (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2007). One of the most important reasons for this is the truth bias. In most situations we assume that the person is telling the truth; as noted earlier in this chapter, we normally operate under the quality principle, which assumes that what a person says is true. This truth bias is especially strong in long-term relationships where it’s taken for granted that each person tells the truth. There are also situations, however, where there is a deception bias. For example, in prison where lying is so prevalent and where lie detection is a crucial survival skill, prisoners often operate with a lie bias and assume that what the speaker is saying is a lie (Knapp, 2008).
In any attempt to detect lying be especially careful that you formulate any conclusions with a clear understanding that you may be wrong and that accusations of lying (especially when untrue but even when true) can often damage a relationship to the point where you may not be able to repair it. In addition, keep in mind all the cautions and potential errors in perception discussed earlier; after all, lie detection is a part of person perception.
Disconfirmation is a communication pattern in which we ignore someone’s presence as well as that person’s messages (Response 1). We say, in effect, that this person and what this person has to say are not worth serious attention or effort—that this person and this person’s contributions are unimportant or insignificant and that there is no reason to concern ourselves with her or him. The Amish community practices an extreme form of disconfirmation called “shunning,” in which the community members totally ignore a person who has violated one or more of their rules. The specific aim of shunning is to get the person to repent and to reenter the community of the faithful. It’s likely that all cultures practice some form of exclusion for those who violate important cultural rules.
Note that disconfirmation is not the same as rejection. In rejection, you disagree with the person; you indicate your unwillingness to accept something the other person says or does (Response 2). In disconfirming someone, however, you deny that person’s significance; you claim that what this person says or does simply does not count.
Confirmation, the opposite of disconfirmation, involves your acknowledging the presence of the other person, the person’s importance, and your acceptance of this person (Response 3).
You can gain insight into a wide variety of offensive language practices by viewing them as types of disconfirmation—as language that alienates and separates. Four obvious practices, which we’ll consider here, are racism, heterosexism, ageism, and sexism.
Another-ism is ableism—discrimination against people with disabilities. This particular practice is handled throughout the text in a series of tables offering tips for communicating between people with and without a variety of disabilities:
Racism exists on both individual and institutional levels, a distinction made by educational researchers and used throughout this discussion (Koppelman, 2005). The term individual racism refers to the negative attitudes and beliefs that people hold about specific races. Assumptions such as the idea that certain races are intellectually inferior to others or that certain races are incapable of certain achievements are clear examples of individual racism. Prejudice against American Indians, African Americans, Hispanics, and Arabs have been with us throughout history and are still a part of many people’s lives today. Such racism is seen in the negative terms people use to refer to members of other races and to disparage their customs and accomplishments.
Institutionalized racism is seen in de facto school segregation, in companies’ reluctance to hire members of minority groups, in banks’ unwillingness to extend mortgages and business loans to members of some races, or in lenders’ charging higher interest rates to members of certain groups.
Here are a few guidelines on racist messages.
Although great strides have been made in the United States against institutionalized heterosexism, as of this writing 38 states still prevent same-sex marriage, the Boy Scouts of America will not allow gay men to serve as Scoutmasters, and many religions ban gay men and lesbians from the ministry. In some cultures, homosexual relations are illegal (for example, in India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Singapore); penalties range from a “misdemeanor” conviction in Liberia, to life in jail in Singapore, to death in Pakistan.
Heterosexist language includes the obvious derogatory terms used for lesbians and gay men but also the more subtle forms of language usage: for example, when you qualify a reference to a professional—as in “gay athlete” or “lesbian doctor”— and, in effect, say that athletes and doctors are not normally gay or lesbian.
Still another instance of heterosexism is the presumption of heterosexuality. Usually, people assume the person they’re talking to or about is heterosexual. And usually they’re correct because the majority of people are heterosexual. At the same time, however, this presumption denies the lesbian or gay identity a certain legitimacy. The practice is very similar to the presumptions of whiteness and maleness that we have made significant inroads in eliminating. Here are a few additional suggestions for avoiding heterosexist (or what some call homophobic) language.
Individual ageism is seen in negative stereotypes and in the general disrespect many have for older people. Institutional ageism is seen in mandatory retirement laws and age restrictions in certain occupations (as opposed to requirements based on demonstrated competence). In less obvious forms, ageism is seen in the media’s portrayal of old people as incompetent, complaining, and, perhaps most clearly evidenced in both television and films, without romantic feelings. Rarely, for example, does television or film show older people working productively, being cooperative and pleasant, and engaging in romantic and sexual relationships.
Popular language is replete with examples of linguistic ageism; terms like little old lady, old hag, old-timer, over the hill, old coot, and old fogy are a few examples. As with sexism, qualifying a description of someone in terms of his or her age demonstrates ageism. For example, if you refer to “a quick-witted 75-year-old” or “an agile 65-year-old” or “a responsible teenager,” you’re implying that these qualities are unusual in people of these ages and thus need special mention. You’re saying that “quick-wittedness” and “being 75” do not normally go together. The problem with this kind of stereotyping is that it’s simply wrong. There are many 75-year-olds who are extremely quick-witted (and many 30-year-olds who aren’t). You also communicate ageism when you speak to older people in overly simple words or explain things that don’t need explaining. Nonverbally, you demonstrate ageist communication when, for example, you avoid touching an older person but touch others, or when you avoid making direct eye contact with the older person but readily do so with others, or when you speak at an overly high volume (suggesting that all older people have hearing difficulties).
One useful way to avoid ageism is to recognize and avoid the illogical stereotypes that ageist language is based on. Here are a few suggestions.
Institutional sexism, on the other hand, involves customs and practices that discriminate against people because of their gender. Two very clear examples are the widespread practice of paying women less than men for the same job and the discrimination against women in the upper levels of management. Another clear example of institutionalized sexism is seen in the divorce courts’ practice of automatically or near-automatically granting child custody to the mother rather than the father.
Of particular interest here is sexist language: language that puts down someone because of his or her gender (a term usually used to refer to language derogatory toward women). The National Council of Teachers of English has proposed guidelines for nonsexist (gender-free, gender-neutral, or sex-fair) language. These guidelines concern the use of the generic word man, the use of generic he and his, and sex-role stereotyping (Penfield, 1987). Consider a few suggestions for avoiding sexist language:
White is generally used to refer to those whose roots are in European cultures and usually does not include Hispanics. Analogous to African American (which itself is based on a long tradition of terms such as Irish American and Italian American) is the phrase European American. Few European Americans, however, call themselves that; most prefer their national origins emphasized, as in German American or Greek American. This preference may well change as Europe moves toward becoming a more cohesive and united entity. People of color—a more literary-sounding term appropriate perhaps to public speaking but awkward in most conversations—is preferred to non-white, which implies that whiteness is the norm and nonwhiteness is a deviation from that norm. The same is true of the term non-Christian: It implies that people who have other beliefs deviate from the norm.
Generally, the term Hispanic refers to anyone who identifies himself or herself as belonging to a Spanish-speaking culture. Latina (female) and Latino (male) refer to persons whose roots are in one of the Latin American countries, such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, or Guatemala. Hispanic American refers to U.S. residents whose ancestry is in a Spanish culture; the term includes people from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. In emphasizing a Spanish heritage, however, the term is really inaccurate because it leaves out the large numbers of people in the Caribbean and in South America whose origins are African, Native American, French, or Portuguese. The words Chicana (female) and Chicano (male) refer to persons with roots in Mexico, although these terms often connote a nationalist attitude (Jandt, 2004) and are considered offensive by many Mexican Americans. Mexican American is generally preferred.
Inuk (plural Inuit), also spelled with two n’s (Innuk and Innuit), is preferred to Eskimo (a term the U.S. Census Bureau uses), which was applied to the indigenous peoples of Alaska and Canada by Europeans and literally means “raw meat eaters.”
The word Indian technically refers only to someone from India, not to citizens of other Asian countries or to the indigenous peoples of North America. American Indian or Native American is preferred, even though many Native Americans do refer to themselves as Indians and Indian people. The word squaw, used to refer to a Native American woman and still used in the names of some places in the United States and in some textbooks, is clearly a term to be avoided; its usage is almost always negative and insulting (Koppelman, 2005).
In Canada indigenous people are called first people or first nations. The term native American (with a lowercase n) is most often used to refer to persons born in the United States. Although technically the term could refer to anyone born in North or South America, people outside the United States generally prefer more specific designations such as Argentinean, Cuban, or Canadian. The term native describes an indigenous inhabitant; it is not used to indicate “someone having a less developed culture.”
Muslim (rather than the older Moslem) is the preferred form to refer to a person who adheres to the religious teachings of Islam. Quran (rather than Koran) is the preferred term for the scriptures of Islam. Jewish people is often preferred to Jews, and Jewess (a Jewish female) is considered derogatory. Jew is never used as an adjective.
When history was being written from a European perspective, Europe was taken as the focal point and the rest of the world was defined in terms of its location relative to that continent. Thus, Asia became the East or the Orient, and Asians became Orientals—a term that is today considered inappropriate or Eurocentric. Thus, people from Asia are Asians, just as people from Africa are Africans and people from Europe are Europeans.
Generally, the term girl should be used only to refer to very young females and is equivalent to boy. Neither term should be used for people older than age 17 or 18. Girl is never used to refer to a grown woman, nor is boy used to refer to people in blue-collar positions, as it once was. Lady is negatively evaluated by many because it connotes the stereotype of the prim and proper woman. Woman or young woman is preferred.
The term ma’am, originally an honorific used to show respect, is probably best avoided because today it’s often used as a verbal tag to comment (indirectly) on the woman’s age or marital status (Angier, 2010).
Transgendered people (people who identify themselves as members of the sex opposite to the one they were assigned at birth and who may be gay or straight, male or female) are addressed according to their self-identified sex. Thus, if the person identifies herself as a woman, then the feminine name and pronouns are used—regardless of the person’s biological sex. If the person identifies himself as a man, then the masculine name and pronouns are used.
Transvestites (people who prefer at times to dress in the clothing of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth and who may be gay or straight, male or female) are addressed on the basis of their clothing. If the person is dressed as a woman—regardless of the birth-assigned sex—she is referred to and addressed with feminine pronouns and feminine name. If the person is dressed as a man—regardless of the birth-assigned sex—he is referred to and addressed with masculine pronouns and masculine name.
Let’s turn now from issues of confirmation to some guidelines for using language effectively by avoiding common mistakes and applying some simple principles.
To avoid intensional orientation, extensionalize. Never give labels greater attention than the actual thing. Give your main attention to the people, things, and events in the world as you see them and not as they’re presented in words. For example, when you meet Jack and Jill, observe and interact with them. Then form your impressions. Don’t respond to them as “greedy, money-grubbing landlords” because Harry labeled them this way. Don’t respond to George as “lazy” just because Elaine told you he was.
The accompanying Understanding Theory and Research box explores the concept of intensional orientation and its connection with the verb to be.
To avoid allness, recognize that language symbolizes only a part of reality, never the whole. Whatever someone says—regardless of what it is or how extensive it is—represents only a part of the story.
For example, you can say, “She’s wearing a blue jacket,” and you can say, “He’s harboring an illogical hatred.” Although the sentences have similar structures, they’re different. You can observe the jacket and its color, but how do you observe “illogical hatred”? Obviously, this is not a factual statement but an inferential statement. It’s a statement you make on the basis not only of what you observe, but of what you infer. For a statement to be considered a factual statement, it must be made by the observer after observation and must be limited to what is observed (Weinberg, 1958). You can test your ability to distinguish facts from inferences by taking the fact–inference self-test below (based on the tests constructed in Haney, 1973). Carefully read the following report and the observations based on it. Indicate whether you think the observations are true, false, or doubtful on the basis of the information presented in the report. Write T if the observation is definitely true, F if the observation is definitely false, and ? if the observation may be either true or false. Judge each observation in order. Don’t reread the observations after you’ve indicated your judgment, and don’t change any of your answers.
_____ 2. The professor turned off the lights.
_____ 3. A tall figure demanded the examination.
_____ 4. The examination was picked up by someone.
_____ 5. The examination was picked up by the professor.
_____ 6. A tall, broad figure appeared after the professor turned off the lights in the office.
_____ 7. The man who opened the drawer was the professor.
_____ 8. The professor ran down the corridor.
_____ 9. The drawer was never actually opened.
_____ 10. Three persons are referred to in this report.
Statement 3 is true, statement 9 is false, and all the rest are ?. Review your answers by referring back to the story. To get you started, consider: Is there necessarily a thief? Might the dean have demanded to see the instructor’s examination (statement 1)? Did the examination have to be in the drawer (statements 4 and 5)? How do you know it was the professor who turned off the lights (statement 6)? Need the professor have been a man (statement 7)? Do the instructor and the professor have to be the same person (statement 10)?
There is nothing wrong with making inferential statements. You must make them in order to talk about much that is meaningful to you. The problem arises when you act as if those inferential statements were factual. To avoid fact–inference confusion, phrase inferential statements in such a way as to show that they are tentative. Inferential statements should leave open the possibility of alternatives. If, for example, you treat the statement “Our biology teacher was fired for poor teaching” as factual, you eliminate any alternatives. But if you preface your statement with, say, “Pat told me . . .” or “I’m wondering if …” the inferential nature of your statement will be clear. Be especially sensitive to this distinction when you’re listening. Most talk is inferential. Beware of the speaker who presents everything as fact. Analyze closely and you’ll uncover a world of inferences.
The mental date is an extensional device that helps you keep your language (and your thinking) up to date and helps you guard against static evaluation. The procedure is simple: date your statements and especially your evaluations. Remember that Pat Smith2012 is not Pat Smith2015; academic abilities2012 are not academic abilities2015. T. S. Eliot, in The Cocktail Party, said, “What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then . . . at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” In listening, look carefully at messages that claim that what was true still is. It may or may not be. Look for change.
Everything is unlike everything else. Our language, however, provides you with common nouns, such as teacher, student, friend, enemy, war, politician, and liberal. These lead you to focus on similarities—to group together all teachers, all students, and all politicians. At the same time, the terms divert attention away from the uniqueness of each person, each object, and each event.
This misevaluation is at the heart of stereotyping on the basis of nationality, race, religion, sex, and affectional orientation. A stereotype, as you know, is a fixed mental picture of a group that is applied to each individual in the group without regard to his or her unique qualities. Whether stereotypes are positive or negative, they create the same problem: They provide you with shortcuts that are often inappropriate.
A useful antidote to indiscrimination (and stereotyping) is another extensional device called the index. This mental subscript identifies each individual as an individual—even though both may be covered by the same label. Thus, politician1 is not politician2, teacher1 is not teacher2. The index helps you to discriminate among without discriminating against. Although the label (politician, for example) covers all politicians, the index makes sure that each is thought about as an individual. The index would, for example, prevent you from grouping all Muslims or all Christians or all Jews in the same category. Each Muslim, each Christian, and each Jew is unique and needs a unique index number. So at the same time that you have to generalize and appreciate similarities, the index reminds you also to look at differences.
Problems are created when opposites are used in inappropriate situations. For example, “So-and-so is either for us or against us.” These options don’t include all possibilities. The person may be for us in some things and against us in other things or may be neutral.
To correct this polarizing tendency, beware of implying (and believing) that two extreme classes include all possible classes—that an individual must be one or the other, with no alternatives (“Are you pro-choice or pro-life?”). Most people, most events, most qualities exist between polar extremes. When others imply that there are only two sides or alternatives, look for the middle ground.
As explained in Chapter 1, your messages normally occur in “packages” consisting of both verbal and nonverbal signals that occur simultaneously. Usually, verbal and nonverbal behaviors reinforce or support each other. For example, you don’t usually express fear with words while the rest of your body relaxes. You don’t normally express anger with your body posture while your face smiles. Your entire being works as a whole—verbally and nonverbally—to express your thoughts and feelings.
This chapter focuses on the verbal system (the next will examine the nonverbal system) and discusses the principles of verbal messages, the concepts of confirmation and disconfirmation, and the ways you can use verbal messages most effectively.
5.1 Principles of Verbal Messages
As you grew up, you learned the language spoken by the people around you. You learned its phonological, or sound, system; its semantic system, or system of word meanings; and its syntactic system, which enabled you to put words into meaningful sentence patterns. Our concern in this chapter is not with the grammatical structure of language (that’s the linguist’s job), but with the verbal messages you speak and hear. These verbal messages, of course, rely on the rules of grammar; you can’t just make up sounds or words or string words together at random and expect to be understood. But, as we’ll see, following the rules of grammar is not enough to achieve effective communication. For this we need to understand several key principles of verbal messages: (1) meanings are in people, (2) language is denotative and connotative, (3) meanings depend on context, (4) messages vary in politeness, (5) messages can be onymous or anonymous, (6) messages vary in assertiveness, and (7) messages can deceive.5.1.1 Meanings Are in People
If you wanted to know the meaning of the word love, you’d probably turn to a dictionary. There you’d find a definition such as Webster’s: “the attraction, desire, or affection felt for a person who arouses delight or admiration or elicits tenderness, sympathetic interest, or benevolence.” But where would you turn if you wanted to know what Pedro means when he says, “I’m in love”? Of course, you’d ask Pedro to discover his meaning. It’s in this sense that meanings are not in words, but in people. Consequently, to uncover meaning, you need to look into people and not merely into words.Also recognize that as you change, you also change the meanings you created out of past messages. Thus, although the message sent may not have changed, the meanings you created from it yesterday and the meanings you create today may be quite different. Yesterday, when a special someone said, “I love you,” you created certain meanings. But today, when you learn that the same “I love you” was said to three other people, or when you fall in love with someone else, you drastically change the meanings you perceive from those three words.
As already noted in Chapter 2, this principle is especially important in intercultural communication, as meanings for the same words are often drastically different between members of different cultures. This became especially obvious after the tragedy of the World Trade Center attack: Terms like justice, suicide, and terrorism were given totally different meanings by those from different cultures.
A failure to recognize this important principle is at the heart of a common pattern of miscommunication called bypassing. Bypassing is a type of miscommunication that occurs when the sender’s and the receiver’s meanings are not the same (Haney, 1973). Bypassing can take either of two forms: two people in conversation using different words that have the same meaning or two people in conversation using the same words that have different meanings.
5.1.1.1 Bypassing: Different Words, Same Meaning
One type of bypassing occurs when two people use different words but give them the same meaning; on the surface there’s disagreement, but at the level of meaning there’s agreement. The two people actually agree but assume, because they use different words (some of which may actually never be verbalized), that they disagree. Here’s an example:Pat: I’m not interested in one-night stands. I want a permanent relationship. [Meaning: I want an exclusive dating relationship but not marriage]
Chris: I’m not ready for that. [Meaning: I’m not ready for marriage.]
5.1.1.2 Bypassing: Same Words, Different Meaning
The second type of bypassing is more common and occurs when two people use the same words but give the words different meanings. On the surface it looks like the two people agree (simply because they’re using the same words). But if you look more closely, you see that the apparent agreement masks real disagreement, as in this example:Pat: I don’t really believe in religion. [Meaning: I don’t really believe in God.]Here Pat and Chris assume that they agree, but actually they disagree. At some later date the implications of these differences may well become crucial.
Chris: Neither do I. [Meaning: I don’t really believe in organized religions.]
5.1.2 Language Is Denotative and Connotative
Denotation refers to the meaning you’d find in a dictionary; it’s the meaning that members of the culture assign to a word. Connotation refers to the emotional meaning that specific speakers–listeners give to a word. Words have both kinds of meaning. Take as an example the word death. To a doctor this word might mean (or denote) the time when brain activity ceases. This is an objective description of a particular event. In contrast, when a mother is informed of her child’s death, the word means (or connotes) much more. It recalls her child’s youth, ambition, family, illness, and so on. To her it’s a highly emotional, subjective, and personal word. These emotional, subjective, or personal reactions are the word’s connotative meaning.Take another example: Compare the term migrants (used to designate Mexicans coming into the United States to better their economic condition) with the term settlers (used to designate Europeans who came to the United States for the same reason) (Koppelman, 2005). Though both terms describe essentially the same activity (and are essentially the same denotatively), migrants is often negatively evaluated and settlers is often positively evaluated (they differ widely in their connotations).
Semanticist S. I. Hayakawa (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1989) coined the terms “snarl words” and “purr words” to clarify further the distinction between denotative and connotative meaning. Snarl words are highly negative (“She’s an idiot,” “He’s a pig,” “They’re a bunch of losers”). Sexist, racist, and heterosexist language and hate speech provide lots of other examples. Purr words are highly positive (“She’s a real sweetheart,” “He’s a dream,” “They’re the greatest”). Although they may sometimes seem to have denotative meaning and to refer to the “real world,” snarl and purr words are purely connotative in meaning. They don’t describe people or events; rather, they reveal the speaker’s feelings about these people or events.
5.1.3 Meanings Depend on Context
Verbal and nonverbal communications exist in a context, and that context to a large extent determines the meaning of any verbal or nonverbal behavior. The same words or behaviors may have totally different meanings when they occur in different contexts. For example, the greeting “How are you?” means “Hello” to someone you pass regularly on the street, but means “Is your health improving?” when said to a friend in the hospital. A wink to an attractive person on a bus means something completely different from a wink that says, “I’m kidding.”Similarly, the meaning of a given signal depends on the other behavior it accompanies or is close to in time. Pounding a fist on the table during a speech in support of a politician means something quite different from that same gesture in response to news of a friend’s death. Focused eye contact may signify openness and honesty in one culture and defiance in another. In isolation from the context, it’s impossible to tell what meaning was intended by merely examining the signals. Of course, even if you know the context in detail, you still may not be able to decipher the meaning of the message.
Perhaps the most important contexts to consider are the cultural and the gender contexts.
5.1.3.1 The Cultural Context
Your culture teaches you that certain ways of using verbal messages are acceptable and certain ways are not. For example, you may have learned to address older people by Title + Last Name (Ms. Winter), as with professors and doctors, but to address peers or people much younger than you by their first names. When you follow such cultural principles in communicating, you’re seen as a properly functioning member of the culture. When you violate the principles, you risk being seen as deviant or perhaps as insulting. Here are a variety of such principles.
The Principle of Cooperation.
The principle of cooperation holds that in any communication interaction, both parties will make an effort to help each other understand each other. That is, we assume cooperation. The ways in which we assume cooperation are identified in the principle’s four corollaries or maxims. As you read down the list, ask yourself how you follow these maxims in your everyday conversation.
■ The maxim of quality. Say what you know or assume to be true, and do not say what you know to be false.
■ The maxim of relation. Talk about what is relevant to the conversation.
■ The maxim of manner. Be clear, avoid ambiguities (as much as possible), be relatively brief, and organize your thoughts into a meaningful pattern. In e-mail and texting brevity is especially important, and as a result acronyms have become popular, especially in online communication: BTW for “by the way,” BFF for “best friend forever,” IMHO for “in my humble opinion,” and TTYL for “talk to you later.” For an ever-increasing list of acronyms see Net Lingua’s website.
■ The maxim of quantity. Be as informative as necessary to communicate the information.
The Principle of Peaceful Relations.
This principle holds that when you communicate your primary goal is to maintain peaceful relationships. This means that you would never insult anyone and you may even express agreement with someone when you really disagree, a principle that violates the principle of cooperation and the maxim of quality (Midooka, 1990).
The Principle of Face-Saving.
Face-saving messages are polite; they are messages that preserve the image of the other person and do nothing to insult the person or make him or her appear in a negative light. The principle holds that you should never embarrass anyone, especially in public. Always allow people to save face, even if this means avoiding the truth—as when you tell someone he or she did good work although the job was actually poorly executed. Many Asian and Latin American cultures stress the value of indirectness because it helps people avoid overt criticism and the loss of face.
The Principle of Self-Denigration.
The principle of self-denigration advises you to avoid taking credit for accomplishments and to minimize your abilities or talents in conversation (Gu, 1997). At the same time, you would raise the image of the people with whom you’re talking.
5.1.3.2 The Gender Context
Gender also influences our verbal communication. For example, studies from different cultures show that women’s speech is generally more polite than men’s speech, even on the telephone (Brown, 1980; Dindia & Canary, 2006; Holmes, 1995; Kapoor, Hughes, Baldwin, & Blue, 2003; Smoreda & Licoppe, 2000; Tannen, 1994b; Wetzel, 1988). Women seek areas of agreement in conversation and in conflict situations more often than men do. Similarly, young girls are more apt to try to modify disagreements, whereas young boys are more apt to express more “bald disagreements” (Holmes, 1995). Women also use more polite speech when seeking to gain another person’s compliance than men do (Baxter, 1984).The popular stereotype in much of the United States holds that women tend to be indirect in making requests and in giving orders and that this indirectness communicates a powerlessness and
discomfort with their own authority. Men, the stereotype continues, tend to be direct, sometimes to the point of being blunt or rude. This directness communicates men’s power and comfort with their authority. Deborah Tannen (1994a) provides an interesting perspective on these stereotypes. Women are, it seems, more indirect in giving orders; they are more likely to say, for example, “It would be great if these letters could go out today” than “Have these letters out by three.” But, Tannen (1994a, p. 84) argues, “issuing orders indirectly can be the prerogative of those in power” and does not necessarily show powerlessness. Power, to Tannen, is the ability to choose your own style of communication.
Men also can be indirect, and they are more likely to use indirectness when they express weakness, reveal a problem, or admit an error (Rundquist, 1992; Tannen, 1994a, 1994b). Men are more likely to speak indirectly when expressing emotions (other than anger). They are also more indirect when they refuse expressions of increased romantic intimacy. Men are thus indirect, the theory goes, when they are saying something that goes against the masculine stereotype. A few theories of gender differences are highlighted in the accompanying Understanding Theory and Research box.
There are also gender similarities. One of the best pieces of evidence comes from studies showing that when messages spoken by men and women are transcribed, native speakers of English cannot identify which were spoken by men and which by women (Mulac, 2006). There are also studies identifying specific similarities. For example, in both the United States and New Zealand, men and women seem to pay compliments in similar ways (Holmes, 1995; Manes & Wolfson, 1981), and both men and women use politeness strategies when communicating bad news in an organization (Lee, 1993).
5.1.4 Messages Vary in Politeness
It will come as no surprise that messages vary greatly in politeness Polite messages reflect positively on the other person (for example, compliments or pats on the back); that is, they help the other person maintain positive face (as explained more fully in Chapter 3). Politeness messages also respect the other person’s right to be independent and autonomous (for example, asking permission or acknowledging the person’s right to refuse); that is, they help the other person maintain autonomy. Impolite messages attack our needs to be seen positively (for example, criticism or negative facial expressions) and to be autonomous (making demands or forcing another to do something).Direct messages (“Write me a recommendation,” “Lend me $100”) are usually less polite that indirect messages (“Do you think you could write a recommendation for me?” “Would it be possible to lend me $100?”). The reason that indirect messages are usually more polite is because they allow the person to maintain autonomy and provide an acceptable way for the person to refuse your request (thus helping to maintain the person’s negative face needs). Direct messages may infringe on a person’s need to maintain negative face.
Indirect messages allow you to express a desire without insulting or offending anyone; they allow you to observe the rules of polite interaction. So instead of saying, “I’m bored with this group,” you say, “It’s getting late and I have to get up early tomorrow,” or you look at your watch and pretend to be surprised by the time. Instead of saying, “This food tastes like cardboard,” you say, “I just started my diet.” In each instance you’re stating a preference but are saying it indirectly so as to avoid offending someone.
5.1.5 Messages Can Be Onymous or Anonymous
Some messages are onymous or “signed”; that is, the author of the message is clearly identified, as it is in your textbooks, news-related editorials, and feature articles and of course when you communicate face to face and, usually, by phone or chat. In many cases, you have the opportunity to respond directly to the speaker/writer and voice your opinions, your agreement or disagreement, for example. Other messages are anonymous: the author is not identified. For example, on faculty evaluation questionnaires and on RateMyProfessor.com, the ratings and the comments are published anonymously.The Internet has made anonymity extremely easy, and there are currently a variety of websites that offer to send your e-mails to your boss, your ex-partner, your secret crush, your noisy neighbors, or your inadequate lawyer—all anonymously. Thus, your message gets sent but you are not identified with it. For good or ill, you don’t have to deal with the consequences of your message.
One obvious advantage of anonymity is that it allows people to voice opinions that may be unpopular and may thus encourage greater honesty. In the case of RateMyProfessor.com, for example, anonymity ensures that the student writing negative comments about an instructor will not be penalized. An anonymous e-mail to a sexual partner informing him or her about your having an STD and suggesting testing and treatment might pass along a message that would never be shared in a face-to-face or phone conversation. The presumption is that anonymity encourages honesty and openness.
Anonymity also enables people to disclose their inner feelings, fears, hopes, and dreams with a depth of feeling that they may be otherwise reluctant to do. A variety of websites that enable you to maintain anonymity are available for these purposes. And, in these cases, not only are you anonymous but the people who read your messages are also anonymous, a situation that is likely to encourage a greater willingness to disclosure and to make disclosures at a deeper level than otherwise.
An obvious disadvantage is that anonymity might encourage people to go to extremes—as there are no consequences to the message—to voice opinions that are outrageous. This in turn can easily spark conflict that is likely to prove largely unproductive. With anonymous messages, you can’t evaluate the credibility of the source. Advice on depression, for example, may come from someone who knows nothing about depression and may make useless recommendations.
5.1.6 Messages Vary in Assertiveness
Consider how true (or false) each of the following is of your own everyday behavior:1. I would express my opinion in a group even if it contradicted the opinions of others.All five of these statements describe assertive behavior. So, if you responded mainly with True then your behavior is generally assertive; if you responded mainly with False then your behavior is generally nonassertive. Assertive people operate with an “I win, you win” philosophy; they assume that both parties can gain something from an interaction, even from a confrontation.
2. When asked to do something that I really don’t want to do, I can say no without feeling guilty.
3. I can express my opinion to my superiors on the job.
4. I can start up a conversation with a stranger on a bus or at a business gathering without fear.
5. I voice objection to people’s behavior if I feel it infringes on my rights.
Assertive people are more positive and score lower on measures of hopelessness than do nonassertive people (Velting, 1999). Assertive people are willing to assert their own rights. Unlike their aggressive counterparts, however, they don’t hurt others in the process. Assertive people speak their minds and welcome others’ doing likewise.
Do realize that as with many other aspects of communication, there will be wide cultural differences when it comes to assertiveness. For example, the values of assertiveness are more likely to be extolled in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures. Assertiveness will be valued more by those cultures that stress competition, individual success, and independence. It will be valued much less by those cultures that stress cooperation, group success, and interdependence of all members on one another. American students, for example, are found to be significantly more assertive than Japanese or Korean students (Thompson & Klopf, 1991; Thompson, Klopf, & Ishii, 1991). Most people are nonassertive in certain situations. If you’re one of these people and if you wish to modify your behavior, here are some suggestions for communicating assertiveness (Bower & Bower, 2005; Dryden & Constantinou, 2005). (If you are always nonassertive and are unhappy about this, then you may need to work with a therapist to change your behavior.)
■ Describe the problem. Don’t evaluate or judge it. Be sure to use I-messages and to avoid messages that accuse or blame the other person: “We’re all working on this advertising project together. And I need you to participate more actively.”Keep in mind that assertiveness is not always the most desirable response. Assertive people are assertive when they want to be, but they can be nonassertive if the situation calls for it. For example, you might wish to be nonassertive in a situation in which assertiveness might emotionally hurt the other person. Let’s say that an older relative wishes you to do something for her or him. You could assert your rights and say no, but in doing so you would probably hurt this person; it might be better simply to do as asked.
■ State how this problem affects you. Tell the person how you feel: “My job depends on the success of this project, and I don’t think it’s fair that I have to do extra work to make up for what you’re not doing.”
■ Propose solutions. Suggest solutions that are workable and that allow the person to save face. Describe or visualize the situation if your solution were put into effect: “If you can get your report to the group by Tuesday, we’ll still be able to meet our deadline. I could give you a call on Monday to remind you.”
■ Confirm understanding. Make sure your message is understood: “It’s clear that we can’t produce this project if you’re not going to pull your own weight. Will you have the report to us by Tuesday?”
A note of caution should be added to this discussion. It’s easy to visualize a situation in which, for example, people are talking behind you in a movie, and with your newfound enthusiasm for assertiveness, you tell them to be quiet. It’s also easy to see yourself getting smashed in the teeth as a result. In applying the principles of assertive communication, be careful that you don’t go beyond what you can handle effectively.
5.1.7 Messages Can Deceive
It comes as no surprise that some messages are truthful and some are deceptive. Although we operate in interpersonal communication on the assumption that people tell the truth, some people do lie. In fact, many view lying as quite common whether in politics, business, or interpersonal relationships (Amble, 2005; Knapp, 2008). Lying also begets lying; when one person lies, the likelihood of the other person lying increases (Tyler, Feldman, & Reichert, 2006). Furthermore, people like people who tell the truth more than they like people who lie. So lying needs to be given some attention in any consideration of interpersonal communication.Lying refers to the act of (1) sending messages (2) with the intention of giving another person information you believe to be false.
1. Lying involves some kind of verbal and/or nonverbal message sending (and remember even the absence of facial expression or the absence of any verbal comment also communicates); it also requires reception by another person.
2. The message must be sent to intentionally deceive. If you give false information to someone but you believe it to be true, then you haven’t lied. You lie when you send information that you believe to be untrue and you intend to mislead the other person.
5.1.7.1 Types of Lies
Lies vary greatly in type; each lie seems a bit different from every other lie. Here is one useful system that classifies lies into four types (McGinley, 2000).■ Pro-Social Deception: To Achieve Some Good. For example, praising a person’s effort to give him or her more confidence or telling others they look great to simply make them feel good would be examples of pro-social lies. Some pro-social lies are expected and to not lie would be considered impolite. For example, it would be impolite to tell parents that their child is ugly (even if you firmly believe that the child is in fact ugly). The only polite course is to lie.
■ Self-Enhancement Deception: To Make Yourself Look Good. Not all self-enhancement involves deception. For example, the impression management strategies discussed earlier (pages 70–73) may be used to simply highlight what is already true about you but that others may not see at first glance. In some cases, however, impression management strategies involve deception. For example, you might mention your good grades but omit the poor ones or present yourself as a lot more successful than you really are.
■ Selfish Deception: To Protect Yourself. Sometimes it’s something as simple as not answering the phone because you want to do something else. In this case, no one really gets hurt (usually). But some selfish deception strategies may involve hurting others; for example, you might imply that you did most of the work for a report—protecting yourself, but also hurting the reputation of your colleague. Or you might conceal previous failed relationships, an unsavory family history, or certain facts to protect yourself. Hiding an extra-relational affair is perhaps the classic example of selfish deception.
■ Anti-Social Deception: To Harm Someone. Such lies might include spreading false rumors about someone you dislike or falsely accusing an opposing candidate of some wrongdoing (something you see regularly in political debates). Fighting parents may falsely accuse each other of a variety of wrongdoings to gain the affection of the child. Falsely accusing another person of a wrong you did yourself would be perhaps the clearest example of antisocial deception.
5.1.7.2 The Behavior of Liars
One of the more interesting questions about lying is how do liars act. Do they act differently from those telling the truth? And, if they do act differently, how can we tell when someone is lying to us? These questions are not easy to answer, and we are far from having complete answers to such questions. But we have learned a great deal; some of the behaviors of liars were identified in the Understanding Theory and Research box on page 85).Despite the identification of “lying behaviors,” it is still very difficult to detect when a person is lying and when telling the truth. The hundreds of research studies conducted on this topic find that in most instances people judge lying accurately in less than 60 percent of the cases, only slightly better than chance (Knapp, 2008). And there is some evidence to show that lie detection is even more difficult (that is, less accurate) in long-standing romantic relationships—the very relationships in which some of the most significant lying occurs (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2007). One of the most important reasons for this is the truth bias. In most situations we assume that the person is telling the truth; as noted earlier in this chapter, we normally operate under the quality principle, which assumes that what a person says is true. This truth bias is especially strong in long-term relationships where it’s taken for granted that each person tells the truth. There are also situations, however, where there is a deception bias. For example, in prison where lying is so prevalent and where lie detection is a crucial survival skill, prisoners often operate with a lie bias and assume that what the speaker is saying is a lie (Knapp, 2008).
In any attempt to detect lying be especially careful that you formulate any conclusions with a clear understanding that you may be wrong and that accusations of lying (especially when untrue but even when true) can often damage a relationship to the point where you may not be able to repair it. In addition, keep in mind all the cautions and potential errors in perception discussed earlier; after all, lie detection is a part of person perception.
5.2 Disconfirmation and Confirmation
Consider this situation: You’ve been living with someone for the past six months, and you arrive home late one night. Your partner, let’s say Pat, is angry and complains about your being so late. Which of the following is most likely to be your response?1. Stop screaming. I’m not interested in what you’re babbling about. I’ll do what I want, when I want. I’m going to bed.In Response 1, you dismiss Pat’s anger and even indicate dismissal of Pat as a person. In Response 2, you reject the validity of Pat’s reasons for being angry but do not dismiss either Pat’s feelings of anger or Pat as a person. In Response 3, you acknowledge Pat’s anger and the reasons for it. In addition, you provide some kind of explanation and in doing so show that both Pat’s feelings and Pat as a person are important and that Pat has the right to know what happened. The first response is an example of disconfirmation, the second of rejection, and the third of confirmation (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
2. What are you so angry about? Didn’t you get in three hours late last Thursday when you went to that office party? So knock it off.
3. You have a right to be angry. I should have called to tell you I was going to be late, but I got involved in a serious debate at work, and I couldn’t leave until it was resolved.
Disconfirmation is a communication pattern in which we ignore someone’s presence as well as that person’s messages (Response 1). We say, in effect, that this person and what this person has to say are not worth serious attention or effort—that this person and this person’s contributions are unimportant or insignificant and that there is no reason to concern ourselves with her or him. The Amish community practices an extreme form of disconfirmation called “shunning,” in which the community members totally ignore a person who has violated one or more of their rules. The specific aim of shunning is to get the person to repent and to reenter the community of the faithful. It’s likely that all cultures practice some form of exclusion for those who violate important cultural rules.
Note that disconfirmation is not the same as rejection. In rejection, you disagree with the person; you indicate your unwillingness to accept something the other person says or does (Response 2). In disconfirming someone, however, you deny that person’s significance; you claim that what this person says or does simply does not count.
Confirmation, the opposite of disconfirmation, involves your acknowledging the presence of the other person, the person’s importance, and your acceptance of this person (Response 3).
You can gain insight into a wide variety of offensive language practices by viewing them as types of disconfirmation—as language that alienates and separates. Four obvious practices, which we’ll consider here, are racism, heterosexism, ageism, and sexism.
Another-ism is ableism—discrimination against people with disabilities. This particular practice is handled throughout the text in a series of tables offering tips for communicating between people with and without a variety of disabilities:
■ between people with and without disabilities (Chapter 2).
■ between people with and without hearing impairments (Chapter 4).
■ between people with and without visual impairment (Chapter 6).
■ between people with and without speech and language disorders (Chapter 7).
5.2.1 Racism
According to Andrea Rich (1974), “any language that, through a conscious or unconscious attempt by the user, places a particular racial or ethnic group in an inferior position is racist.” Racist language expresses racist attitudes. It also, however, contributes to the development of racist attitudes in those who use or hear the language. Even when racism is subtle, unintentional, or even unconscious, its effects are systematically damaging (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002).Racism exists on both individual and institutional levels, a distinction made by educational researchers and used throughout this discussion (Koppelman, 2005). The term individual racism refers to the negative attitudes and beliefs that people hold about specific races. Assumptions such as the idea that certain races are intellectually inferior to others or that certain races are incapable of certain achievements are clear examples of individual racism. Prejudice against American Indians, African Americans, Hispanics, and Arabs have been with us throughout history and are still a part of many people’s lives today. Such racism is seen in the negative terms people use to refer to members of other races and to disparage their customs and accomplishments.
Institutionalized racism is seen in de facto school segregation, in companies’ reluctance to hire members of minority groups, in banks’ unwillingness to extend mortgages and business loans to members of some races, or in lenders’ charging higher interest rates to members of certain groups.
Here are a few guidelines on racist messages.
■ Avoid using derogatory terms for members of a particular race.
■ Avoid interacting with members of other races through stereotypes perpetuated by the media.
■ Make sure not to refer to race when it’s irrelevant, as in “an African American surgeon” or “an Asian athlete.”
■ Avoid attributing economic or social problems to the race of the individuals rather than to institutionalized racism or to general economic problems that affect everyone.
5.2.2 Heterosexism
Heterosexism also exists on both an individual and an institutional level. Individual heterosexism involves attitudes, behaviors, and language that disparage gay men and lesbians as well as a belief that all sexual behavior that is not heterosexual is unnatural and deserving of criticism and condemnation. These beliefs are at the heart of antigay violence and “gay bashing.” Individual heterosexism also includes such beliefs as the notions that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to commit crimes (there’s actually no difference) or to molest children (actually, heterosexual, married men are overwhelmingly the child molesters) (Abel & Harlow, 2001; Koppelman, 2005). It also includes the belief that homosexuals cannot maintain stable relationships or effectively raise children, a belief that contradicts research evidence (Fitzpatrick, Jandt, Myrick, & Edgar, 1994; Johnson & O’Connor, 2002).Although great strides have been made in the United States against institutionalized heterosexism, as of this writing 38 states still prevent same-sex marriage, the Boy Scouts of America will not allow gay men to serve as Scoutmasters, and many religions ban gay men and lesbians from the ministry. In some cultures, homosexual relations are illegal (for example, in India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Singapore); penalties range from a “misdemeanor” conviction in Liberia, to life in jail in Singapore, to death in Pakistan.
Heterosexist language includes the obvious derogatory terms used for lesbians and gay men but also the more subtle forms of language usage: for example, when you qualify a reference to a professional—as in “gay athlete” or “lesbian doctor”— and, in effect, say that athletes and doctors are not normally gay or lesbian.
Still another instance of heterosexism is the presumption of heterosexuality. Usually, people assume the person they’re talking to or about is heterosexual. And usually they’re correct because the majority of people are heterosexual. At the same time, however, this presumption denies the lesbian or gay identity a certain legitimacy. The practice is very similar to the presumptions of whiteness and maleness that we have made significant inroads in eliminating. Here are a few additional suggestions for avoiding heterosexist (or what some call homophobic) language.
■ Avoid offensive nonverbal mannerisms that parody stereotypes when talking about gay men and lesbians. Avoid the “startled eye blink” with which some people react to gay couples (Mahaffey, Bryan, & Hutchison, 2005).
■ Avoid “complimenting” gay men and lesbians by saying that they “don’t look it.” To gay men and lesbians, this is not a compliment. Similarly, expressing disappointment that a person is gay—often thought to be a compliment, as in comments such as “What a waste!”—is not really a compliment.
■ Avoid making the assumption that every gay or lesbian knows what every other gay or lesbian is thinking. It’s very similar to asking a Japanese person why Sony is investing heavily in the United States or, as one comic put it, asking an African American, “What do you think Jesse Jackson meant by that last speech?”
■ Avoid denying individual differences. Comments like “Lesbians are so loyal” or “Gay men are so open with their feelings,” which ignore the reality of wide differences within any group, are potentially insulting to all members of the group.
5.2.3 Ageism
Although used mainly to refer to prejudice against older people, the term ageism can also refer to prejudice against other age groups. For example, if you describe all teenagers as selfish and undependable, you’re discriminating against group members purely because of their age and thus are using ageist language. In some cultures—some Asian and some African cultures, for example—the old are revered and respected. Younger people seek them out for advice on economic, ethical, and relationship issues.Individual ageism is seen in negative stereotypes and in the general disrespect many have for older people. Institutional ageism is seen in mandatory retirement laws and age restrictions in certain occupations (as opposed to requirements based on demonstrated competence). In less obvious forms, ageism is seen in the media’s portrayal of old people as incompetent, complaining, and, perhaps most clearly evidenced in both television and films, without romantic feelings. Rarely, for example, does television or film show older people working productively, being cooperative and pleasant, and engaging in romantic and sexual relationships.
Popular language is replete with examples of linguistic ageism; terms like little old lady, old hag, old-timer, over the hill, old coot, and old fogy are a few examples. As with sexism, qualifying a description of someone in terms of his or her age demonstrates ageism. For example, if you refer to “a quick-witted 75-year-old” or “an agile 65-year-old” or “a responsible teenager,” you’re implying that these qualities are unusual in people of these ages and thus need special mention. You’re saying that “quick-wittedness” and “being 75” do not normally go together. The problem with this kind of stereotyping is that it’s simply wrong. There are many 75-year-olds who are extremely quick-witted (and many 30-year-olds who aren’t). You also communicate ageism when you speak to older people in overly simple words or explain things that don’t need explaining. Nonverbally, you demonstrate ageist communication when, for example, you avoid touching an older person but touch others, or when you avoid making direct eye contact with the older person but readily do so with others, or when you speak at an overly high volume (suggesting that all older people have hearing difficulties).
One useful way to avoid ageism is to recognize and avoid the illogical stereotypes that ageist language is based on. Here are a few suggestions.
■ Avoid talking down to or refreshing an older person’s memory. Older people are not mentally slow, and most have good memories.Even though you want to avoid ageist communication, there are times when you may wish to make adjustments when talking with someone who does have language or communication difficulties. The American Speech and Hearing Association’s website offers several useful suggestions:
■ Avoid implying that relationships (particularly romantic and sexual) are no longer important. Older people continue to be interested in relationships.
■ Speak at a normal volume and maintain a normal physical distance. Being older does not mean being hard of hearing or being unable to see; most older people hear and see quite well, sometimes with hearing aids or glasses.
■ Engage older people in conversation as you would wish to be engaged. Older people are interested in the world around them.
■ Reduce as much background noise as you can.
■ Speak in relatively short sentences and questions.
■ Give the person added time to respond. Some older people react more slowly and need extra time.
■ Listen actively. Practice the skills of active listening discussed in Chapter 4.
5.2.4 Sexism
Sexism—like all the -isms discussed here—exists on both an individual and institutional level. Individual sexism consists of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs about men or women based on rigid beliefs about gender roles. These might include beliefs such as the ideas that women should be caretakers, should be sensitive at all times, and should acquiesce to a man’s decisions concerning political or financial matters. Sexist attitudes would also include beliefs that men are insensitive, interested only in sex, and incapable of communicating feelings.Institutional sexism, on the other hand, involves customs and practices that discriminate against people because of their gender. Two very clear examples are the widespread practice of paying women less than men for the same job and the discrimination against women in the upper levels of management. Another clear example of institutionalized sexism is seen in the divorce courts’ practice of automatically or near-automatically granting child custody to the mother rather than the father.
Of particular interest here is sexist language: language that puts down someone because of his or her gender (a term usually used to refer to language derogatory toward women). The National Council of Teachers of English has proposed guidelines for nonsexist (gender-free, gender-neutral, or sex-fair) language. These guidelines concern the use of the generic word man, the use of generic he and his, and sex-role stereotyping (Penfield, 1987). Consider a few suggestions for avoiding sexist language:
■ Avoid using man generically. Gender-neutral terms can easily be substituted. Instead of mankind, say humanity, people, or human beings. Similarly, the use of terms such as policeman or fireman and other terms that presume maleness as the norm—and femaleness as a deviation from this norm—are clear and common examples of sexist language.
■ Refrain from using he and his as generic. Instead, you can alternate pronouns, restructure your sentences to eliminate any reference to gender, use he and she or her and him, or rephrase into the plural form.
■ Stay away from sex-role stereotyping. When you make the hypothetical elementary school teacher female and the college professor male or refer to doctors as male and nurses as female, you’re sexrole stereotyping; the same is true when you identify the sex of a professional in phrases such as woman doctor or male nurse.
5.2.5 Cultural Identifiers
Perhaps the best way to develop nonsexist, nonheterosexist, nonracist, and nonageist language is to examine the preferred cultural identifiers to use in talking to and about members of different groups. Remember, however, that preferred terms frequently change over time, so keep in touch with the most current preferences.5.2.5.1 Race and Nationality
Generally, most African Americans prefer African American to black (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993), although black is often used with white, as well as in a variety of other contexts (for example, Department of Black and Puerto Rican Studies, the Journal of Black History, and Black History Month). The terms Negro and colored, although used in the names of some organizations (for example, the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), are not used outside these contexts.White is generally used to refer to those whose roots are in European cultures and usually does not include Hispanics. Analogous to African American (which itself is based on a long tradition of terms such as Irish American and Italian American) is the phrase European American. Few European Americans, however, call themselves that; most prefer their national origins emphasized, as in German American or Greek American. This preference may well change as Europe moves toward becoming a more cohesive and united entity. People of color—a more literary-sounding term appropriate perhaps to public speaking but awkward in most conversations—is preferred to non-white, which implies that whiteness is the norm and nonwhiteness is a deviation from that norm. The same is true of the term non-Christian: It implies that people who have other beliefs deviate from the norm.
Generally, the term Hispanic refers to anyone who identifies himself or herself as belonging to a Spanish-speaking culture. Latina (female) and Latino (male) refer to persons whose roots are in one of the Latin American countries, such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, or Guatemala. Hispanic American refers to U.S. residents whose ancestry is in a Spanish culture; the term includes people from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. In emphasizing a Spanish heritage, however, the term is really inaccurate because it leaves out the large numbers of people in the Caribbean and in South America whose origins are African, Native American, French, or Portuguese. The words Chicana (female) and Chicano (male) refer to persons with roots in Mexico, although these terms often connote a nationalist attitude (Jandt, 2004) and are considered offensive by many Mexican Americans. Mexican American is generally preferred.
Inuk (plural Inuit), also spelled with two n’s (Innuk and Innuit), is preferred to Eskimo (a term the U.S. Census Bureau uses), which was applied to the indigenous peoples of Alaska and Canada by Europeans and literally means “raw meat eaters.”
The word Indian technically refers only to someone from India, not to citizens of other Asian countries or to the indigenous peoples of North America. American Indian or Native American is preferred, even though many Native Americans do refer to themselves as Indians and Indian people. The word squaw, used to refer to a Native American woman and still used in the names of some places in the United States and in some textbooks, is clearly a term to be avoided; its usage is almost always negative and insulting (Koppelman, 2005).
In Canada indigenous people are called first people or first nations. The term native American (with a lowercase n) is most often used to refer to persons born in the United States. Although technically the term could refer to anyone born in North or South America, people outside the United States generally prefer more specific designations such as Argentinean, Cuban, or Canadian. The term native describes an indigenous inhabitant; it is not used to indicate “someone having a less developed culture.”
Muslim (rather than the older Moslem) is the preferred form to refer to a person who adheres to the religious teachings of Islam. Quran (rather than Koran) is the preferred term for the scriptures of Islam. Jewish people is often preferred to Jews, and Jewess (a Jewish female) is considered derogatory. Jew is never used as an adjective.
When history was being written from a European perspective, Europe was taken as the focal point and the rest of the world was defined in terms of its location relative to that continent. Thus, Asia became the East or the Orient, and Asians became Orientals—a term that is today considered inappropriate or Eurocentric. Thus, people from Asia are Asians, just as people from Africa are Africans and people from Europe are Europeans.
5.2.5.2 Affectional Orientation
Generally, gay is the preferred term to refer to a man who has an affectional orientation toward other men, and lesbian is the preferred term for a woman who has an affectional orientation toward other women (Lever, 1995). (Lesbian means “homosexual woman,” so the term lesbian woman is redundant.) Homosexual refers to both gay men and lesbians, but more often to a sexual orientation to members of one’s own sex. Gay and lesbian refer to a lifestyle and not merely to sexual orientation. Gay as a noun, although widely used, may prove offensive in some contexts, as in “We have two gays on the team.” Because much scientific thinking holds that sexuality is not a matter of choice, the terms sexual orientation and affectional orientation are preferred to sexual preference or sexual status. In the case of same-sex marriages, there are two husbands or two wives. In a male-male marriage, each person is referred to as husband and in the case of female-female marriage, each person is referred to as wife. Some same-sex couples—especially those who are not married—prefer the term partner or lover.5.2.5.3 Age and Sex
Older person is preferred to elder, elderly, senior, or senior citizen (the last term technically refers to someone older than 65). Usually, however, language designating age is unnecessary. There are times, of course, when you’ll need to refer to a person’s age group, but most of the time age is beside the point—in much the same way that racial or affectional orientation terms are usually irrelevant.Generally, the term girl should be used only to refer to very young females and is equivalent to boy. Neither term should be used for people older than age 17 or 18. Girl is never used to refer to a grown woman, nor is boy used to refer to people in blue-collar positions, as it once was. Lady is negatively evaluated by many because it connotes the stereotype of the prim and proper woman. Woman or young woman is preferred.
The term ma’am, originally an honorific used to show respect, is probably best avoided because today it’s often used as a verbal tag to comment (indirectly) on the woman’s age or marital status (Angier, 2010).
Transgendered people (people who identify themselves as members of the sex opposite to the one they were assigned at birth and who may be gay or straight, male or female) are addressed according to their self-identified sex. Thus, if the person identifies herself as a woman, then the feminine name and pronouns are used—regardless of the person’s biological sex. If the person identifies himself as a man, then the masculine name and pronouns are used.
Transvestites (people who prefer at times to dress in the clothing of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth and who may be gay or straight, male or female) are addressed on the basis of their clothing. If the person is dressed as a woman—regardless of the birth-assigned sex—she is referred to and addressed with feminine pronouns and feminine name. If the person is dressed as a man—regardless of the birth-assigned sex—he is referred to and addressed with masculine pronouns and masculine name.
Let’s turn now from issues of confirmation to some guidelines for using language effectively by avoiding common mistakes and applying some simple principles.
5.3 Using Verbal Messages Effectively
A chief concern in using verbal messages is to recognize what critical thinking theorists call “conceptual distortions”; that is, mental mistakes, misinterpretations, or reasoning fallacies. Avoiding these distortions and substituting a more critical, more realistic analysis is probably the best way to improve your own use of verbal messages (DeVito, 1974). Let’s look at several principles of language that are often ignored or misunderstood, along with the conceptual distortions that result from such misunderstandings (Korzybski, 1933).5.3.1 Language Symbolizes Reality (Partially)
Language symbolizes reality; it’s not the reality itself. Of course, this is obvious. But consider: Have you ever reacted to the way something was labeled or described rather than to the actual item? Have you ever bought something because of its name rather than because of the actual object? If so, you were probably responding as if language were the reality, a distortion called intensional orientation.5.3.1.1 Intensional Orientation
Intensional orientation (the s in intensional is intentional) is the tendency to view people, objects, and events according to the way they’re talked about—the way they’re labeled. For example, if Sally were labeled “uninteresting,” you would, responding intensionally, evaluate her as uninteresting even before listening to what she had to say. You’d see Sally through a filter imposed by the label “uninteresting.” Extensional orientation, on the other hand, is the tendency to look first at the actual people, objects, and events and only afterward at their labels. In this case, it would mean looking at Sally without any preconceived labels, guided by what she says and does, not by the words used to label her.To avoid intensional orientation, extensionalize. Never give labels greater attention than the actual thing. Give your main attention to the people, things, and events in the world as you see them and not as they’re presented in words. For example, when you meet Jack and Jill, observe and interact with them. Then form your impressions. Don’t respond to them as “greedy, money-grubbing landlords” because Harry labeled them this way. Don’t respond to George as “lazy” just because Elaine told you he was.
The accompanying Understanding Theory and Research box explores the concept of intensional orientation and its connection with the verb to be.
5.3.1.2 Allness
A related distortion is allness: forgetting that language symbolizes only a portion of reality, never the whole. When you assume that you can know all or say all about anything, you’re into allness. In reality, you never can see all of anything. You never can experience anything fully. You see a part, then conclude what the whole is like. You have to draw conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence (because you always have insufficient evidence). A useful extensional device to help combat the tendency to think that all can or has been said about anything is to end each statement mentally with et cetera—a reminder that there’s more to learn, more to know, and more to say and that every statement is inevitably incomplete. Instead of saying, for example, “I wouldn’t like her; I saw the way she treated her father,” you’d say, “I don’t think I’d like her; I saw the way she treated her father, but I haven’t seen her with other people, and I really don’t know her father, et cetera.” Of course, some people overuse the “et cetera.” They use it not as a mental reminder, but as a substitute for being specific. This obviously is to be avoided and merely adds to conversational confusion.To avoid allness, recognize that language symbolizes only a part of reality, never the whole. Whatever someone says—regardless of what it is or how extensive it is—represents only a part of the story.
5.3.1.3 Language Expresses Both Facts and Inferences
Language enables you to form statements of both facts and inferences without making any linguistic distinction between the two. Similarly, in speaking and listening you often don’t make a clear distinction between statements of fact and statements of inference. Yet there are great differences between the two. Barriers to clear thinking can be created when inferences are treated as facts, a tendency called fact–inference confusion.For example, you can say, “She’s wearing a blue jacket,” and you can say, “He’s harboring an illogical hatred.” Although the sentences have similar structures, they’re different. You can observe the jacket and its color, but how do you observe “illogical hatred”? Obviously, this is not a factual statement but an inferential statement. It’s a statement you make on the basis not only of what you observe, but of what you infer. For a statement to be considered a factual statement, it must be made by the observer after observation and must be limited to what is observed (Weinberg, 1958). You can test your ability to distinguish facts from inferences by taking the fact–inference self-test below (based on the tests constructed in Haney, 1973). Carefully read the following report and the observations based on it. Indicate whether you think the observations are true, false, or doubtful on the basis of the information presented in the report. Write T if the observation is definitely true, F if the observation is definitely false, and ? if the observation may be either true or false. Judge each observation in order. Don’t reread the observations after you’ve indicated your judgment, and don’t change any of your answers.
A well-liked college teacher had just completed making up the final examinations and had turned off the lights in the office. Just then a tall, broad figure with dark glasses appeared and demanded the examination. The professor opened the drawer. Everything in the drawer was picked up and the individual ran down the corridor. The dean was notified immediately._____ 1. The thief was tall and broad and wore dark glasses.
_____ 2. The professor turned off the lights.
_____ 3. A tall figure demanded the examination.
_____ 4. The examination was picked up by someone.
_____ 5. The examination was picked up by the professor.
_____ 6. A tall, broad figure appeared after the professor turned off the lights in the office.
_____ 7. The man who opened the drawer was the professor.
_____ 8. The professor ran down the corridor.
_____ 9. The drawer was never actually opened.
_____ 10. Three persons are referred to in this report.
Statement 3 is true, statement 9 is false, and all the rest are ?. Review your answers by referring back to the story. To get you started, consider: Is there necessarily a thief? Might the dean have demanded to see the instructor’s examination (statement 1)? Did the examination have to be in the drawer (statements 4 and 5)? How do you know it was the professor who turned off the lights (statement 6)? Need the professor have been a man (statement 7)? Do the instructor and the professor have to be the same person (statement 10)?
There is nothing wrong with making inferential statements. You must make them in order to talk about much that is meaningful to you. The problem arises when you act as if those inferential statements were factual. To avoid fact–inference confusion, phrase inferential statements in such a way as to show that they are tentative. Inferential statements should leave open the possibility of alternatives. If, for example, you treat the statement “Our biology teacher was fired for poor teaching” as factual, you eliminate any alternatives. But if you preface your statement with, say, “Pat told me . . .” or “I’m wondering if …” the inferential nature of your statement will be clear. Be especially sensitive to this distinction when you’re listening. Most talk is inferential. Beware of the speaker who presents everything as fact. Analyze closely and you’ll uncover a world of inferences.
5.3.2 Language Is Relatively Static
Language changes only very slowly, especially when compared to the rapid change in people and things. Static evaluation is the tendency to retain evaluations without change while the reality to which they refer is changing. Often a verbal statement you make about an event or person remains static (“That’s the way he is; he’s always been that way”) while the event or person may change enormously.The mental date is an extensional device that helps you keep your language (and your thinking) up to date and helps you guard against static evaluation. The procedure is simple: date your statements and especially your evaluations. Remember that Pat Smith2012 is not Pat Smith2015; academic abilities2012 are not academic abilities2015. T. S. Eliot, in The Cocktail Party, said, “What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then . . . at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” In listening, look carefully at messages that claim that what was true still is. It may or may not be. Look for change.
5.3.3 Language Can Obscure Distinctions
Language can obscure distinctions among people or events that are covered by the same label but are really quite different (indiscrimination); it can also make it easy to focus on extremes rather than on the vast middle ground between opposites (polarization).5.3.3.1 Indiscrimination
Indiscrimination is the failure to distinguish between similar but different people, objects, or events. This error occurs when you focus on categories or classes and fail to see that each phenomenon is unique and needs to be looked at individually.Everything is unlike everything else. Our language, however, provides you with common nouns, such as teacher, student, friend, enemy, war, politician, and liberal. These lead you to focus on similarities—to group together all teachers, all students, and all politicians. At the same time, the terms divert attention away from the uniqueness of each person, each object, and each event.
This misevaluation is at the heart of stereotyping on the basis of nationality, race, religion, sex, and affectional orientation. A stereotype, as you know, is a fixed mental picture of a group that is applied to each individual in the group without regard to his or her unique qualities. Whether stereotypes are positive or negative, they create the same problem: They provide you with shortcuts that are often inappropriate.
A useful antidote to indiscrimination (and stereotyping) is another extensional device called the index. This mental subscript identifies each individual as an individual—even though both may be covered by the same label. Thus, politician1 is not politician2, teacher1 is not teacher2. The index helps you to discriminate among without discriminating against. Although the label (politician, for example) covers all politicians, the index makes sure that each is thought about as an individual. The index would, for example, prevent you from grouping all Muslims or all Christians or all Jews in the same category. Each Muslim, each Christian, and each Jew is unique and needs a unique index number. So at the same time that you have to generalize and appreciate similarities, the index reminds you also to look at differences.
5.3.3.2 Polarization
Another way in which language can obscure differences is in its preponderance of extreme terms and its relative lack of middle terms, a characteristic that often leads to polarization. Polarization is the tendency to look at the world in terms of opposites and to describe it in extremes—good or bad, positive or negative, healthy or sick, intelligent or stupid. Polarization is often referred to as the fallacy of “either/or” or “black or white.” Most people exist somewhere between the extremes. Yet there’s a strong tendency to view only the extremes and to categorize people, objects, and events in terms of polar opposites.Problems are created when opposites are used in inappropriate situations. For example, “So-and-so is either for us or against us.” These options don’t include all possibilities. The person may be for us in some things and against us in other things or may be neutral.
To correct this polarizing tendency, beware of implying (and believing) that two extreme classes include all possible classes—that an individual must be one or the other, with no alternatives (“Are you pro-choice or pro-life?”). Most people, most events, most qualities exist between polar extremes. When others imply that there are only two sides or alternatives, look for the middle ground.
Summary: Verbal Messages
This chapter focused on verbal messages and specifically on the nature of language and the ways language works; the concept of disconfirmation and how it relates to racism, heterosexism, ageism, and sexism; and the ways in which language can be used more effectively.5.1 Principles of Verbal Messages
1. Meanings are in people, not in things.
2. Language is both denotative (objective and generally easily agreed upon) and connotative (subjective and generally highly individual in meaning).
3. Meanings are context based; the same message in a different context will likely mean something different. Among the most important contexts are the cultural and the gender contexts.
4. Messages (in all forms of communication) vary in politeness.
5. Meanings vary in assertiveness.
6. Message meanings can deceive.
7. Messages are influenced by culture and gender.
5.2 Disconfirmation and Confirmation
8. Disconfirmation is the process of ignoring the presence and the communications of others. Confirmation is accepting, supporting, and acknowledging the importance of the other person.
9. Racist, heterosexist, ageist, and sexist language puts down and negatively evaluates members of various groups.
5.3 Using Verbal Messages Effectively
10. Using language effectively involves eliminating conceptual distortions and substituting more accurate assumptions about language.
11. Language symbolizes reality; it’s not the reality itself, so avoid intensional orientation and allness.
12. Language can express both facts and inferences, so learn to make distinctions between them.
13. Language is relatively static, but reality changes rapidly; try to constantly revise the way you talk about people and things.
14. Language can obscure distinctions in its use of general terms and in its emphasis on extreme rather than middle terms, so be careful to avoid indiscrimination and polarization.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий