5Engaging_in_Nonverbal_CommunicationBen_Thompson_has_traveled_to

Engaging in Nonverbal Communication

Ben Thompson has traveled to Japan to negotiate a joint business % venture with Haru Watanabe. They both seem to see the mutual benefi t of the project, yet Thompson feels something is wrong in their negotiations. Every time they talk, Watanabe seems uneasy and refuses to hold eye contact. Thompson wonders whether Watanabe is trying to hide something. Meanwhile, Watanabe wonders why Thompson is behaving so rudely if he wants to work together.

In the library, Maria notices a nice-looking guy % two tables away. When he looks up at her, she low- ers her eyes. After a moment, she looks back at him just for a second. A few minutes later, he comes over, sits down beside her, and introduces himself.

Liz Fitzgerald gives a fi nal glance to be sure the % dining room table is just right for dinner: The placemats and blue linen napkins are out, and the silver and glasses sparkle; the bowl of fl owers in the middle of the table adds color, and the serv- ing dishes are warmed and ready to be fi lled with roast beef, buttered new potatoes, and fresh rolls. Liz whisks balsamic vinegar and olive oil together, adds a trace of fresh basil, and sprinkles it on the spinach salad just before calling the family to dinner.

Across town, Benita Bradsher is also preparing dinner for her family. She puts a big % spoon in the pot of mashed potatoes and transfers it from the stove to the kitchen table. Next, she piles plates, paper napkins, knives, spoons, and forks in the mid- dle of the table. She takes the ground beef casserole from the oven, puts it on a potholder on the table, and calls her family to dinner.

What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say. Ralph Waldo Emerson

1. What is nonverbal communication?

2. What types of nonverbal behavior have scholars identifi ed?

3. How does nonverbal communication express cultural values?

4. How can you improve your eff ectiveness in using and interpreting nonverbal communication?

FOCUS QUES TIONS

Many of us grew up hearing “actions speak louder than words.” The wisdom of this axiom is that nonverbal communication can be as powerful as or more powerful than words. Facial expressions can express love, suspicion,

competitiveness, sorrow, interest, anger, and hatred. Body postures can convey relaxation, nervousness, boredom, and power. Physical objects can symbolize profes- sional identity (stethoscope, briefcase), personal commitments (wedding band, school sweatshirt), and lifestyle (comfortable furniture casually arranged, stiff furniture in formal rooms).

In this chapter, we explore the fascinating realm of nonverbal interaction. We will identify principles of nonverbal communication and then discuss types of nonverbal behavior and guidelines for effectiveness.

The examples that opened this chapter illustrate the power of nonverbal communication. In the fi rst case, Thompson and Watanabe have diffi culty because of different nonverbal communication norms in Japan and the United States. Ben Thompson has learned that eye contact is a sign of honesty and respect, so he looks directly at Haru Watanabe when they talk. In Watanabe’s culture, however, direct eye contact is considered rude and intrusive, so he doesn’t meet Thompson’s gaze and feels uncomfortable when Thompson looks directly at him.

In the library, we see a clear example of gendered patterns of nonverbal com- munication. Maria follows feminine communication norms by indirectly signaling her interest and waiting for the man to initiate contact. He in turn enacts the rules of masculine communication culture by gazing directly at her and moving to her table.

In the fi nal example, nonverbal communication refl ects differences in social back- grounds. Whereas Liz Fitzgerald sets her table with cloth napkins, placemats, sil- ver, crystal, and a vase of fl owers, Benita Bradsher sets her table with pans off the stove and a casual pile of utensils and paper napkins that people can take. What each woman serves and how she sets her table refl ects the teachings of social groups to which she belongs and the time she has in which to prepare a meal.

Gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and membership in social groups are aspects of our identities that we communicate day in and day out. Recognizing this, Candice West and Don Zimmerman (1987) and Judith Butler (1990, 1993) observe that we “do gender” or “perform gender” continually by behaving in ways that symbolize femininity or masculinity according to our culture’s views. We also “do” race, class, and sexual orientation by nonverbally expressing those facets of identity. Nonverbal communication, like its verbal cousin, allows us to establish identity, express thoughts and feelings, refl ect on ourselves, defi ne and regulate relationships, and create interaction climates. Like words, nonverbal communication powerfully shapes meaning in our lives.

Principles of Nonverbal Communication Nonverbal communication includes all aspects of communication other than words. In addition to gestures and body language, nonverbal communication includes how we utter words (infl ection, volume), features of environments that affect meaning (tem- perature, lighting), and objects that affect personal images and interaction patterns

96 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

(dress, furniture). According to research (Birdwhistell,1970; Hickson, Stacks, & Moore, 2004; Mehrabian, 1981), nonverbal communication accounts for 65% to 93% of the total meaning of communication. Five principles of nonverbal communication clarify its importance in human interaction.

Nonverbal Communication Is Ambiguous Like verbal communication, nonverbal behavior is ambiguous. We can never be sure that others understand the meanings we intend to express with our nonverbal behavior. Conversely, we can’t know whether they read meanings into our behaviors that we do not intend. The ambiguity of nonverbal communication also arises because mean- ings change over time. Spreading apart the fi rst two fi ngers meant victory during the World Wars and came to stand for peace during the 1960s. Both victory and peace are arbitrary meanings of this particular nonverbal behavior.

Nonverbal behaviors also refl ect and perpetuate distinct organizational identities: Bankers, attorneys, and many other professionals are expected to wear business suits or dresses to work, whereas many high-tech companies encourage employees to wear jeans and other informal attire. Each way of dressing refl ects a particular organiza- tional ethos. George W. Bush insisted on formal dress—coat and tie—at all times in the Oval Offi ce. He once chewed out a staff person who dared to wear khakis and a buttoned-down shirt on a Saturday, and the staff person was not allowed to enter the Oval Offi ce (Stolberg, 2009). When he became President, Barack Obama created a less formal working culture in the White House. He sometimes takes off his jacket while working in the Oval Offi ce, and he often skips the tie on weekends.

Like verbal communication, nonverbal communication is learned and guided by rules. These rules reduce the ambiguity of nonverbal communication by telling us what certain behaviors are understood to count as (constitutive rules) and when and where certain behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate (regulative rules). For example, most of us understand that people take turns speaking, and that we should whisper in libraries but it’s appropriate to yell at ball games. We know that we are supposed to raise our hands if we want to ask a question during a lecture but don’t need to raise our hands to speak when interacting with friends. We dress differently for religious services, classes, dates, and job interviews. Insignia that nonverbally communicate rank defi ne people in the military, and salutes are the standard way to acknowledge other military people. These agreed-upon rules reduce but don’t completely eliminate the ambiguity of nonverbal communication.

Nonverbal Behaviors Interact with Verbal Communication Communication researchers have identifi ed fi ve ways in which nonverbal behaviors interact with verbal communication (Andersen, 1999; Guerrero & Floyd, 2006). First, nonverbal behaviors may repeat verbal messages. For example, you might say “yes” while nodding your head. In making a public presentation, a speaker might hold up one, two, and three fi ngers when saying “fi rst,” “second,” and “third,” to let listeners know she or he is moving from the fi rst to the second to the third point of a speech.

Second, nonverbal behaviors may highlight verbal communication, as when you use infl ection to emphasize certain words: “This is the most serious consequence of the policy I’m arguing against.” Third, nonverbal communication may complement, or add to, words. Speakers often emphasize verbal statements with forceful gestures and

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 97

increases in volume and infl ection; capital or boldfaced letters are used to symbolize the same emphasis in online communication.

Fourth, nonverbal behaviors may contradict verbal messages (Knapp & Hall, 2006). For instance, a group member says, “Nothing’s wrong” in a hostile tone of voice. Finally, we sometimes substitute nonverbal behaviors for verbal ones. You might roll your eyes to show that you disapprove of something or shrug your shoulders instead of saying “I don’t know.” In all these ways, nonverbal behaviors interact with verbal communication.

Nonverbal Communication Regulates Interaction Nonverbal communication can organize interaction between people (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006). You generally know when someone else has fi nished speaking, when a professor welcomes discussion from students, and when a co-worker expects you to speak. Nonverbal cues, more than verbal ones, tell us when to speak and keep silent. By averting our eyes or by increasing our speaking volume and rate, we signal that we don’t want to be interrupted. When we’re fi nished talking, we look at others to signal, “Okay, now someone else can speak.” Most Westerners invite specifi c people to speak by looking directly at them (Drummond & Hopper, 1993; Knapp & Hall, 2006), yet eye contact is used less to regulate interaction in many Asian cultures. Although we’re usually unaware of how nonverbal actions regulate interaction, we rely on them to know when to speak and when to remain silent.

Nonverbal Communication Establishes Relationship-Level Meanings You’ll recall that the relationship level of meaning defi nes individuals’ identities and relationships between people. Nonverbal communication can be powerful in expressing relationship-level meanings (Keeley & Hart, 1994). In fact, some commu- nication scholars call nonverbal communication “the relationship language” because it so often expresses how people feel about one another (Richmond & McCroskey, 1995; Sallinen-Kuparinen, 1992). We use nonverbal communication to convey the three dimensions of relationship-level meaning that we discussed in Chapter 4: respon- siveness, liking, and power. Yet how people communicate responsiveness, liking and disliking, and power depends on the rules of their cultures.

Responsiveness We use eye contact, infl ections, facial expressions, and body posture to show interest in others, as Maria did in one of the examples that opened this chap- ter. In formal presentations and casual conversations, we signal interest by holding eye contact and assuming an attentive posture. As the example with Haru Watanabe and Ben Thompson reveals, however, all cultures do not have the same rules for eye contact. To express lack of interest, Westerners tend to avoid or decrease visual contact and adopt a passive body position or turn away from the other person. Members of Asian cultures are less likely to overtly express lack of interest.

Harmony in people’s postures and facial expressions may refl ect how comfortable they are with each other (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006) and how much they support each other (Trees, 2000). In a cohesive team, many nonverbal behaviors typically signal that members are responsive to one another. In less cohesive groups, nonverbal behavior shows less responsiveness. Happy couples sit closer to one another and engage in more

98 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

eye contact than unhappy couples do (Noller, 1986, 1987). Similarly, in work settings peo- ple who like one another often sit together and exchange eye contact.

Liking Nonverbal behaviors are keen indicators of whether we feel positive or negative about others. Smiles and friendly touching among Westerners usually are signs of positive feel-

ings, whereas frowns and belligerent postures express antagonism (Keeley & Hart, 1994). Political candidates shake hands, slap backs, and otherwise touch people whose votes they want. These are general rules of Western society; particular social groups instill more specifi c rules. For example, women generally sit closer together and engage in more eye contact and more friendly touching than men do (Atsuko, 2003; Knapp & Hall, 2006).

Power We use nonverbal behaviors to assert dominance and to negotiate status (Andersen, 1999; Remland, 2000). Compared with women, men generally assume more space and use greater volume and more forceful gestures to assert their ideas (Hall, 1987; Major, Schmidlin, & Williams, 1990). Men are also more likely to move into others’ spaces, as the man in the library moved to Maria’s table in one of the exam- ples that opened this chapter.

Space also expresses power. The connection between power and space is evident in the fact that CEOs usually have large, spacious offi ces, entry-level and midlevel professionals have smaller offi ces, and secretaries often have minuscule workstations, even though sec- retaries often store and manage more material than executives. A widely understood reg- ulative communication rule is that people with status or power have the right to enter the

space of people with less power, but the con- verse is not true. Similarly, more-powerful peo- ple are more likely to touch others, interrupt, and approach more closely than less-powerful people (Hall, Coats, & Smith-LeBeau, 2004). In families, adults usually have more space than children, and men are more likely than

women to have their own rooms and to sit at heads of tables. The Sharpen Your Skill exercise on this page will help you become more attentive to nonverbal modes of expressing power.

Silence, a powerful form of non- verbal communication, can also be a means of exerting control. We sometimes use silence to stifl e oth- ers’ conversation in meetings. Silence accompanied by a glare is doubly powerful in conveying disapproval. Interviewers sometimes use silence to let interviewees know that they are not satisfi ed with answers given and to prompt interviewees to elaborate. In a

Noticing Spatial Clues to Power Relations

Observe a business setting—an offi ce or other work context. To sharpen your insight into spatial indicators of power, answer the following questions:

1. Who has more space? Who has less?

2. Who enters the space of others? Who does not?

3. Who touches others?

4. Who uses commanding gestures? Who does not?

l Clues to Power Relations

SHARPE N YOUR SKILL

MARYAM

Americans do more than one thing at a time. In Nepal, when we talk with someone, we are with that person. We do not also write on paper or have television on. We talk with the person. It is hard for me to accept the custom of giving only some attention to each other in conversation.

ELLEN

Secretaries are the best decoders. They can read their bosses’ moods in a heartbeat. I am a secretary, part-time now that I’m taking courses, and I can tell exactly what my boss is thinking. Sometimes, I know what he feels or will do before he does. I have to know when he can be interrupted, when he feels generous, and when not to cross his path.

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 99

number of Native American cultures and some Asian cul- tures, silence signals mindful attentiveness.

Nonverbal Communication Refl ects Cultural Values Like verbal communication, no nverbal patterns refl ect rules of specifi c cultures (Andersen et al. 2002; Guerrero & Farinelli, 2009). This implies that most nonverbal commu- nication isn’t instinctual but is learned in the process of socialization. For instance, most Westerners consider it inappropriate to touch or hold hands with same-sex friends, but this is an acceptable way of showing closeness in many Asian cultures (Orbe & Harris, 2001).

The United States is a highly individualist culture in which people want private spaces, and we resent and sometimes fi ght anyone who trespasses on what we consider our territory. We want private homes, and our own rooms. In more collectivist cultures, people tend to be less territorial. For instance, Brazilians routinely stand close to one another in shops, buses, and elevators, and when they bump into each other, they don’t apologize or draw back, as U.S. citizens do. In other countries, such as Hong Kong, people are used to living and working in very close quarters (Chan, 1999).

Western culture prizes time, and that is evident in the presence of clocks in most or all rooms of homes and public spaces and in the nearly universal use of wristwatches, which are not worn by people in many other cultures. Westerners’ time consciousness is also refl ected in the technological devices that are now part of many people’s daily attire. We carry pag- ers and iPods, cell phones, and BlackBerrys to maintain nearly instant contact with others. Orientations toward time are less rigid among other cultural groups, such as Hispanics.

Patterns of eye contact also refl ect cultural values. U.S. society values frankness and asser- tion, so meeting another’s eyes is considered appropriate and a demonstration of per- sonal honesty. Yet in many Asian and northern European countries, direct eye contact is considered abrasive and disrespectful (Hall, 1969). Many Latinos and Latinas express attentiveness and respect by avoiding direct eye contact, whereas European Americans express attentiveness and respect by maintaining it (Orbe & Harris, 2001). In Brazil, eye contact often is so intense that many Northern Europeans consider it staring, which they fi nd rude.

The fi ve principles of nonverbal communication we have discussed provide a founda- tion for a closer look at specifi c kinds of nonverbal communication.

Which person in this photo has greater power? How is it expressed?

an -L

ou is

Be llu

rg et

/fo to

se ar

YUMIKO

I try to teach my daughter to follow the customs of my native Japan, but she is learning to be American. I scold her for talking loud and speaking when she has not been addressed, but she tells me all the other kids talk loud and talk when they wish. I tell her it is not polite to look directly at others, but she says everyone looks at others here. She communicates as an American, not a Japanese.

100 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Types of Nonverbal Behaviors Because so much of our interaction is nonverbal, this symbol system includes many kinds of communication. In this section, we will consider ten forms of nonverbal behavior, noticing how we use each to create and interpret meanings:

Kinesics (face and body motion) %

Haptics (touch) %

Physical appearance %

Olfactics (smell) %

Artifacts (personal objects) %

Proxemics (personal space) %

Environmental factors %

Chronemics (perception and use of time) %

Paralanguage (vocal qualities) %

Silence %

Kinesics Kinesics refers to body position and body motions, including those of the face. Our bodies communicate a great deal about how we see ourselves. A speaker who stands erect and appears confi dent announces self-assurance, whereas someone who slouches and shuffl es may seem to say, “I’m not very sure of myself.” We also com- municate moods with body posture and motion. For example, someone who walks quickly with a resolute facial expression appears more determined than someone who saunters along with an unfocused gaze. Similarly, people whose nonverbal behaviors indicate they have suffi cient vigor to take care of themselves and move quickly are less likely to be attacked than people whose posture and movements indicate less vitality (Gunns, Johnston, & Hudson, 2002). We sit rigidly when we are nervous and adopt a relaxed posture when we feel at ease. Audiences show interest by alert body posture.

Body postures and gestures may signal whether we are open to interaction. Speakers who stay behind podiums and read notes often are perceived as less open than speakers who interact more actively with audiences. Someone who sits with arms crossed and looks downward may be perceived as saying, “Don’t bother me.” That’s also a nonverbal strategy students sometimes use to dissuade teachers from calling on them in class. To signal that we’d like to interact, we look at others and sometimes smile. We use gestures to express how we feel about others and situa- tions. We use one hand gesture to say “okay” and a different hand gesture to com- municate contempt.

Our faces are intricate messengers. Our eyes can shoot daggers of anger, issue challenges, express skepticism, or radiate love. The face is particularly powerful in conveying liking and responsiveness (Keeley & Hart, 1994; Patterson, 1992). Many speakers smile to suggest that they are open and friendly. Smiles and warm gazes signal that we like others and are happy being around them (Gueguen & De Gail,

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 101

2003). Americans often cross their legs while seated, but this is highly offensive according to cultural rules in Ghana and Turkey (Samovar & Porter, 2004).

Poets call the eyes the “windows to the soul” for good reason. Our eyes communicate important and complex messages about how we feel, and we often look at others’ eyes to judge their emotions, honesty, and self-confi dence. This explains why strong eye contact tends to heighten the credibility of public speakers in Western societies. It may also be why cus- tomers leave larger tips to servers who main- tain eye contact while serving them (Davis & Kieffer, 1998). Yet eye contact is not universally regarded as positive. Among traditional Hasidic Jews, for example, boys are taught not to look into women’s eyes.

Haptics Haptics is a term for nonverbal communication involving physical touch. Many communication scholars believe that touching and being touched are essential to healthy life (Ackerman, 1990; Whitman et al., 1999). In disturbed families, parents sometimes push children away and handle them harshly, nonverbally signaling rejection. Conversely, researchers have learned that babies who are massaged thrive more than babies who are touched less (Mwakalye & DeAngelis, 1995).

Research suggests some general sex differences in touching behavior. Compared to men, women are more likely to engage in touch to show liking and intimacy (Andersen, 1999), whereas men are more likely than women to use touch to assert power and control (Jhally & Katz, 2001).

Physical Appearance Western culture places an ex- tremely high value on physi- cal appearance and on specifi c aspects of appear- ance. We fi rst notice obvious physical qualities such as sex, skin color, and size. Based on physical qualities, we may How do Hillary Clinton’s gestures and facial expression infl uence your perceptions of her?

hi p S

om od

ev illa

/G et

ty Im

ag es

N ew

s / Ge

tty Im

ag es

No n S

eq ui

tu r ©

20 00

b y W

ile y M

ille r. R

ep rin

te d b

y p er

m iss

io n o

f U ni

ve rs

al Pr

es s S

yn di

ca te

. A ll r

ig ht

s r es

er ve

102 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

make inferences about others’ personalities. Although these associations may have no fac- tual basis, they can affect personal and social relationships as well as decisions about hir- ing, placement, and promotion.

Cultures prescribe ideals for physical form, and these vary across cultures. Western cultural ideals today emphasize thinness in women and muscularity and height in men (Davison & Birch, 2001; Lamb & Brown, 2006; Levin & Kilbourne, 2008). The cul- tural ideal of slimness in women leads many women to become preoccupied with dieting and other means of weight control (Buss, 2001). If you’d like to learn more about eat- ing disorders and help for people who have them, go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 5.1. In her commentary, Cass makes a point that will be familiar to many women.

This general cultural standard for attrac- tiveness is modified by ethnicity and socioeconomic class. Traditional African societies perceive full-figured bodies as symbols of health, prosperity, and wealth, all of which are desirable (Bocella, 2001). African Americans who embrace this value accept or prefer women who weigh more than the ideal for European American women (Mernissi, 2004; Schooler et al., 2004; Walker, 2007). But ethnicity doesn’t operate in isolation. Class member- ship modifies ethnic views about weight. Research shows that African American women who identify strongly with their ethnic cultures tend to resist Caucasian preoccupations with thinness. Conversely, middle-income African American women who are upwardly mobile may deemphasize their ethnic identities, and they are more susceptible to anxiety about weight and to eating disorders (Bocella, 2001).

Physical appearance includes physiological characteristics, such as eye color and height, as well as ways in which we manage, or even alter, our physical appearance. For instance, many people control their physical appearance by dieting, using ste- roids and other drugs, coloring their hair, having cosmetic surgery, wearing colored contact lenses, and using makeup. Cosmetic surgeries of many types are on the rise for both men and women. Women most often have facial surgeries, fat-reduc- tion operations, and breast augmentation or lifting (Barrett & Springen, 2007). The

CASS

I’ve been dieting since I was in grammar school. I’m 5' 5" and weigh 102 pounds, but I want to weigh less. I look at the models in magazines and the women in fi lms, and they are so much slimmer than I am. I have to watch everything I eat and exercise all the time, and I’m still too fat.

Kangaroo Care

Kangaroo Care is the title of Susan Ludington- Hoe’s 1993 book. In it, she tells the story of an

accidental discovery about the importance of touch to human survival. Until recently, it was typical for Western hospital workers to take newborn babies to nurseries where sophisticated monitoring devices could be used to ensure the babies’ health. Babies born prematurely were almost certainly entrusted to medical technology. The wisdom of separating newborns from mothers was challenged by an accidental fi nding from a hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. In the 1980s, the hospital experienced a serious lack of resources, including blankets used to wrap newborns. To keep the babies warm, hospital workers placed the naked babies on their mothers’ naked chests. The babies thrived—more than they had when wrapped in blankets (Miller, 2006). Because the skin-to-skin contact between mothers and babies is similar to that of kangaroo moms and babies, the technique was dubbed “kangaroo care.” Since the accidental discovery in Bogotá, hospitals in the United States have reported that premature babies who experience skin-to-skin contact with their moms are less fussy and calmer than babies who do not (Miller, 2006).

fyi

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 103

most popular surgeries for men are liposuction, eyelid surgery, and nose reshaping (Mishori, 2005).

Olfactics Olfactics (from the word olfactory, which refers to the sense of smell) is a term for odors and scents—or, more precisely, our perception of them. Mark Knapp and Judith Hall (2006), who study nonverbal behavior, note that the “scientifi c study of the human olfactory system is in its infancy” (p. 196). Even so, we know that smell is a form of communication. The smell of freshly baked bread or cookies often makes us feel com- fortable and warm (and hungry!). Also, as Andy notes, scents we choose to wear can be personal signatures.

Andy is not alone in responding strongly to smells. Natalie Angier (2008), Pulitzer-prize-winning science columnist and science reporter, points out that olfac- tion is the fi rst of our senses to develop and that it remains the quickest—we register and respond to smells faster than to sights or sounds. Further, smells are processed in the brain’s ancient limbic system where emotional memories are stored. That’s why the smell of cinnamon takes me back to baking cookies with Mom when I was 6 years old. Body odors produced by pheromones, the sex-specifi c chemicals our bodies pro- duce, may affect sexual attraction. Male sweat contains a pheromone derived from progesterone, whereas female sweat contains a pheromone linked to estrogen (Bakalar, 2006). Heterosexual men and women respond to the pheromones of the opposite sex with increased activity in the hypothalamus, which is linked to sexual behavior. Interestingly, lesbians respond with elevated hypothalamic activity to the estrogen-like pheromone of other women (Bakalar, 2006).

Artifacts Artifacts are personal objects we use to announce our identities and to personal- ize our environments. More women than men wear makeup and jewelry. Women are also more likely than men to wear form-fi tting clothes and high-heeled shoes. Typically, men wear less jewelry, clothes with less adornment, and functional shoes (Klein, 2001; Johnson, Roberts, & Warell, 2002). Men’s clothing is looser and less binding, and it includes pockets for wallets, change, keys, and so forth. In contrast, women’s clothing often doesn’t include pockets, so women need purses to hold per- sonal items.

We also use artifacts to express cultural and ethnic identities. Indians may wear saris, Native Americans may wear jewelry with tribal symbols, and African Americans may wear clothes and jewelry of traditional African design. Further, as any college student knows, school symbols adorn everything from T-shirts and sweatshirts to car bumpers and notebooks. Wearing something with a symbol of your school on it declares your membership in or loyalty to that campus community.

Artifacts may also be used to announce professional identity. Nurses and doctors usually wear white and often drape stethoscopes around their necks; many execu- tives carry briefcases, whereas students more often tote backpacks. White-collar

ANDY

I dated this one girl for two years, and then we broke up last year. By now, I pretty much don’t think about her unless I pass somebody who is wearing the cologne she wore. One sniff of that transports me back to when she and I were together.

104 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

professionals tend to wear tailored outfi ts and dress shoes, whereas blue-collar workers often dress in jeans or uniforms and boots. The military requires uniforms that defi ne individuals as members of the group. In addi- tion, stripes, medals, and insignia signify rank and accomplishments.

We also use artifacts to defi ne settings and personal territories (Bateson, 1990; Wood, 2006). When the President of the United States speaks, the setting usually is decked with symbols of national identity and pride, such as the American fl ag. At annual meet- ings of companies, the chair usually speaks from a podium that bears the company logo. In much the same manner, we claim our pri- vate spaces by fi lling them with objects that matter to us and that refl ect our experiences and values. Lovers of art adorn their homes and offi ces with paintings and sculptures that refl ect their interests. Religious fami-

lies often express their commitments by displaying pictures of holy scenes and the Bible, the Koran, or another sacred text. Professionals may decorate their offi ces with expensive furniture and framed awards to announce their status or with pic- tures of family to remind them of people they cherish. MySpace and Facebook pages

include songs, photos, and images aimed at conveying specifi c personalities. Like other kinds of nonverbal communication, artifacts’ meanings vary across cultures, as the FYI on this page illustrates.

Sam Gosling (2008) recently published an interesting book on artifacts: Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You. Gosling refers to bumper stickers, tattoos, posters, and so forth as “identity claims,” which give signals about how we want others to perceive us and also remind ourselves of who we are. For instance, when moving out of her home state, one woman Gosling studied tattooed the outline of her state on her inside forearm. It was intended for her eyes to remind her of her home state.

Proxemics and Personal Space Proxemics refers to space and how we use it. The classic research on proxemics was done by Edward Hall in 1968. At the time, Hall reported that every culture has norms for using space and for how close people should

Branded

The artifacts we choose increasingly announce political commitments. A baseball hat says, “End Sweatshop Labor”; a T-shirt proclaims, “Save the Planet”; a bumper sticker reads, “Biodiesel is the future”; a button says, “Free Choice” and another declares, “Pro Life.” More and more people seem to want their clothes, cars, coff ee mugs, and other objects to send messages about their political values. To learn more about this, go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 5.2 to read an article prepared for the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement.

ENGAGEMENT

fyi

Cultural Rules about Artifacts

Giving gifts can lead to misunderstandings when giver and recipient are from diff erent cultures (Axtell, 2007).

A Chinese person might not appreciate the gift % of a clock, because clocks symbolize death in China.

Giving a gift to an Arab person on fi rst meeting % would likely be interpreted as a bribe.

Bringing fl owers to a dinner hosted by a person % from Kenya would cause confusion because in Kenya fl owers express sympathy for a loss.

In Switzerland, giving red roses is interpreted % as a signal of romantic interest. Also, the Swiss consider even numbers of fl owers bad luck, so never give a dozen.

DIVERSITY fyi

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 105

be to one another. In the United States, we interact with social acquaintances from a distance of 4 to 12 feet but are comfortable with 18 inches or less between us and friends or romantic partners (Hall, 1968). Most peo- ple who were born and raised in the United States consider it normal for individuals to have separate spaces or rooms. As Sucheng points out, however, what is considered a normal amount of individual space varies from culture to culture.

Space also announces status, with greater space and more desirable space assumed by those with higher status in a culture. Research shows that women and minori- ties generally have less space than European American men in the United States (Andersen, 1999). It’s no coincidence that industries expose our most vulnerable com- munities to pollutants and carcinogens that they seldom foist on middle- and upper- class people. The meaning of this pattern is very clear: “The space of minorities and poor people is often invaded and contaminated, but the territory of more affl uent citi- zens is respected” (Cox, 2008).

How people arrange space may refl ect closeness and desire, or lack of desire, for interaction. Rigidly organized businesses often have private offi ces with doors that are usually closed and little common space. Couples who are highly interdependent tend to have more common space and less individual space in their homes than do couples who are more independent (Fitzpatrick, 1988; Werner, Altman, & Oxley, 1985). Similarly, families who enjoy interaction arrange furniture to invite conversation and eye contact. In families who seek less interaction, chairs may be far apart and may face televisions instead of each other (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodhall, 1989; Keeley & Hart, 1994).

The ways that offi ces are arranged may invite or discourage interaction and may foster equal or unequal power relationships. Some professors and executives have desks that face their offi ce doors and a chair beside the desk to promote open communication with people who come to their offi ces. Other professors and executives turn their desks away from the door and place chairs opposite their desks, which confi gures the space hierar- chically. Whether offi ce doors are open or shut may also indicate willingness to interact.

Environmental Factors Environmental factors are elements of settings that affect how we feel, think, and act. We feel more relaxed in rooms with comfortable chairs than in rooms with stiff, formal furniture. Candlelit dining tables may promote romantic feelings; and churches, syna- gogues, and temples use candles to foster respect. A recent study found that color affects cognitive functions. Red stimulates accuracy, recall, and attention to detail whereas blue stimulates creativity (Belluck, 2009). Perhaps we should have blue computer screens when doing creative writing and red screens when working on math problems.

Restaurants use environmental features to control how long people spend eat- ing. For example, low lights, comfortable chairs or booths, and soft music often are part of the environment in upscale restaurants. On the other hand, fast-food eateries have hard plastic booths and bright lights, which encourage diners to eat and move on. To maximize profi t, restaurants want to get people in and out as quickly as pos- sible. Studies show that fast music in restaurants speeds up the pace of eating; on

SUCHENG

In the United States, each person has so much room! Every individual has a separate room to sleep and sometimes another separate room to work. Also, I see that each family here lives in a separate house. People have much less space in China. Families live together, with sons bringing their families into their parents’ home and all sharing the same space. At fi rst, when I came here, it felt strange to have so much space, but now I sometimes feel very crowded when I go home.

106 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

average, people eat 3.2 mouthfuls a minute when the background music is slow and 5.1 mouthfuls a minute when music with a faster tempo is played (“Did You Know?” 1998). Restaurants use a variety of environ- mental cues to create the atmosphere they want—to encourage customers to linger, or to encourage them to eat and run. You can identify some of the environ- mental features that affect a restaurant’s atmosphere by completing the Sharpen Your Skill feature on this page.

In the same way that restaurants and other public places use environmental factors to infl uence mood and behavior, we choose colors, furniture arrange- ments, lighting, and other objects to create the atmo- sphere we desire in our home.

Chronemics Chronemics refers to how we perceive and use time to defi ne identities and interaction. We use time to negoti-

ate and convey status (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999). In Western societies, there seems to be an unwritten but widely understood cultural rule stipulating that people with high status can keep people with less status waiting. Conversely, people with low status are expected to be punctual. Subordinates are expected to report punctually to meetings, but bosses are allowed to be tardy.

Chronemics expresses cultural attitudes toward time, In some cultures, people saun- ter whereas in others they dash from place to place. In some cultures business is con- ducted quickly by staying on task whereas in other cultures it is conducted more slowly by intermingling task and social interaction. According to a study of pace of life (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999), the countries with the fastest pace of life are Switzerland (#1),

Ireland, Germany, and Japan. The countries with the slowest pace of life are Mexico (#31), Indonesia, Brazil, and El Salvador. The United States was 16th—right in the middle of the list. Notice that the slowest pace of life is in countries that have warm climates while the fastest pace of life is in coun- tries with colder climates.

Western societies value time and its cousin, speed (Bertman, 1998; Calero, 2005; Honoré, 2005; Keyes, 1992; Schwartz, 1989). We want comput- ers, not typewriters, and many of us replace our computers and software as soon as faster versions become avail- able. We often try to do several things at once to get more done, rely on the microwave to cook faster, and take for

Increasing Awareness of Environmental Factors

Observe a restaurant in which you feel rushed and another restaurant in which you feel like taking your time. Describe the following for each restaurant:

1. How much space is there between tables?

2. What kind of lighting is used?

3. What sort of music and sound are in the place?

4. How comfortable are the chairs?

5. What colors and art do you see?

Can you make any generalizations about environmental features that promote relaxation and those that do not?

f E i t l F t

SHARPE N YOUR SKILL

How are environmental features in this restaurant likely to shape patrons’ behavior?

ar re

n M or

ga n/

CO RB

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 107

granted speed systems such as instant copying and photos (McGee-Cooper, Trammel, & Lau, 1992). The value that Westerners place on time is evident in everyday expres- sions (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980): “You’re wasting my time,” “This new software pro- gram will save time,” “That mistake cost me three hours,” “I’ve invested a lot of time in this class,” “I can’t afford to go out tonight,” “I can make up for lost time by using a shortcut,” and “I’m running out of time.”

Many other cultures have far more relaxed attitudes toward time and punctuality. In many South American countries, it’s normal to come to meetings or classes after the announced time of starting, and it’s not assumed that people will leave when the sched- uled time for ending arrives. In the Philippines, punctuality has never been particularly valued, but that maybe changing. The Philippine Department of Education just launched a 10-year campaign to instill in students the value of being on time (Overland, 2009).

The length of time we spend with different people refl ects the extent of our interest in them and affection for them. A manager is inclined to spend more time with a new employee who seems to have executive potential than with one who seems less impres- sive. A speaker usually gives a fuller answer to a question from a high-status member of the audience than to one from a person with less status. In general, we spend more time with people we like than with those we don’t like or who bore us. Researchers report that increased contact among college students is a clear sign that a relationship is intensifying, and reduced time together signals decreasing interest (Baxter, 1985; Dindia, 1994; Tolhuizen, 1989).

Chronemics also involves expectations of time, which are infl uenced by social norms. For example, you expect a class to last 50 or 75 minutes. Several minutes before the end of a class period, students often close their notebooks and start gathering their belongings, signaling the teacher that time is up. A similar pattern often is evident in business meetings. We expect religious services to last approximately an hour, and we might be upset if a rabbi or minister talked for two hours.

Paralanguage Paralanguage is communication that is vocal but not actual words. Paralanguage includes sounds, such as murmurs and gasps, and vocal qualities, such as volume, rhythm, pitch, and infl ection. Vocal cues signal others to interpret what we say as a joke, a threat, a statement of fact, a question, and so forth. Effective public speakers modulate infl ection, volume, and rhythm to enhance their presentations.

We use vocal cues to communicate feelings to friends and romantic partners. Whispering, for instance, signals confi dentiality or intimacy, whereas shouting conveys anger or excitement. Depending on the context, sighing may communicate empathy, boredom, or contentment. Research shows that tone of voice is a powerful clue to feelings between marital partners. Negative vocal tones often reveal marital dissatis- faction (Noller, 1987). Negative intonation may also signal dissatisfaction or disapproval in work settings. A derisive or sarcastic tone can communicate scorn clearly, whereas a warm voice conveys liking, and a playful lilt suggests friendliness.

Our voices affect how others perceive us. To some extent, we control vocal cues that infl uence image. For instance, we can deliberately sound confi dent in job interviews or when asking for a raise. The president adopts a solemn voice when announcing military actions. Most of us know how to make ourselves sound apologetic, seductive, or angry when those images suit our purposes. In addition to the ways we intentionally use our voices, natural and habitual vocal qualities affect how others perceive us. For instance,

108 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

people who speak at slow to moderate rates are perceived as having greater control over interaction than people who speak more rap- idly (Tusing & Dillard, 2000).

Our ethnic heritage and identifi cation infl uence how we use our voices. In general, African American speech has more vocal range, infl ection, and tonal quality than

European American speech (Garner, 1994). In general, African Americans are also more likely than European Americans to signal interest in what another person is say- ing by making listening sounds (“um hmm,” “yeah, yeah”) (Brilhart & Galanes, 1995). Paralanguage also refl ects gender. Men’s voices tend to have louder volume, lower pitch, and less infl ection, features that conform to cultural views of men as assertive and emotionally controlled. Women’s voices typically have higher pitch, softer vol- ume, and more infl ection, features consistent with cultural views of women as emo- tional and deferential. Socioeconomic level infl uences pronunciation, rate of speech, and accent.

Silence A fi nal type of nonverbal behavior is silence, which is a lack of communicated sound. Although silence is quiet, it can communicate powerful messages. “I’m not speaking to you” speaks volumes. Silence can convey contentment when intimates are so comfort- able they don’t need to talk. Silence can also communicate awkwardness, as you know if you’ve ever had trouble making conversation on a fi rst date. Yet the awkwardness

that many Westerners feel when silence falls is not felt by people from some other cul- tures, as Jin Lee explains.

Some parents discipline children by ignor- ing them. No matter what the child says or does, the parents refuse to acknowledge the child’s existence. The silencing strategy may also surface later in life. We sometimes deliberately freeze out others when we’re

angry with them (Williams, 2001). In some military academies, such as West Point, silence is a method of stripping a cadet of personhood if the cadet is perceived as hav- ing broken the academy’s honor code. On the job, silence may signal disapproval, as peers often ostracize whistle-blowers and union-busters. People who violate the rules of chat rooms may be silenced by getting no responses to their messages.

Audiences sometimes shout down speakers they dislike; when angry, romantic partners may refuse to speak; and the Catholic Church excommunicates people who violate its canons. Like other forms of communication, silence—and what it means—is linked to culture. European Americans tend to be talkative; they are inclined to fi ll in silence with words. Among Native Americans, however, historically silence conveys respect, active listening, and thought about what others are saying (Braithwaite, 1990; Carbaugh, 1998).

We’ve seen that nonverbal communication includes kinesics, haptics, physical appearance, olfactics, artifacts, proxemics, environmental factors, chronemics, paral- anguage, and silence. The fi nal section of this chapter gives guidelines for improving nonverbal communication.

LEAH

Everyone in my family knew that when Mother raised her voice we were in trouble, but when our father lowered his, we were in trouble. His voice would drop to this low volume and get very slow and deep. It was a signal to take cover FAST!

JIN LEE

In the United States, people feel it is necessary to talk all of the time, to fi ll in any silence with words and more words. I was not brought up that way. In my country, it is good to be silent some of the time. It shows you are listening to another, you are thinking about what the other says, you are respectful and do not need to put in your words.

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 109

Guidelines for Eff ective Nonverbal Communication Nonverbal communication, like verbal communication, can be misinterpreted. Following these two guidelines should reduce nonverbal misunderstandings in your interactions.

Monitor Your Nonverbal Communication Think about the preceding discussion of ways we use nonverbal behaviors to announce our identities. Are you projecting the image you desire? Do others interpret your facial and body movements in ways consistent with the image you want to project? Do friends ever tell you that you seem uninterested when really you are interested? If so, you can monitor your nonverbal actions to more clearly communicate your involvement and interest in conversations. To reduce the chance that work associates will think you’re uninterested in meetings, use what you’ve learned in this chapter to engage in nonver- bal behaviors that others associate with responsiveness and attention.

Think also about how you arrange your personal spaces. Have you set up your room, offi ce, apartment, or home to invite the kind of interaction you prefer, or are they arranged in ways that undercut your goals as a communicator? Paying attention to the nonverbal dimensions of your world can empower you to use them more effectively to achieve your interpersonal goals.

Interpret Others’ Nonverbal Communication Tentatively Although popular advice books promise to show you how to read nonverbal commu- nications, no surefi re formula exists. It’s naive to think we can decode something so complex and ambiguous.

In this chapter, we’ve discussed fi ndings about the meanings people attach to nonverbal behaviors. We can never be sure what a particular behavior means to spe- cifi c people in a particular context (Manusov, 2004). For instance, we’ve said that sit- ting close together indicates liking. As a general rule, this is true. However, sometimes contented friends and couples like to have physical distance between them. Partners may also avoid physical closeness when one has a cold or fl u.

People socialized in non-Western cultures learn distinct rules for proxemics. Because nonverbal communication is ambiguous and personal, we should not assume we can interpret it with precision. An ethical principle of communication is to qualify interpreta- tions of nonverbal behavior with awareness of personal and contextual considerations.

Personal Qualifi cations Generalizations about nonverbal behavior state what is gener- ally the case. They don’t tell us about the exceptions to the rule. For instance, although eye contact generally is a sign of responsiveness, some people close their eyes to con- centrate when listening. Sometimes people who cross their arms and condense into a tight posture are expressing hostility or lack of interest in interaction. However, the same behaviors might mean that a person is cold and trying to conserve body heat. Most peo- ple use less infl ection and adopt a slack posture when they’re not really interested in what they’re talking about. However, the same behaviors may mean merely that we’re tired.

Because nonverbal behaviors are ambiguous and vary between people, we need to be cautious about how we interpret these behaviors. A key principle is that we construct the

meanings we attach to nonverbal communication. A good way to keep this in mind is to rely on I-language, not you-language, which we discussed earlier. You-language might lead us to inaccurately say of someone who doesn’t look at us, “You’re communicating lack of interest.” A more responsible statement would use I-language to say, “When you don’t look at me, I feel you’re not interested in what I’m saying.” Using I-language reminds us to take responsibility for our judgments and feelings. In addition, we become less likely to make others defensive by inaccurately interpreting their nonverbal behavior.

Contextual Qualifi cations Like the meaning of verbal communication, the signifi - cance of nonverbal behaviors depends on the contexts in which they occur. Our non- verbal communication refl ects the various settings we inhabit. We are more or less formal, relaxed, and open depending on context. Most people are more at ease and confi dent in their own territories than in someone else’s, so we tend to be more relaxed in our homes and offi ces than in business places; teams often win games when they have the “home turf ” advantage. We also dress according to context—a suit for a job interview, jeans or casual slacks and a shirt for a game.

Immediate physical settings are not the only factor that affects nonverbal communication. As we have seen, all communication refl ects the values and understandings of particular cultures. We are likely to misinterpret people from other cultures when we impose the norms and rules of our culture on them (Emmons, 1998). This suggests that we have an ethical responsibility not to assume that our rules and norms apply to the behaviors of others.

Even within the United States, we have diverse communication cultures, and each has its rules for nonverbal behavior. Ethical communicators try to adopt dual perspective when interpret- ing others, especially when they and we belong to different cultures. To enhance your awareness of cultural infl uences on communication, Chapter 8 deals with that topic in detail.

Using I-Language about Nonverbal Behaviors

This exercise extends principles of I-language we discussed in Chapter 4 to the context of nonverbal communication. Practice translating you-language into I-language to describe nonverbal behaviors.

Example You-language I-language

You’re staring at me.

When you look at me so intensely, I feel uncomfortable.

You-Language I-Language

You’re lying—I can tell because you won’t look me in the eye.

Your perfume stinks.

Don’t you smirk when I’m talking.

You look lazy when you slouch.

about Nonverbal Behaviors

SHARPE N YOUR SKILL

Summary In this chapter, we’ve explored the fascinating world of nonverbal communication. We learned that nonverbal communication is symbolic and functions to supple- ment or replace verbal messages, regulate interaction, refl ect and establish relationship-level meanings, and

express cultural membership. These fi ve principles of nonverbal behavior help us understand the complex ways in which nonverbal communication operates and what it may mean.

110 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

CHAPTER 5 ENGAGING IN NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 111

We discussed ten types of nonverbal communica- tion, each of which refl ects cultural rules and expresses our personal identities and feelings toward others. We use nonverbal behaviors to announce and perform our identities, relying on actions, artifacts, and contextual features to embody what our culture has taught us is appropriate for our gender, race, class, sexuality, and

ethnicity. Because nonverbal communication is ambig- uous, we construct its meaning as we notice, organize, and interpret nonverbal behaviors that we and others enact. Effectiveness requires that we learn to monitor our nonverbal communication and to exercise caution in interpreting that of others.

Review, Refl ect, Extend The Key Concepts, For Further Refl ection and Discussion questions, Recommended Resources, and Experience Communication Case Study that follow will help you review, refl ect on, and extend the information and ideas presented in this chapter. These resources, and a diverse selection of additional study tools, are also available

online at the Premium Website for Communication Mosaics. Your Premium Website includes a student workbook, interactive video activities, a book companion website, Speech Builder Express, and InfoTrac College Edition. For more information or to access this book’s online resources, visit www.cengage.com/login.

KEY CONCEPTS artifacts, 103 chronemics, 106 environmental factors, 105 haptics, 101 kinesics, 100 nonverbal communication, 95

olfactics, 103 paralanguage, 107 physical appearance, 101 proxemics, 104 silence, 108

FOR FURTHER REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION 1. Attend a gathering of people from a culture

different from yours. It might be a meeting at a Jewish temple if you’re Christian, an African American church if you are white, or a meeting of Asian students if you are Western. Observe nonverbal behaviors of the people there: How do they greet one another? How much eye contact accompanies interaction? How close to one another do people sit?

2. Describe the spatial arrangements in the home of your family of origin. Was there a room in which family members interacted a good deal? How was furniture arranged in that room? Who had separate space and personal chairs in your family? What do the nonverbal patterns refl ect about your family’s communication style?

3. Think about current gender prescriptions in the United States. How are men and women “supposed” to look? How are these cultural expectations communicated? How might you resist and alter unhealthy cultural gender prescriptions?

4. Attend a public hearing at your school or in the nearby community. It could be a meeting about zoning, placement of a public facility, etc. Observe nonverbal communication such as where public offi cials and citizens are located (which locations suggest greater power?), timing of the meeting (who might be unable to attend?), artifacts (clothing; who has offi cial fi les?). How do nonverbal factors refl ect and shape what happens in the meeting?

Engaging in Verbal Communication

Funerals are sad occasions, so why did hundreds of onlookers cheer as horses slowly pulled the pine coffi n through down- town Detroit? Why did Julian Bond tell the

onlookers, “The entity in this casket deserves to be dead” (Krolicki, 2007)? Who deserves to be dead? Who was in the casket?

Actually nobody was in the casket; no person was being buried. This funeral was for the N-word. On Monday, July 9, 2007 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) held a public burial for the N-word. This word had hurt many who attended its funeral. It was a mean, hateful word that “deserved to be dead.”

Perhaps, as a child, you heard the nursery rhyme, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” By now, most of us have fi gured out that the nursery rhyme would be more accurate if it were revised to say, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can really hurt me.” Words can harm us, sometimes terribly. Children often bully each other with name calling (Nicholson, 2006). As children get older, the verbal bullying continues, with some of the cruelest verbal attacks occurring among adolescent girls (Greenfi eld, 2002; Simmons, 2002). If you’ve ever been called hurtful names, you know how deeply words can wound.

A different language is a different vision of life. Federico Fellini

1. How are language and thought related?

2. What abilities are possible because humans use symbols?

3. What are the practical implications of recognizing that language is a process?

4. How do rules guide verbal communication?

FOCUS QUESTIO NS

Words can also enchant, comfort, teach, amuse, and inspire us. Have you ever read a poem or heard a song that captivated you? Have you ever felt bad and talked to a friend who said just the right thing—healing words? Have you ever been inspired to change something about yourself because of a great speech you heard? In the weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the national anthem was played on television and radio stations, and people who normally didn’t express patrio- tism sang along. The words mattered to us; their meaning was revitalized by the threat to our country.

Language is our most powerful tool. It allows us to plan, dream, remember, evalu- ate, refl ect on ourselves and the world around us, and defi ne who we are and want to be. In short, our ability to use language gives us the power to create reality. Because language is so powerful, we need to understand it and use it in responsible, ethical ways. This chapter will enhance your understanding of human language and your ability to use it effectively. The FYI box on page 70 shows how language creates reality.

In this chapter, we take a close look at verbal communication and explore its power. We begin by defi ning symbols and discussing principles of verbal commu- nication. Next, we’ll examine how language enables us to create meanings for our- selves, others, and our experiences. Finally, we’ll identify guidelines for effective verbal communication. In Chapter 5, we’ll explore the companion system, nonver- bal communication.

“The entity in this casket deserves to be dead.”

ll P ug

lia no

/G et

ty Im

ag es

70 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Language and Meaning Language consists of symbols, which are representations of people, events, and all that goes on around us and in us. All language is symbolic, yet not all symbols are linguistic. Nonverbal communication includes sym- bols that aren’t words, such as facial expres- sions, posture, and tone of voice.

Features of Language According to Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker (2000, 2008), humans are “verbi- vores”—a species that lives on words. Verbal communication, or language, consists of sym- bols in the form of spoken or written words. For instance, your name is a symbol that rep-

resents you. Dormitory is a symbol for a particular kind of building. Democracy is a symbol for a specifi c political system. Love represents an intense feeling. In combi- nation with nonverbal symbols, verbal symbols form the core of the human world of meaning. As a fi rst step in understanding the power of language, we’ll examine three characteristics of symbols: arbitrariness, ambiguity, and abstraction.

Arbitrariness Language is arbitrary, which means that verbal symbols are not intrin- sically connected to what they represent. For instance, the term chat room has no natural relationship to virtual spaces for online interaction. Certain words and terms seem right because as a society we agree to use them in particular ways, but they have no inherent correspondence to their referents. Because meanings are arbitrary instead of necessary, they change over time. The word apple used to refer exclusively to a fruit, and mouse and hamster used to refer to rodents, whereas today all three words are likely to be used to refer to computers as well.

Language also changes as we invent new words or imbue existing words with new meanings. The English language now has 500 times the number of words that it had only 400 years ago (Wurman, 1989). Through mass communication, commentators have enlarged the political vocabulary with such terms as Obamamania, gender gap, and political correctness. Cyberspace, hyperlink, information superhighway, buddy list, instant messaging, hypertext, and World Wide Web are terms we’ve created to refer to communication technologies. To express feelings in online communication, people have invented emoticons (also a newly coined word) such as :) for “smile,” :( for “frown,” :D for “grin,” :/ for “frustrated,” and ;) for “wink.”

Because language is a living thing, it changes as the people who use it change. In America, language continually incorporates words from people of diverse cul- tures and social communities. For example, terms from the hip-hop subculture such as dis (to disrespect) have entered into mainstream English. Words such as machismo and karma come from other languages and have been incorporated into

Talking a Union into Existence In Poland in the 1980s, the trade union

Solidarity was born. The birth was not a dramatic event. There were no fi reworks. There was no grand announcement of a powerful new union. Instead, the union grew out of words—simple, face-to-face conversations among 10 or so workers in a Gdansk shipyard. They talked with each other about wanting freedom from oppressive conditions, about the need for change. Then, this handful of individuals talked with other workers who talked with others and so on. Within just a few months, the Solidarity trade union had more than 9 million members.

ENGAGEMENT fyi

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 71

English relatively recently. The English language includes many older words that originated in other cultures (Carnes, 1994): Chocolate comes from the language of the Nahuatl Native American tribe, cotton comes from Arabic, klutz comes from Yiddish, khaki comes from Hindi, and zombie comes from language used by the Kongo group.

Language is so dynamic that publishers of The Oxford English Dictionary have a new word team whose job is to consider which new words should be added to for- mal dictionaries. In the most recent edition of The Oxford English Dictionary, words added included ego-surfi ng (searching the Internet for references to your name), irrit- ainment (programming that irritates viewers but that viewers feel compelled to watch), and fashionista (a devotee of cutting-edge fashions) (Smith, 1999).

Ambiguity Language is ambiguous, which means it doesn’t have clear-cut, precise meanings. The term good friend means someone to hang out with to one person and someone to confi de in to another. The words Christmas, Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah have distinct connotations for people with different religious and cultural backgrounds, and Thanksgiving may mean different things to Native Americans and European Americans. The meanings of these words vary according to cultural contexts and indi- viduals’ experiences. The language is the same, but what it means varies in relation to personal experiences, interests, identities, and backgrounds.

Language Creates Reality In naming things, language brings them into human consciousness. Here are a few examples

of phenomena that all of us are aware of but which became social realities only when they were given names:

Blog % entered the language only in recent years. First there was the Web, and then there were weblogs, soon shortened to blogs. You can read more about “net language” by going to the book’s online resources for this chapter and clicking on WebLink 4.1. Domestic partners % refers to gay and lesbian couples or cohabiting, unmarried heterosexuals. Birth mother % designates a woman who gives birth but does not keep the child. Date rape % is a term created to defi ne as criminal an activity that for a long time took place without being named. Environmental justice % refers to a movement to ensure that environmental dangers such as sites for storing toxic wastes are distributed fairly instead of being the burden of poor communities (Cox, 2008, 2009; Pezzullo, 2001, 2007). Blended family % refers to a family that includes children from one or both partners’ previous relationships. Although such families have long existed, only in recent years were they named.

What terms can you add to illustrate how naming things gives them a social reality that they cannot otherwise have?

TECHNOLOGY fyi

72 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Although language doesn’t mean exactly the same thing to everyone, within a cul- ture many words have an agreed-upon range of meanings. In learning to communi- cate, we learn not only words but also the meanings and values of our society. Thus, all of us know that the word dogs refers to four-footed creatures (and occasionally to hot dogs), but each of us also attributes personal meanings based on dogs we have known and how our families and cultures regard dogs. In some cultures, dogs are food for human consumption—not a meaning of dogs in the United States! Conversely, many Westerners eat beef, whereas in Hindu cultures cows are sacred.

The ambiguity of language can lead to the misunderstandings that sometimes plague communication. A friend recently told me of misunderstandings that arose when he tried to negotiate a contract with a Japanese fi rm. My friend, Erik, said that when he made his initial proposal, O-Young, who represented the Japanese company, nodded his head and said, “This is very good.” Encouraged, Erik made additional suggestions, and O-Young smiled and responded, “This is a fi ne idea,” and “I admire your work on the project.” Yet O-Young consistently refused to sign the contract that contained Erik’s proposals. Finally, another American businessperson explained to Erik that Japanese culture regards it as rude to refuse another person directly. To someone socialized in Japanese society, outright disagreement or rejection causes another person to lose face, and that is to be avoided at all costs. Once Erik understood that apparently favorable responses did not mean O-Young agreed with him, their negotiations became much more productive. The United States developed a training program in cultural sensitiv- ity to prepare delegates to participate in the United Nations Conference on Women. The delegates were told that many Asian women would not sign agreements and con- tracts even if they gave what Americans perceive as verbal and nonverbal indications of agreement. Like O-Young, many women in Asian countries are reluctant to disagree overtly.

Problems arising from the ambiguity of language can cause misunderstandings between people. A supervisor criticizes a new employee for “inadequate quality of work.” The employee assumes the supervisor wants more productivity; the supervi-

sor means that the employee should be more careful in proofi ng material to catch errors. Spouses often have different meanings for “doing their share” of home chores. To many women, it means doing half the work, but to men it tends to mean doing more than their fathers did, which is still less than their wives do (Hochschild & Machung, 2003).

96 by

G. B.

Tr ud

ea u.

Re pr

int ed

by pe

rm iss

ion of

ive rsa

l P res

s S yn

dic ate

RON

A while ago, I told my girlfriend I needed more independence. She

got all upset because she thought I didn’t love her anymore and was

pulling away. All I meant was that I need some time with the guys

and some for just myself. She said that the last time a guy said he

wanted more independence, she found out he was dating out on her.

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 73

Ambiguous language is a common source of misunderstandings in relationships. For instance, Anya might ask her husband, Bryan, to be more loving, but she and he have different understandings of what “more loving” means. Consequently, Bryan may do more housework to express his love, whereas Anya wanted them to spend more time together. Suggesting that a co-worker should be more responsive doesn’t specify what you want. To be clear, more-specifi c language is advisable. For instance, you might say to your co-worker, “I’d like you to give me feedback on the ideas I present.”

Abstraction Finally, language is abstract, which means that words are not the concrete or tangible phenomena to which they refer. They stand for those phenome- na—ideas, people, events, objects, feelings, and so forth, but they are not the things they represent. According to Steven Pinker (2008), who sees language as a window to human nature, the words we use say far more about us than the world outside of us. Pinker believes that words refl ect our attitudes, values, and sense of relationship with others. In using language, we engage in a process of abstraction in which we move further and further away from external or objective phenomena. Words vary in their degree of abstractness. Reading matter is an abstract term that includes everything from philosophy books to the list of ingredients on a cereal package. Book is a less abstract word. Textbook is even less abstract. And Communication Mosaics is the most concrete term because it refers to a specifi c textbook.

Our perceptions are one step away from the phenomena because perceptions are selective and subjective, as we learned in Chapter 3. We move a second step away from phenomena when we label a perception with language that is value laden. We abstract even further when we respond, not to behaviors or our perceptions of them, but to the labels we impose. This process can be illustrated as a ladder of abstraction (Figure 4.1), a concept developed by two early scholars of communication, Alfred Korzybski (1948) and S. I. Hayakawa (1962, 1964).

As language becomes increasingly abstract, the potential for confusion mush- rooms. One way this happens is by overgeneralization. Mass communication often relies on highly general, abstract language to describe groups of people. Terms such as inner-city youth, immigrant, and senior citizen encourage us to notice distinc- tions between young people who live in the hearts of cities and young people who live elsewhere, between people who immigrate to the United States and those who were born here, between people who are elderly and people who are not. At the same time, highly general terms for social groups, such as Asian American, Hispanic American, or African American, incline us to see commonalities among people within the categories but not to recognize distinctions among them. The FYI box on page 75 shows how labels for racial and ethnic groups have changed and how, with these changes, our perceptions of groups have evolved.

Overly general language can distort how partners think about a relationship. They may make broad, negative statements, such as, “You never go along with my preferences” or “You always interrupt me.” In most cases, highly abstract communi- cation involves overgeneralizations that are inaccurate. Yet by symbolizing experi- ence this way, partners frame how they think about each other. Researchers have shown that we are more likely to recall behaviors that are consistent with how we’ve labeled people than to recall behaviors that are inconsistent (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). When we say a friend is insensitive, we’re likely to notice instances in which he is insensitive and to overlook times when he is sensitive. Similarly, if we label

74 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

a co-worker lazy, we pre- dispose ourselves to notice her lazy behav- iors and not to perceive behaviors that show she is conscientious.

We can minimize mis- understandings by using specifi c language instead of abstract terms. Saying, “You interrupted me a moment ago” is clearer than saying, “You’re so dominating.” It’s clearer to say, “I would like you to look at me when I’m talk- ing” than to say, “I wish you’d be more attentive.” The Sharpen Your Skill box provides an oppor- tunity for you to develop skill in reducing the con- fusion caused by ambigu- ous language.

Principles of Communication Now that we understand that language is arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract, we’re ready to consider three principles of communication. These principles help us under- stand how we create meaning for our interactions.

Interpretation Creates Meaning Because language is abstract, ambigu- ous, and arbitrary, we have to inter- pret it to determine what it means (Duck, 1994a, 1994b; Shotter, 1993). Interpretation is an active, creative process we use to make sense of expe- riences. Although we’re usually not conscious of the effort we invest in interpreting words, we continually engage in the process of constructing meanings.

John Searle (1976, 1995) distin- guishes between brute facts and institutional facts. Brute facts are objective, concrete phenomena and activities. Institutional facts are the meanings of brute facts based on

Figure 4.1 THE LADDER OF ABSTRACTION

Concrete Phenomena Andrea moves around a lot; she says she is worried about making

a good grade in the course, and she asks many questions.

Most concrete

Perceived Behavior Andrea asks a lot of questions during the meeting.

Label Applied Andrea is taking more than her share of time.

Judgment Andrea is a selfish and immature person.

Action Avoid interacting with Andrea.

Most abstract

Communicating Clearly

To express yourself clearly, it’s important to translate ambiguous words into concrete language. Practice translating with these examples:

Ambiguous Language Concrete Language

You are rude. I don’t like it when you interrupt me.

We need more team spirit.

I want more freedom.

Let’s watch a good program.

Your work is sloppy.

That speaker is unprofessional.

unicating Clearly

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 75

human interpretation. Borrowing an example from Searle (1976), during a football game one brute fact is that periodically people gather into roughly circular clusters. We name that activity the huddle, or huddling, and the institutional fact is that the players are planning their next play. Searle’s point is that we create meaning with lan- guage that represents institutional facts, or the social meanings we attribute to brute facts.

If someone says to you, “Get lost,” you have to think about the context and the person who made it to decide whether it’s an insult, friendly needling, or a colloquial way of saying you are out of line. People for whom English is a second language fi nd idioms such as “get lost” even more diffi cult to interpret than native speakers of English do (Lee, 2000). Go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 4.2 to learn more about idioms that can be confusing to people for whom English is a second language. What the words mean depends on the relation- ship between communicators as well as the self-esteem and previous experiences of the person who is told to get lost. Similarly, if you say “hello” to someone who makes no response, you have to decide how to interpret the silence. Is the person ignoring you, angry with you, or preoccupied? How you interpret others’ communication has at least as much to do with you as with what other people say or do.

Communication Is Guided by Rules Although each of us draws on his or her indi- vidual experiences to interpret language, the process of interpretation is not entirely

The Languages of Race and Ethnicity Our labels for races and ethnicities have changed over time (Davis, 1997; Delgado, 1998;

Johnson, 1999; Martin et al., 1996; Orbe & Harris, 2001; Tanno, 1997). In America’s early years, Irish Catholic and Eastern European immigrants were not defi ned as % white. Today they are. Historic and current labels for African Americans include % Negroes, coloreds, African Americans, people of color, blacks, and Afro-Americans. Historic and current labels for indigenous people of Alaska include % Eskimo and Inuk. Historic and current labels for Asians and Asian Americans include % Asians, Asian nationals, and Orientals, as well as more-specifi c ethnic labels such as Japanese, Korean Americans, and Vietnamese Americans. Native Americans may be called % Indians or Native Americans or by labels that reference their specifi c nations, such as Oneida and Sioux. European Americans may be called % whites, Caucasians, European Americans, or just plain Americans, which refl ects the naive presumption that, in America, white is the “normal” race. Labels for South Americans include % Hispanics, Latinos and Latinas, Chicanos and Chicanas, and more-specifi c labels, such as Cubanos and Mexicans.

DIVERSITY fyi

76 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

personal. Without realizing it, we learn rules in the process of being socialized into a particular culture, and these rules guide our communication and how we inter- pret the communication of others (Argyle & Henderson, 1985; Shimanoff, 1980). Communication rules are shared understandings among members of a particular culture or social group about what communication means and what behaviors are appropriate in various situations. Children often are taught that please and thank you are magic words that they should use. We learn that sir and ma’am are polite words to use when addressing our elders or people who have authority over us. In the course of interacting with our families and others, we unconsciously absorb rules that guide how we communicate and how we interpret others’ communication. Research shows that children begin to understand and follow communication rules by the time they are 1 or 2 years old (Miller, 1993).

Two kinds of rules guide our communication (Cronen, Pearce, & Snavely, 1979; Pearce, Cronen, & Conklin, 1979). Regulative rules regulate interaction by speci- fying when, how, where, and with whom to communicate about certain things. For instance, European Americans generally don’t interrupt when someone is making a formal presentation, but in more-informal settings interruptions may be appropriate. Some African Americans follow a different rule; it specifi es that audience members should participate in public speeches by calling out responses. Thus, for some African American audiences at speaking events, the call–response pattern is an appropriate form of communication. The rules of some cultures say that interrupting in any context is impolite.

Some families have a rule that people cannot argue at the dinner table, whereas other families regard arguments as a normal accompaniment to meals. Families also teach us rules about how to communicate in confl ict situations (Honeycutt, Woods, & Fontenot, 1993; Jones & Gallois, 1989; Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1990). Did you learn that it’s appropriate or inappropriate to yell at others during confl ict? Regulative rules also defi ne when, where, and with whom it’s appropriate to show affection and disclose private information. Regulative rules vary across cultures; what is considered appropriate in one society may be regarded as impolite or offensive elsewhere.

Constitutive rules defi ne what a particular communication means or stands for. We learn that most people regard specifi c kinds of communication as showing respect (lis- tening attentively, not correcting), professionalism (speaking effectively, taking a voice), and rudeness (talking over others). We also learn what communication is expected if we want to be perceived as a good friend (sharing confi dences, defending our friends when others criticize them), a responsible employee (making good contributions in group meetings, creating supportive climates), and a desirable romantic partner (offer- ing support, expressing affection). Like regulative rules, constitutive rules are shaped by cultures. The Sharpen Your Skill box on page 78 allows you to refl ect on rules that you follow in your communication.

Rules guide our everyday interactions by telling us when to communicate, what to communicate, and how to interpret others’ verbal and nonverbal communication. Casual social interactions tend to adhere to rules that are widely shared in a society. Interaction between intimates also follows rules, but these are private rules that refl ect special meanings partners have created (Duck, 2006; Wood, 2006). Television net- works follow rules for what can and cannot be said and shown during specifi c times and rules for how often they insert commercials. Online chat rooms and forums develop

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 77

specifi c and often unique rules for how people express themselves and respond to one another. Every organization develops a distinctive culture, which includes rules about how members interact.

Few rules are rigidly fi xed. Like communication itself, most rules are subject to change. When we decide that a rule is not functional, we negotiate changes in it. A company may fi nd that its rule for making decisions by consensus no longer works once the company triples in size, so voting becomes a constitutive rule to defi ne decision making. When we don’t have a rule for a particular kind of interaction, we invent one and often negotiate and refi ne it until it provides the assistance we want in structuring communication. When couples have a child, they often fi nd that they don’t have any guidelines for new communication situations, so they develop rules: “It is appropriate to tend to the baby while talking with each other,” “We take turns eating so one of us is free to hold the baby,” or “Interrupting our conversation when the baby cries does not count as rudeness.”

It’s important to understand that we don’t have to be aware of communication rules in order to follow them. For the most part, we’re really not conscious of the rules that guide how, when, where, and with whom we communicate about various things. We may not realize we have rules until one is broken, and we become aware that we had an expectation. Becoming aware of communication rules empowers you to change those that do not promote good interaction, as Emily’s commentary illustrates.

EMILY My boyfriend and I had this really frustrating pattern about planning what to do. He’d say, “What do

you want to do this weekend?” And I’d say, “I don’t know. What do you want to do?” Then he’d suggest

two or three things and ask me which of them sounded good. I would say they were all fi ne with

me, even if they weren’t. And this would keep on forever. Both of us had a rule not to impose on the

other, and it kept us from stating our preferences, so we just went in circles about any decision. Well,

two weekends ago I talked to him about rules, and he agreed we had one that was frustrating. So we

invented a new rule that says each of us has to state what we want to do, but the other has to say if

that is not okay. It’s a lot less frustrating to fi gure out what we want to do since we agreed on this rule.

Punctuation Aff ects Meaning We punctuate communication to interpret meaning. Like the punctuation you studied in grammar classes, punctuation of verbal com- munication is a way to mark a fl ow of activity into meaningful units. Punctuation is our perception of when interaction begins and ends (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).

Before we can attribute meaning to communication, we must establish its bound- aries. Usually this involves deciding who initiated communication and when the interaction began. If a co-worker suggests going out to lunch together, you might regard the invitation as marking the start of the interaction. If you return another person’s phone call, you might perceive the original call as the beginning of the epi- sode. If someone insults you, you might regard the insult as the act that marks the start of a quarrel.

When we don’t agree on punctuation, problems may arise. If you’ve ever heard chil- dren arguing about who started a fi ght, you understand the importance of punctuation.

78 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Communication on the Internet often is punctuated differently by partici- pants who join the dialogue at differ- ent times. I once read a message that was a defense of fl aming (dramatically disparaging others on the Internet). Because I view fl aming as discouraging freedom of speech, I wrote a critical response to the message. The person to whom I wrote replied that the mes- sage that disturbed me was a sarcastic reply to an earlier message that I had not seen. Because people enter elec- tronic dialogues at different times, it’s diffi cult to know who launched a par- ticular topic or which messages initiate ideas and which are responses to ear- lier messages. Similarly, new members of organizations may not understand relationships (allies and enemies) or policies.

In personal relationships, a common instance of confl icting punctuation is the demand–withdraw pattern (Figure 4.2; Bergner & Bergner, 1990; Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000; Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Wegner, 2005). In this pattern, one person tries to create closeness through personal talk, and the other strives to maintain autonomy by avoid- ing intimate discussion. The more the

fi rst person demands personal talk (“Tell me what’s going on in your life”), the more the second person with- draws (“There’s nothing to tell”). The people involved may be friends, romantic partners, or a parent and an adolescent child (Caughlin & Ramey, 2005). Each person punctuates the interaction as having started with the other: The demander thinks, “I pursue because you withdraw,” and the withdrawer thinks, “I withdraw because you pur- sue.” There is no objectively correct punctuation, because it depends on subjective perceptions.

When people don’t agree on punctuation, they don’t share mean- ings for what is happening between them. To break out of uncon- structive cycles such as demand–withdraw, people need to realize that they may punctuate differently and should discuss how each of them experiences the pattern. The Sharpen Your Skill box on the next page encourages you to check perceptions to see if you and another person are punctuating congruently.

Interpretation, communication rules, and punctuation infl uence the meaning we assign to language. These three principles highlight

I am withdrawing more because

you are pursuing harder.

I pursue because

you withdraw.

I pursue harder

because you

withdraw further.

I withdraw because you pursue me.

Figure 4.2 THE DEMAND–WITHDRAW PATTERN

Communication Rules

Think about the regulative and constitutive rules you follow in your verbal communication. For each item listed here, identify two rules that guide your verbal behavior.

Regulative Rules

List rules that regulate your verbal communication when

1. Talking with elders

2. Interacting at dinnertime

3. Having fi rst exchanges in morning

4. Greeting casual friends on campus

5. Talking with professors

Constitutive Rules

How do you use verbal communication to show

1. Trustworthiness

2. Ambition

3. Disrespect

4. Support

5. Anger

After you’ve identifi ed your rules, talk with others about their rules. Are there commonalities among your rules that refl ect broad cultural norms? What explains diff erences in individuals’ rules?

munication Rules

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 79

the creativity involved in constructing meaning to make sense of commu- nication. We’re now ready to explore the power of symbols by discussing uniquely symbolic abilities.

Symbolic Abilities The ability to use language allows humans to live in a world of ideas and meanings. Instead of reacting without refl ection to our concrete environments and experiences, we think about them and sometimes transform what they mean. Philosophers of language have identifi ed six ways in which symbolic capacities affect our lives (Cassirer, 1944; Langer, 1953, 1979). As we discuss each, we’ll consider how to recognize the constructive power of language and minimize the problems it can cause (Figure 4.3).

Language Defi nes Phenomena As we noted earlier in this chapter, the most basic symbolic ability is defi nition. We use words to defi ne ourselves, others, experiences, relationships, feelings, and thoughts (Monastersky, 2002). In turn, the labels we use affect how we perceive what we have labeled. You see a car on the lot at a dealership and it is “a car.” You test drive it, decide to buy it, and it becomes “my car,” and you perceive it differently than when it was “a car.” What has changed is not the car, but what you have attached to it by way of the label.

A friend of mine puts his savings into separate accounts designated for travel, retire- ment, and emergencies. Last spring, he told me he couldn’t afford a summer vacation because he’d used up his travel fund. I pointed out that he had extra money in his emergency fund that he could use for a vacation. “No,” he replied, “that account isn’t for vacations.” He had defi ned the accounts in specifi c ways that shaped his view of the money available for travel. The symbols we use defi ne what things mean to us.

The labels we use to defi ne others affect how we perceive them. When we label someone, we focus attention on particular aspects of that person and her or his activities. At the same time, we nec- essarily obscure other aspects of that person’s identity. A person might be a loving father, a conservative, a con- cerned citizen, and a demanding supervisor. Each label directs our attention to certain aspects of the person and away from others. We might talk with the conservative about editorials on government policies, discuss commu- nity issues with the concerned citizen, seek advice on child rearing from the father, and try to clarify the expectations of the supervisor. If we defi ne someone as a Latina, that may be all we notice about the person, although there are

Punctuating Interaction

The next time you and another person enter an unproductive cycle, stop the conversation and discuss how each of you punctuates interaction.

1. What do you defi ne as the start of interaction?

2. What does the other person defi ne as the beginning?

3. What happens when you learn about each other’s punctuation? How does this aff ect understanding between you?

ating Interaction

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

Figure 4.3 SYMBOLIC ABILITIES

1. Symbols defi ne phenomena.

2. Symbols evaluate phenomena.

3. Symbols allow us to organize experiences.

4. Symbols allow us to think hypothetically.

5. Symbols allow self-refl ection.

6. Symbols defi ne relationships and interactions.

80 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

many other aspects of her identity. This implies that we have an ethical responsibil- ity to consider how our language shapes our perceptions of others. Orest’s refl ection makes this point clearly.

Totalizing is responding to a person as if one label totally represents that person. We fi x on one symbol to defi ne someone and fail to recognize many other aspects of the per- son. Some people totalize gay men and lesbi- ans by noticing only their sexual orientation. Interestingly, we don’t totalize heterosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Totalizing also occurs when we dismiss people by saying,

“She’s old,” “He’s just a jock,” or “She’s an illegal alien.” Totalizing is not the same as stereotyping. When we stereotype someone, we defi ne the person in terms of the char- acteristics of a group. When we totalize someone, we negate most of that person by spotlighting a single aspect of his or her identity. Reneé points out a form of totalizing that really bothers her.

The symbols we use affect how we think and feel. If we describe our work in terms of frustrations, problems, and disappointments, we’re likely to feel negative about it. On the other hand, if we

describe rewards, challenges, and successes, we’re likely to feel more positive about our work. The way we defi ne experiences in relationships also affects how we feel about them. Several years ago, my colleagues and I asked romantically involved cou- ples how they defi ned differences between them (Wood et al., 1994). We found that some people defi ned differences as positive forces that energize a relationship and keep it interesting. Others defi ned differences as problems or barriers to closeness. We noted a direct connection between how partners defi ned differences and how they acted. Partners who viewed differences as constructive approached their dis- agreements with curiosity, interest, and an expectation of growth through discussion. In contrast, partners who labeled differences as problems dreaded disagreements and tried to avoid talking about them.

People who consistently use negative labels to describe their relationships heighten their awareness of aspects of the relationships that they don’t like and diminish their awareness of aspects that they do like (Cloven & Roloff, 1991). In contrast, partners who focus on good facets of relationships are more conscious of virtues in partners and relationships and are less bothered by fl aws (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991).

Mass communication also defi nes people and events in ways that can shape our perceptions. Conservative commentators sometimes refer to “knee-jerk liberals” and “tree huggers,” whereas the same groups of people are called “pro- gressives” and “environmentalists” by more-liberal commentators. Depending on which commentators you listen to, you might have different perceptions of these groups.

OREST

A lot of people relate to me as Asian, like that’s all I am. Sometimes in

classes, teachers ask me to explain the “Asian point of view,” but they

do not ask me to explain my perspective as a pre-med major or a

working student. I am an Asian, but that is not all that I am.

RENÉE Okay, here’s my issue. I love fashion—I mean I really love great clothes, jewelry, shoes, makeup—all

of it! I’m always the fi rst to wear a cool new style. So a lot of people brand me ditsy or silly. But I’m

also Phi Beta Kappa and I’ve been accepted to law school. Why do people think that if you’re into

fashion, you can’t also be smart and serious?

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 81

Language Evaluates Phenomena As we noted when we discussed the ladder of abstraction, language is not neutral; it is laden with values. We describe people we like with language that accents their good quali- ties and downplays their fl aws (“My friend is self-confi dent”). The reverse is true of our language for people we don’t like (“My enemy is arrogant”). We might describe people who speak their minds as honest, assertive, outspoken, courageous, or authoritarian. Each word has a distinct connotation. Restaurants deliberately use words that enhance the attractive- ness of menu entries. A dish described as “tender, milk-fed veal sautéed in natural juices and topped with succulent chunks of lobster” sounds more appetizing than one described as “meat from a baby calf that was kept anemic to make it tender, then slaughtered, cooked in blood, and topped with the fl esh of a crustacean that was boiled to death.”

The language we use also has ethical implications in terms of how it affects others. Most people with disabilities prefer not to be called “disabled,” because that total- izes them in terms of a disability. The term African American emphasizes cultural heritage, whereas black focuses on skin color. Hispanic defi nes people by the Spanish language spoken in countries of origin, whereas Latina and Latino highlight the geo- graphic origin of women and men, respectively.

Loaded language is words that slant perceptions, and thus meanings, exceedingly. Loaded language encourages extreme perceptions. Terms such as geezer and old fogey incline us to regard older people with contempt or pity. Alternatives such as senior citizen and elder refl ect more respectful attitudes.

An interesting communication phenomenon is the reappropriation of language. This happens when a group reclaims a term used by others to degrade its members, and treats that term as a positive self-description. Reappropriation aims to remove the stigma from term that others use pejoratively. For instance, some women and feminist musicians have reappropriated the term girl to resist the connotations of childishness. One collective of punk rock female bands calls itself Riot Grrrls. Some gay men and lesbians have reappropriated the term queer and use it as a positive statement about their identity. Southern writer Reynolds Price developed cancer of the spine that left him paraplegic. He scoffs at terms such as differently abled and physically challenged; he refers to himself as a cripple and to others who do not have disabilities as tempo- rarily able-bodied. Perhaps the most controversial example of reappropriation is some African Americans’ use of a word that was a racial epithet for years. In his book Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (2002), Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy traces the word’s history and found that the word nigger is derived from niger, which is the Latin word for the color black. By the 18th century in America, it had become a particularly offensive racial slur. Today, Kennedy notes, the word is still a vile slur when used by non-blacks, but some blacks have reappropriated the term and use it as a positive term among themselves.

MAYNARD I’m as sensitive as the next guy, but I just can’t keep up with what language off ends what people

anymore. When I was young, Negro was an accepted term, then it was black, and now it’s African American. Sometimes I forget and say black or even Negro, and I get accused of being racist. It used to be polite to say girls, but now that off ends a lot of the women I work with. Just this year, I heard that we aren’t supposed to say blind anymore, and we’re supposed to say visually impaired. I just can’t keep up.

82 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Probably many of us sympathize with Maynard, who was 54 when he took a course with me. Keeping up with changes in language is diffi cult, and occasionally we may offend someone unintentionally. Nonetheless, we should try to learn what terms hurt or insult others and avoid using them. We also should tell others when they’ve referred to us in ways we dislike. As long as you speak assertively but not confrontationally, oth- ers are likely to respect your ideas.

Language Organizes Experiences Words organize our perceptions of events and experiences. As we learned in Chapter 3, the categories into which we place people infl uence how we interpret them and their communication. A criticism may be viewed as constructive if made by someone we categorize as a friend but insulting if made by someone we classify as an enemy. The words don’t change, but their meaning varies depending on the category into which we place the person speaking them. Because symbols orga- nize our perceptions, they allow us to think about abstract concepts such as justice, integrity, and good family life. We use broad concepts to transcend specifi c con- crete activities and enter the world of conceptual thought and ideals. Because we think abstractly, we don’t have to consider each object and experience individually. Instead, we can think in general terms.

Our capacity to abstract can also distort thinking. A primary way this occurs is by stereotyping, which is thinking in broad generalizations about a whole class of people or experiences. Examples of stereotypes are “Management doesn’t care about labor,” “Teachers are smart,” “Jocks are dumb,” “Feminists hate men,” “Religious people are good,” and “Confl ict is bad.” Notice that stereotypes can be positive or negative generalizations.

Common to all stereotypes is the classifi cation of a phenomenon into a category based on general knowledge of that category. When we use terms such as Native American, lesbian, white male, and working class, we may see only what members of each group have in common and not perceive differences among individuals in the group. Clearly, we have to generalize; we simply cannot think about each and every thing in our lives as a specifi c instance. However, stereotypes can blind us to impor- tant differences among phenomena we lump together. Therefore, we have an ethical responsibility to monitor stereotypes and to stay alert to differences between things we place in any category.

Language Allows Hypothetical Th ought Where do you hope to be 5 years from now? What is your fondest childhood memory? What would you do if you won the lottery next week? To answer these questions, you must engage in hypothetical thought, which is thinking about experiences and ideas that are not part of your concrete, daily reality. Because we can think hypothetically, we can plan, dream, remember, set goals, consider alternative courses of action, and imagine possibilities.

Language allows us to name and imagine possibilities beyond what currently exists. Technology experts have conceived of many possibilities, such as implantable memory chips that will allow us to speak another language without having learned it. This kind of memory chip is still on the drawing boards of technology innovators, but we can

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 83

think about it now because we have the term implantable memory chip. Not too many years ago, technology innovators imagined worldwide networks that con- nected people through computers; today that is a reality.

Hypothetical thought is possible because we are symbol users. Words give form to ideas so that we can hold them in our minds and refl ect on them. We can contemplate things that have no real existence, and we can remember our- selves in the past and project ourselves into the future. Our ability to inhabit past, present, and future explains why we can set goals and work toward them, even though we do not realize the goal immediately (Dixson & Duck, 1993). For example, you’ve invested many hours in attending classes, studying, and writ- ing papers because you have the idea of yourself as someone with a college degree. The degree is not real now, nor is the self that you will become once you have the degree. Yet the idea is suffi ciently real to motivate you to work hard for many years. You can imagine yourself wearing academic regalia at your graduation, think of yourself as having a degree, and visualize yourself working in the career you plan to enter.

Hypothetical thought can enrich personal relationships by allowing intimates to remember shared moments. One of the strongest glues for intimacy is the abil- ity to remember a history of shared experiences (Bruess & Hoefs, 2006; Cockburn- Wootten & Zorn, 2006; Wood, 2006). Because they can remember rough times they have weathered, intimates can often get through trials in the present. Language that symbolizes a shared future (“When we’re rocking on the porch at 80”) also fuels inti- macy. We interact differently with people we don’t expect to see again and with those who are ongoing parts of our lives. Talking about future plans and dreams, another use of hypothetical thought, knits intimates together because it makes real the idea that more is yet to come (Acitelli, 1993; Wood, 2006).

Hypothetical thought also allows us to imagine being in places we have never vis- ited. Television programs and websites show us faraway countries and expose us to people with different values, traditions, and ways of living. When we listen to or see programs or visit sites to learn about other cultures, we can think about these cultures and imagine visiting them.

Thinking hypothetically helps us improve who we are. We notice progress we have made when we can remember earlier versions of ourselves, and we motivate further self-growth when we envision additional improvements in ourselves. Your ability to think hypothetically enables you to chart a path of continuous growth. As Duk-Kyong points out, remembering ourselves at earlier times also allows us to notice progress we make toward achieving our goals.

Couples communicate about past experiences and family events. How does this aff ect intimacy?

lia T.

W oo

84 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

DUK-KYONG Sometimes I get very discouraged that I do not yet know English perfectly and that there is much I still

do not understand about customs in this country. It helps me to remember that when I came here 2

years ago I did not speak English at all, and I knew nothing about how people act here. Seeing how

much progress I have made helps me to not be discouraged with what I do not yet know.

Language Allows Self-Refl ection Just as we use language to think about times in the past and future and to shape our perceptions of others, we use it to refl ect on ourselves. We think about our exis- tence and refl ect on our actions. In his classic work in this area, George Herbert Mead (1934) noted that self-refl ection is the foundation of human identity. Since Mead’s original work, other scholars have developed his ideas and reaffi rmed their importance (Atkinson & Housley, 2003; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006; Sandstrom, Martin,

& Fine, 2001). According to Mead, the self has two aspects: the I and

the me. The I is the spontaneous, creative self. The I acts impulsively in response to inner needs and desires, regardless of social norms. The I is the part of you that wants to send a really nasty e-mail message to a chat room visitor whom you fi nd offensive.

The me is the socially conscious part of self that moni- tors and moderates the I’s impulses. The me refl ects on the I from the social perspectives of others. The me is the part of you that says, “Hey, don’t send that message, or you’ll get fl amed.” The I is impervious to social conven- tions, but the me is keenly aware of them. If your super- visor criticizes your work, your I may want to tell that boss off, but your me censors that impulse and reminds you that subordinates are not supposed to criticize their bosses.

Because we have both spontaneous and refl ective parts of ourselves, we can think about who we want to be and set goals for becoming the self we desire. We can feel shame, pride, and regret for our actions—emotions that are possible because we self-refl ect. We can control what we do now by casting ourselves forward to consider how we might feel about our actions later—a point that Tiffany makes in her commentary.

TIFFANY My mother-in-law thinks it’s wrong that I go to school instead of being a full-time homemaker and

mother. She constantly criticizes me for neglecting my children and home. So many times I have

wanted to tell her to butt out of my family, but I stop myself by reminding myself that in the long term

it’s important to me and my husband and the kids to maintain decent relations.

When my niece Michelle told me she had learned to read, she was bursting with pride. How might refl ecting on this accomplishment aff ect how Michelle thinks about herself?

ro lyn

C. W

oo d

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 85

As Tiffany’s commentary points out, self-refl ection also empowers us to moni- tor ourselves. When we monitor ourselves, the me notices and evaluates the I’s impulses and may modify them based on the me’s awareness of social norms. For instance, during a discussion with a co-worker you might say to yourself, “I’m just sitting here like a lump on a log. I need to show that I’m interested in what he’s saying.” Based on your monitoring, you might listen more carefully, give feedback, and ask questions to show interest. Effective public speakers monitor audiences. If members of the audience start looking bored, speakers adapt by changing speak- ing pace or volume or by introducing a visual aid to add interest. When interacting with people from different cultures, we monitor by reminding ourselves that they may not operate by the same values and communication rules that we do. Self- refl ection allows us to monitor our communication and adjust it to be effective and ethical.

Self-refl ection also allows us to manage the image we present to others. When talk- ing with teachers and supervisors, you may consciously use language that represents you as respectful, attentive, and responsible. When interacting with parents, you may repress some language that surfaces in discussions with your friends. When commu- nicating with someone you’d like to date, you may use language that is personal and conveys friendliness. We continually use language to manage the images we project in particular situations and with specifi c people.

Language Defi nes Relationships and Interaction A sixth way in which language creates meaning in our lives is by defi ning relation- ships and interaction. Our verbal communication conveys messages about how we perceive ourselves and others. “Mr. Buster” symbolizes a more formal relationship than “Phil.” We also use language to regulate interaction. We signal that we want to speak by saying, “Excuse me” or “Let me jump in here.” We invite others to speak by saying, “Do you have an opinion about this?” or “I’d like to hear what you think about the issue.” You’ll recall that in Chapter 1 we discussed two levels of mean- ing: the content level and the relationship level. Verbal communication, as well as nonverbal communication, conveys three dimensions of relationship-level meanings (Mehrabian, 1981).

Responsiveness One facet of relationship-level meaning is responsiveness. Through questions and statements of agreement or disagreement, we show our interest in others’ communication. When we give thoughtful feedback to a colleague, we show responsiveness. When we ask an interviewee to elaborate ideas, we demonstrate inter- est in him or her. Different social and cultural groups learn distinct rules for showing responsiveness. For instance, women generally display greater verbal responsiveness than men do (Montgomery, 1988; Ueland, 1992), and Koreans tend to limit verbal responses more than Americans typically do.

Liking A second dimension of relationship-level meaning is liking. We express liking verbally when we say, “I really enjoy being with you,” “I’m glad we’re working on the same team,” and so forth. Conversely, we verbally communicate dislike by saying, “I don’t have time for you right now,” or “I don’t want to work with you on the team.” In addition to these general rules shared in Western society, particular social groups

86 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

instill more-specifi c rules. Masculine socialization emphasizes emotional control and independence, so men are less likely than women to verbalize their feelings of affec- tion for most other people. Feminine socialization encourages many women to verbal- ize inner feelings.

Power The third aspect of relationship-level meaning is power. We use verbal com- munication to defi ne dominance and to negotiate status and infl uence. Men typically exceed women in efforts to establish control over others. Research has shown that men are more likely than women to exert control verbally by controlling conversa- tions, having the last word, interrupting, and correcting others (DeFrancisco, 1991). People in positions of power in organizations often express control with authorita- tive statements such as, “That’s how it’s going to be” and “I’ve heard all I want to hear.” Like many aspects of communication, the power dimension of relationship meaning is infl uenced by culture. Western cultures tend to favor competitiveness and overt displays of power more than many other cultures. For example, in nego- tiations Japanese tend to understate their initial position, stress areas of agreement with other negotiators, and work to avoid failure, or loss of face, for any of the nego- tiators. This is quite different from American negotiating tendencies, such as over- stating initial positions to appear strong, being adversarial, and trying to make sure they win and other negotiators lose (Weiss, 1987).

Summing up, we use language to defi ne and evaluate phenomena, organize experi- ences, think hypothetically, self-refl ect, and defi ne relationships and interaction. Each of these abilities helps us create meaning in our personal, professional, and social relationships.

Guidelines for Eff ective Verbal Communication Because language is arbitrary, abstract, and ambiguous, the potential for misunder- standing always exists. In addition, individual and cultural differences foster varying interpretations of language. Although we can’t completely eliminate misunderstand- ings, we can minimize them by following four guidelines for using verbal communica- tion effectively.

Engage in Person-Centered Communication The single most important guideline for using language effectively is to be per- son-centered in your communication. Recall from Chapters 1 and 3 that person- centered communication is adapted to specifi c, unique individuals with whom we interact. Effective communicators are aware of other people and their perspectives, and this awareness is refl ected in the talk of effective communicators (Muehlhoff, 2006). When I talk with colleagues about communication theories, I use language that is specialized and incomprehensible to people who aren’t specialists. When I talk with undergraduate students about the same theories, I adapt my language to students’ experiences and knowledge. Medical doctors need highly specialized

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 87

vocabularies to discuss medical problems with other doctors, but they should trans- late that vocabulary into ordinary language when talking with patients. In public presentations, speakers adapt their language to the knowledge and attitudes of lis- teners. If listeners already favor what a speaker advocates, the speaker can use more impassioned language than if listeners are opposed to what he or she advocates. Person-centered communicators try to understand and adapt to the perspectives of listeners.

Be Aware of Levels of Abstraction We can reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings by being conscious of levels of abstraction. Much confusion results from language that is excessively abstract. For instance, a professor says, “Your papers should demonstrate a sophisticated conceptual grasp of material and its pragmatic implications.” Would you know how to write a paper to satisfy the professor? Probably not, because the language is so abstract that it is hard to fi gure out what the professor wants. Here’s a more concrete description: “Your papers should include defi nitions of the concepts and specifi c examples that show how they apply to your personal life.” This second statement offers a clearer explanation of what the professor expects.

Abstract language is not always inadvisable. The goal is to use a level of abstrac- tion that suits particular communication objectives and situations. Abstract words are appropriate when speakers and listeners have similar knowledge about what is being discussed. For example, long-term friends can say, “Let’s just hang out” and understand the activities implied by the abstract term hang out. More-concrete language is useful when communicators don’t have shared experiences and inter- pretations. For example, early in a friendship the suggestion to hang out would be more effective if it included specifi cs: “Let’s hang out today—maybe watch the game and go out for pizza.” Abstract language may also be useful when a commu- nicator wants to create strategic ambiguity, in which meaning is not crystal clear. Politicians routinely use abstract language because it allows them to claim later that what they are saying is consistent with the strategically ambiguous statements made earlier.

Although abstract language is appropriate in some situations, it often contributes to misunderstandings. For example, online communication is easily misunderstood because it lacks many of the nonverbal cues that clarify meaning, and it is often condensed into phrases and incomplete thoughts. Abstract language may also pro- mote misunderstandings when people talk about changes they want in one another. For example, “I want you to show more initiative in your work” could mean that the person who is speaking wants the other person to work more hours, take on new projects, or seek less direction from supervisors. Vague abstractions promote misunderstanding when people don’t share concrete referents for the abstract terms they use.

Qualify Language Another strategy for increasing the clarity of communication is to qualify language. Two types of language require qualifi cation. First, we should qualify generalizations so that we don’t mislead ourselves or others into mistaking a general statement for an absolute one. “Politicians are crooked” is a false statement because it is overly general.

88 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

A more accurate statement would be, “A number of politicians have been shown to be dishonest.” Qualifying reminds us that our perceptions are tied to specifi c times, places, and circumstances.

We should also qualify language when describing and evaluating people. A static evaluation is an assessment that suggests that something is unchanging. Static evalu- ations are particularly troublesome when applied to people: “Ann is selfi sh,” “Don is irresponsible,” “Vy is rude.” Whenever we use the word is, we suggest that something is fi xed. In reality, we aren’t static but continually changing. A person who is selfi sh at one time may be generous at other times. A person who is irresponsible on one occa- sion may be responsible in different situations. Ken’s commentary illustrates that static evaluations can be both inaccurate and irritating.

KEN Parents are the worst for static evaluations. When I fi rst got my license 7 years ago, I had a fender

bender and then got a speeding ticket. Since then, I’ve had a perfect record, but you’d never know it

from what they say. Dad’s always calling me “hot rodder,” and Mom goes through this safety spiel

every time I get ready to drive somewhere. You’d think I was the same now as when I was 16.

One technique for qualifying language is to index words. Indexing is a technique to remind us that our evaluations apply only to specifi c times and circumstances (Korzybski, 1948). To index, we would say “Ann June 6, 1997 acted selfi shly,” “Don on the task committee was irresponsible,” and “Vyin college was rude.” See how indexing ties description to a specifi c time and circumstance? Mental indexing reminds us that we and others are able to change in remarkable ways.

Own Your Feelings and Th oughts We often use verbal language in ways that obscure our responsibility for how we feel, think, and act. For instance, people say, “You made me mad,” “You hurt me,” or “You made me do that,” as if what they felt or did were caused by someone else. When a person says, “You’re so demanding,” the person really means that she or he feels pressured by what someone else wants or expects. Feeling pressured is that person’s response. Although others can infl uence us, they seldom actually determine how we feel. Our feelings and thoughts result from how we interpret others’ communication. Although how we interpret what others say may lead us to feel certain ways, it is our interpretation, not others’ communication, that guides our responses.

In certain contexts, such as abusive relationships, others may powerfully shape how we think and feel. Yet even in these extreme situations, we need to remember that we, not others, are responsible for our feelings. We can disapprove of what oth- ers do without surrendering control of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Telling others they make you feel some way is also likely to arouse defensiveness, which doesn’t facilitate healthy personal or professional relationships. Effective communi- cators take responsibility for themselves by using language that owns their thoughts and feelings. They claim their feelings and do not blame others for what happens within themselves.

To take responsibility for your feelings, rely on I-language, not you-language. I-language identifi es the speaker’s or perceiver’s thoughts and feelings, whereas

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 89

you-language attributes intentions and motives onto another person. Figure 4.4 gives examples of I- and you-language.

There are two differences between I-language and you-language. First, I-statements own responsibility, whereas you-statements project it onto another per- son. Second, I-statements are more descrip- tive than you-statements. You-statements tend to be accusations that are abstract and unspecifi c. This is one reason that you-language is ineffective in promoting change. I-statements provide concrete descriptions of behaviors without holding the other per- son responsible for how we feel.

Some people feel awkward when they fi rst start using I-language. This is natural because most of us have learned to rely on you-language. With commitment and prac- tice, however, you can learn to communicate using I-language. Once you feel comfort- able using it, you will fi nd I-language has many advantages. First, it is less likely than you-language to make others defensive, so I-language opens the doors for dialogue. Second, I-language is more honest. We deceive ourselves when we say, “You make me feel . . .” because oth- ers don’t control how we feel. Finally, I-language is more empowering than you-language. When we say, “You did this” or “You made me feel that,” we give control of our emotions, thoughts, and actions to others. This reduces our personal power and our motivation to change what is happening. Using I-language allows you to own your feelings while also explaining to others how you interpret their behaviors.

Learning to Use I-Language

For the next 24 hours, pay attention to instances in which you use you- language. Catch yourself saying, “You made me angry,” “You’re being pushy,” or engaging in other uses of you-language. Whenever you do so, change your language to I-language: “I feel angry when you . . . ” or “I feel pressured when you . . .” Do your thoughts and feelings about what is happening change when you substitute I-language for you-language?

g to Use I Language

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

CHAPTER 4 ENGAGING IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 89

You-Language I-Language

You hurt me. I feel hurt when you ignore what I say.

You’re really domineering. When you shout, I feel dominated.

You humiliated me. I felt humiliated when you mentioned my problems in front of your friends.

Figure 4.4 I- AND YOU-LANGUAGE

Summary In this chapter, we’ve explored the nature and power of verbal communication. Verbal symbols shape who we are, what we do, and what our experiences mean. Because they are arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract, words do not have objective concrete meanings. Instead, their signifi - cance refl ects our life experiences and the views of the culture and the social groups to which we belong.

To create meaning with language and to interact with others, we follow rules of communication, and we punctu- ate interaction. As we have seen, regulative rules specify

when, where, with whom, and how we communicate ver- bally. In addition, we follow constitutive rules, which defi ne the meanings of specifi c forms of verbal commu- nication within particular social groups. A fi nal aspect of creating the meaning of communication is punctuation of the beginnings and endings of interactions.

The ability to use language allows us to create mean- ing. By defi ning, evaluating, and classifying phenomena, language allows us to order our experiences and feelings. In addition, we use language to think hypothetically, to

90 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

self-refl ect, and to defi ne relationships and interactions. Our ability to use symbols is a key part of the founda- tion of communication and human life. We increase the effectiveness of our verbal communication when we are person-centered and conscious of levels of abstraction,

as well as own our thoughts and feelings, and when we qualify language appropriately. In Chapter 5, we’ll see how nonverbal communication complements and extends verbal communication by allowing us to create meaning.

Review, Refl ect, Extend The Key Concepts, For Further Refl ection and Discussion questions, Recommended Resources, and Experience Communication Case Study that follow will help you review, refl ect on, and extend the infor- mation and ideas presented in this chapter. These resources, and a diverse selection of additional study tools, are also available online at the Premium Website

for Communication Mosaics. Your Premium Website includes a student workbook, interactive video activities, a book companion website, Speech Builder Express, and InfoTrac College Edition. For more information or to access this book’s online resources, visit www.cengage. com/login.

abstract, 73 ambiguous, 71 arbitrary, 70 brute facts, 74 communication rules, 76 constitutive rules, 76 hypothetical thought, 82 I, 84 I-language, 88 indexing, 88 institutional facts, 74

loaded language, 81 me, 84 nonverbal communication, 70 punctuation, 77 reappropriation, 81 regulative rules, 76 static evaluation, 88 symbol, 70 totalizing, 80 verbal communication, 70 you-language, 88

KEY CONCEPTS

1. To appreciate the importance of symbolic capacities, imagine the following: living only in the present without memories or hopes and plans; thinking only in terms of literal reality, not what might be; and having no broad classifi cations to organize experience. With others in the class, discuss how your life would be different without the symbolic abilities discussed in this chapter.

2. In the chapter, we learned that language names experiences and that language is continuously evolving. Can you think of experiences, feelings, or other phenomena for which we don’t yet have names? What is a good term to describe someone with whom you have a serious romance? Boyfriend and girlfriend no longer work for many people.

Do you prefer signifi cant other, romantic partner, special friend, or another term?

3. Visit chat rooms and online forums and notice the screen names that people use. How do the names people create for themselves shape perceptions of their identities? What screen names do you use? Why did you choose them?

4. The national Student Voices Project was created in 2000 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Over the years, it has been launched in multiple cities. Learn more about this project by going to the book’s online resources for this chapter and clicking on WebLink 4.3. See if there are contributors from your state or even your school.

FOR FURTHER REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

12 PART I COMMUNICATION CAREERS AND FOUNDATIONS

DAVID

As an African American male, I sometimes feel as though I am a dash of pepper on top of a mountain of salt. I have attended many classes where I was the only African American out of 50 or even 100 students. In these classes, the feeling of judgment is cast down upon me for being diff erent. Usually what I learn about is not “people,” like the course says, but white people. Until I took a communication course, the only classes that included research and information on African Americans were in the African American curriculum. This bothered me because white Americans are not the entire world.

Luanne was a student in one of my courses, and David wrote to me after taking a basic communication course at a college in the western United States. Luanne’s refl ec- tion shows that she is aware of the importance of understanding the communication of people from cultures that differ from her own. David’s comment illustrates the impor-

tance of weaving diversity into the study of communication. The FYI box on this page further highlights the importance of under- standing diverse people in order to communi- cate effectively in our changing society.

Communication, then, is important for personal, relationship, professional, and civic life. Because communication is a cornerstone of human experience, your decision to study it will serve you well.

Defi ning Communication We’ve been using the word communication for many pages, but we haven’t yet defi ned it clearly. Communication is a systemic process in which people interact with and through symbols to create and interpret meanings. Let’s unpack this defi nition by explaining its four key terms.

Process Communication is a process, which means that it is ongoing and dynamic. It’s hard to tell when communication starts and stops, because what happens before we talk with someone may infl uence our interaction, and what occurs in a particular encounter may

U.S. Demographics in the 21st Century

The United States is home to a wide range of people with diverse ethnic, racial, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. And the proportions of diff erent groups are changing. Currently, one in three U.S. residents is a minority. By 2050 more than one in two U.S. residents will be a minority, and by 2050 non-Hispanic whites will be a minority. The following shifts in the ethnic makeup of the United States are predicted to take place between 2005 and 2050 (“Demographics,” 2009; Roberts, 2008):

2008 2050

African Americans 13% 13%

Asians 4% 8%

Caucasians 66% 46%

Hispanics (of any race) 15% 30%

Other 3% 5%

The Multicultural Pavilion provides an excellent bibliography for those who want to learn more about multiculturalism. To access this site, go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 1.4.

DIVERSITY fyi

CHAPTER 1 A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION 13

affect the future. That communication is a process means it is always in motion, mov- ing forward and changing continually.

Systems Communication takes place within systems. A system consists of interrelated parts that affect one another. In family communication, for instance, each family member is part of the system (Galvin, Dickson, & Marrow, 2006). The physical environment and the time of day also are elements of the system. People interact differently in a living room and on a beach, and we may be more alert at certain times of day than at others. The history of a system also affects communication. If a workplace team has a history of listening sensitively and working out problems constructively, then when someone says, “There’s something we need to talk about,” the others are unlikely to become defensive. Conversely, if the team has a record of nasty confl icts and bickering, the same comment might arouse strong defensiveness.

Because the parts of a system are interdependent and continually interact, a change in any part of a system changes the entire system. When a new person joins a team, he or she brings new perspectives that, in turn, may alter how other team members work. The team develops new patterns of interaction, subgroups realign, and team performance changes. The interrelatedness of a system’s parts is particularly evident in intercultural communication. When a corporation moves its operations to a new country, transformations affect everything from daily interaction on the factory fl oor to corporate culture.

Systems are not collections of random parts, but organized wholes. For this rea- son, a system operates as a totality of interacting elements. A family is a system, or totality, of interacting elements that include family members, their physical loca- tions, their jobs and schools, and so forth. Before systems theory was developed, therapists who worked with disturbed members of families often tried to “fi x” the person who supposedly was causing problems for the family. Thus, alcoholics might be separated from their families and given therapy to reduce the motivation to drink or to increase the desire not to drink. Often, however, the alcoholic resumed drink- ing shortly after rejoining the family because the behavior of the “problem person” was shaped by the behaviors of other family members and other elements of the family system.

In a similar manner, organizations sometimes send managers to leadership train- ing programs but do not provide training for the manager’s subordinates. When the manager returns to the offi ce and uses the new leadership techniques, subordinates are distrustful and resistant. They were accustomed to the manager’s former style, and they haven’t been taught how to deal with the new style of leadership.

Because systems are organized wholes, they are more than simple combina- tions of parts. As families, groups, organizations, and societies evolve, they discard old patterns, generate new patterns, lose some members, and gain new members. When new topics are introduced on blogs, new bloggers join, old ones leave, and patterns of communication are reconfi gured. Personal relationships grow beyond the two original parts (partners) to include trust or lack of trust, shared experiences, and private vocabularies. Systems include not only their original parts but also changes in those original elements and new elements that are created as a result of interaction.

14 PART I COMMUNICATION CAREERS AND FOUNDATIONS

Systems vary in how open they are. Openness is the extent to which a system affects and is affected by outside factors and processes. Some tribal communities are relatively closed systems that have little interaction with the world outside. Yet most cultures are fairly open to interaction with other cultures. This is increasingly true today as more and more people immigrate from one culture to another and as people travel more frequently and to more places. The more open the system, the more factors infl uence it. Mass media and communication technologies expand the openness of most societ- ies and thus the infl uences on them and their ways of life.

A fi nal point about systems is that they strive for but cannot sustain equilibrium. Systems seek a state of equilibrium, or homeostasis. That’s why families create rou- tines, organizations devise policies and procedures, individuals develop habits, groups generate norms, online communities develop conventions and abbreviations, and cul- tures generate rituals and traditions.

Yet no living system can sustain absolute balance or equilibrium. Change is inevi- table and continuous. Sometimes, it’s abrupt (a company moves all of its operations to a new country); at other times, it’s gradual (a company begins to hire people from different cultures). Sometimes, infl uences outside a system prompt change (legislation affects importing and exporting in other countries). In other cases, the system generates change internally (an organization decides to alter its marketing targets). To function and survive, members of the system must continually adjust and change.

Communication is also affected by the larger systems within which it takes place. For example, different cultures have distinct understandings of appropriate verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Many Asian cultures place a high value on saving face, so Asians try not to cause personal embarrassment to others by disagreeing overtly. It is inappropriate to perceive people from Asian cultures as passive if they don’t assert themselves in the ways that many Westerners do. Arab cultures consider it normal for people to be nearer to one another when talking than most Westerners fi nd com- fortable. And in Bulgaria, head nods mean “no” rather than “yes” (Munter, 1993). Different regions of the same country may also have different ways of communicat- ing—Steve makes this point in his commentary. Even within a single culture, there are differences based on region, ethnicity, religion, and other factors. Therefore, to interpret communication, we have to consider the systems in which it takes place. In Chapter 8, we’ll discuss different communication practices in diverse cultural contexts.

STEVE

It took me a long time to get used to Southerners. I’m from the Midwest and there we don’t chat everybody up like Southerners do. We talk if we have something to say, but we don’t talk just to talk. When I fi rst moved here, I thought most of the people I met were real busybodies because people I hardly knew would say things like “you should come to my church” or “mark your calendar for the supper to raise money for schools” like I wanted to go to those. Then I started dating a girl who was born near here and she “decoded” Southern culture for me. She explained that “you should come” is not a command, which is what it sounded like to me, but an invitation because Southerners want to be hospitable and include everyone. She also told me I was being perceived as very standoffi sh because I didn’t chat back like Southerners do.

CHAPTER 1 A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION 15

Symbols Communication is symbolic. We don’t have direct access to one another’s thoughts and feelings. Instead, we rely on symbols, which are abstract, arbitrary, and ambiguous representations of other things. We might symbolize love by giving a ring, by saying “I love you,” or by closely embracing someone. A promotion might be symbolized by a new title and a larger offi ce (and a raise!). Later in this chapter and also in Chapter 4, we’ll have more to say about symbols. For now, just remember that human communi- cation involves interaction with and through symbols.

Meanings Finally, our defi nition focuses on meanings, which are at the heart of communication. Refl ecting on the evolution of the communication discipline, distinguished scholar Bruce Gronbeck (1999) notes that the fi eld has moved increasingly toward a meaning- centered view of human communication. Meanings are the signifi cance we bestow on phenomena, or what they signify to us. We do not fi nd meanings in experience itself. Instead, we use symbols to create meanings. We ask others to be sounding boards so we can clarify our thinking, fi gure out what things mean, enlarge our perspectives, check our perceptions, and label feelings to give them reality. In all these ways, we actively construct meaning by interacting with symbols.

Communication has two levels of meaning (Pinker, 2008; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). The content level of meaning contains the literal message. If a per- son knocks on your door and asks, “May I come in?” the content-level meaning is that the person is asking your permission to enter. The relationship level of meaning expresses the relationship between communicators. In our example, if the person who asks, “May I come in?” is your friend and is smiling, you would probably conclude that the person is seeking friendly interaction. But if the person is your supervisor and speaks in an angry tone, you might interpret the relationship-level meaning as a sig- nal that your supervisor is not satisfi ed with your work and is going to call you on the carpet. The content-level meaning is the same in both examples, but the relationship- level meaning differs.

In many cases, the relationship level of meaning is more important than the con- tent level. The relationship level of meaning often expresses a desire to connect with another person (Gottman & DeClaire, 2001). For example, this morning Robbie said to me, “I’ve got a late meeting today, so I won’t be home until 6 or so.” The content-level meaning is obvious— Robbie is informing me of his sched- ule. The relationship-level meaning, however, is the more important mes- sage that Robbie wants to stay con- nected with me and is aware that we usually have catch-up conversation around 5 p.m. each day. The content level of meaning of instant messages (IMs) is often mundane, even trivial: <waz up?> <not much here. U?> On

Noticing Levels of Meaning in Communication

The next time you talk with a close friend, notice both levels of meaning.

What is the content-level meaning? %

To what extent are liking, responsiveness, and power expressed on % the relationship level of meaning?

f Meaning in Communication

SHARPE N YOUR SKILL

16 PART I COMMUNICATION CAREERS AND FOUNDATIONS

the relationship level of meaning, however, this exchange express interest and a desire to stay in touch (Carl, 2006). The Sharpen Your Skill box on the previous page invites you to pay attention to both levels of communication in your interactions.

Models of Communication To complement the defi nition of communication we have just discussed, we’ll now con- sider models of the human communication process. Over the years, scholars in com- munication have developed a number of models that refl ect increasingly sophisticated understandings of the communication process.

Linear Models Harold Laswell (1948) advanced an early model that described communication as a linear, or one-way, process in which one person acts on another person. This is also called a transmission model because it assumes that communication is transmitted in a straightforward manner from a sender to a receiver. His was a verbal model consisting of fi ve questions that described early views of how communication works:

Who?

Says what?

In what channel?

To whom?

With what effect?

Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949) refi ned Laswell’s model by adding the concept of noise. Noise is anything that interferes with the intended meaning of communication. Noises may distort understanding. Figure 1.1 shows Shannon and Weaver’s model. Although linear, or transmission, models such as these were useful starting points, they are too simplistic to capture the complexity of human communication.

Interactive Models The major shortcoming of the early models was that they portrayed communication as fl owing in only one direction, from a sender to a receiver (Gronbeck, 1999). The lin-

ear model suggests that a person is only a sender or a receiver and that receivers passively absorb senders’ messages. Clearly, this isn’t how communication occurs.

When communication theorists realized that listeners respond to senders, they added feedback to their models. Feedback is a response to a message. It may be verbal or nonverbal, and it

Information source

Sender Message Receiver

Message Message

ReceiverTransmitter

Signal Receivedsignal

Destination

Noise source

Figure 1.1 THE LINEAR MODEL OF COMMUNICATION Source: Adapted from Shannon & Weaver, 1949.

CHAPTER 1 A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION 17

may be intentional or unintentional. Wilbur Schramm (1955) depicted feedback as a second kind of mes- sage. In addition, Schramm pointed out that communicators create and interpret messages within personal fi elds of experience. The more com- municators’ fi elds of experience over- lap, the better they understand each other.

Adding fi elds of experience to mod- els clarifi es why misunderstandings sometimes occur. You jokingly put down a friend, and he takes it seriously and is hurt. You offer to help someone, and she feels patronized. Adding fi elds of experience and feedback allowed Schramm and other communication scholars to develop models that portray communication as an interactive process in which both senders and receivers participate actively (Figure 1.2).

Transactional Models Although an interactive model was an improvement over the linear one, it still didn’t capture the dynamism of human communication. The interactive model portrays com- munication as a sequential process in which one person communicates to another, who then sends feedback to the fi rst person. Yet people may communicate simultaneously instead of taking turns. Also, the interactive model designates one person as a sender and another person as a receiver. In reality, communicators both send and receive messages. While handing out a press release, a public relations representative watches reporters to gauge their interest. The “speaker” is listening; the “listeners” are sending messages.

A fi nal shortcoming of the interactive model is that it doesn’t portray communica- tion as changing over time as a result of what happens between people. For example, new employees are more reserved in conversations with co-workers than they are after months on the job, getting to know others and organizational norms. What they talk about and how they interact change over time. To be accurate, a model should include the feature of time and should depict communication as varying, not constant. Figure 1.3 is a transactional model that highlights the features we have discussed.

Consistent with what we’ve covered in this chapter, our model includes noise that can distort communication. Noise includes sounds, such as a lawn mower or background chatter, as well as interferences within communica- tors, such as biases and preoccupa- tion, that hinder effective listening. In addition, our model emphasizes that communication is a continually

Message

Encoder Source

Decoder

Decoder Receiver Encoder

Field of experience Field of experience

Feedback

Figure 1.2 THE INTERACTIVE MODEL OF COMMUNICATION Source: Adapted from Schramm, 1955.

Contexts

Communicator A’s field of experience

Communicator A

Communicator B

Communicator B’s field of experience

Shared field of

experience

Symbolic interactions Time ...Time1 n

Contexts

Time Time

Figure 1.3 A TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF COMMUNICATION Source: Adapted from Wood, 1997, p. 21.

18 PART I COMMUNICATION CAREERS AND FOUNDATIONS

changing process. How people communicate varies over time and in response to their history of relating.

The outer lines on our model emphasize that communication occurs within systems that affect what and how people communicate and what meanings they create. Those systems, or contexts, include the shared systems of the communicators (campus, town, culture) and the personal systems of each communicator (family, religious associations, friends). Also note that our model, unlike previous ones, por- trays each person’s fi eld of experience and his or her shared fi elds of experience as changing over time. As we encounter new people and grow personally, we alter how we interact with others.

Finally, our model doesn’t label one person a sender and the other a receiver. Instead, both are defi ned as communicators who participate

equally, and often simultaneously, in the communication process. This means that at a given moment in communication, you may be sending a message (speaking or wrin- kling your brow), listening to a message, or doing both at the same time (interpreting what someone says while nodding to show you are interested). To understand com- munication as a transactional process is to recognize that self and others are involved in a shared process: Communication is we-oriented (How can we understand each other? How can we work through this confl ict?) rather than me-oriented (This is what I mean. This is what I want.) (Lafasto & Larson, 2001).

In summary, the most accurate model of communication represents it as a transac- tional process in which people interact with and through symbols over time to create meaning.

Careers in Communication Now that you understand what communication is, you may be wondering what kinds of careers are open to people with strong backgrounds in the discipline. As we’ve seen, communication skills are essential to success in most fi elds. In addition, people who major in communication are particularly equipped for certain careers.

Research Communication research is a vital and growing fi eld of work. Many faculty mem- bers combine teaching and research. In this book, you’ll encounter a good deal of academic research that helps us understand how communication works—or fails to work.

In addition to academic research, communication specialists help organizations by studying processes such as message production and marketing (Morreale & Vogl,

e N ew

Yo rk

er Co

lle ct

io n 2

00 2 M

ike Tw

oh y f

ro m

ca rto

on ba

nk .co

m . A

ll r ig

ht s r

es er

ve d.

blog6

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.