“We’re both speaking English, so why don’t you get it?”

1. PACRAO 2008 Jearlene LeishmanAssistant Registrar Brigham Young University “We’re both speaking English, so why don’t you get it?”

2. “Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work,” Deborah Tannen, 1994 “That’s Not What I Meant,” Deborah Tannen, 1986 “Gender and Discourse,” Deborah Tannen, 1994 “Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide,” Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, 2003 References

3. “Many of our motives, so obvious to us, are never perceived by the people we talk to. Many instances of rudeness, stubbornness, inconsiderateness, or refusal to cooperate are really caused by difference in conversational style.” That’s Not What I Meant, Deborah Tannen, 1986, p. 26-27. “And in interpreting what others say, we assume they mean what we would mean if we said the same thing in the same way. If we don’t think about differences in conversational style, we see no reason to question this. Nor do we question whether what we perceive as considerate or inconsiderate, loving or not, was intended to be so.” That’s Not What I Meant,Deborah Tannen, 1986, p. 40.

4. Direct – Indirect Literal – Convention

5. “That’s Not What I Meant,” Deborah Tannen, 1986, p.79-81 Why can’t we just say what we mean? Why is so much communication indirect, hinted at metamessages, picked up in tones of voice and glimpsed in facial expressions instead of confronted head on and clearly stated in words? First, there is a payoff in rapport. It is far better to get what we want, to be understood, without saying what we mean. It makes us feel the fine pleasure of being on the same wave length. This is the pleasure of those magical conversations when we just say a few words—or no words at all—and feel completely understood. It’s the communication jackpot…. Second, there is a payoff in self-defense. If what we want or think does not meet with a positive response, we can take it back, or claim—perhaps sincerely—that that’s not what we meant. The payoffs of indirectness in rapport and self-defense correspond to the two basic dynamics that motivate communication: the coexisting and conflicting human needs for involvement and independence. Since any show of involvement is a threat to independence, and any show of independence is a threat to involvement, indirectness is the life raft of communication, a way to float on top of a situation instead of plunging in with nose pinched and coming up blinking.

6. Through indirectness, we give others an idea of what we have in mind, testing the interactional waters before committing too much—a natural way of balancing our needs with the needs of others. Rather than blurt out ideas and let them fall where they may, we send out feelers, get a sense of others’ ideas and their potential reactions to ours, and shape our thoughts as we go. The beauty and pitfalls of language are two sides of the same coin. A word spoken, a small gesture can have meaning far beyond its literal sense. But subtle signals can be missed, and meaning can be gleaned that wasn’t intended and that may or may not be valid. Our power to communicate so much by so few words inevitably entails the danger of miscommunication. If others respond oddly to things we say, we may wish to try stating our intentions more directly in some situations. And knowing that others are often indirect, or for reasons of conversational style may not mean what we heard them say, we may, in some situations and with some others, ask for clarification. But we must realize that some people will feel challenged if their meaning is questioned, and any attempt to talk about ways of talking will make some people uncomfortable. So the most important thing is simply to bear in mind that the occurrence of misunderstandings is natural and normal, not a sign that there’s something wrong with someone or with the relationship.

7. Involvement – Imposing

8. Fast – SlowOver talking – Interrupting

9. Formal – Informal

10. Involvement – Independence

11. Negotiation Examples

12. Recognize there are different styles • Assume the best intent from others • Ask for clarification • Attempt to use/understand another style • Step outside the interaction and be an observer

13. No style is “better” than another Any conversation style works just fine as long as all parties are using the same style – problems only occur when there are differences in styles

14. “Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work,” Deborah Tannen, 1994 “That’s Not What I Meant,” Deborah Tannen, 1986 “Gender and Discourse,” Deborah Tannen, 1994 “Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide,” Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, 2003 “Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office,” Lois P. Frankel, 2004. “The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue,” Deborah Tannen, 1998 Recommended Reading