>>> Item number 19175 from WRITERS LOG9310C --- (396 records) ---- <<< Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 18:00:04 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: BOOK SUMMARY: Genderspeak (1) [These are my notes about a book that impressed me very much. While some parts are a bit disjointed and lengthy as a result, I hope you'll take the time to look at some of the tools and bits and pieces I collected, then read the book. I expect to read it several times.] GENDERSPEAK: Men, Women, and the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph.D. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1993 Not long ago someone asked about books that inspire us. I would like to add this one to that list. Despite the title, at base this is not a book about sexism. Instead, it is a remarkably clear and well-thought out approach to using linguistic tools, specifically in response to verbal aggression. The examples are oriented towards some of the currently popular sexual interactions, but the tools are not. Frankly, I strongly recommend this book for two reasons. One is to learn to recognize and deal with verbal aggression (maybe we can cut down on the flame wars!). The other is that your stories will profit - you will understand better what verbal aggression is, how to portray it, and how to make it real for your readers. Think of it as a graduate course in dialogue writing. A key part of the book is a continuing scenario, providing a "real life" background for the points discussed, and many sample dialogues and examples. One way anyone could use the book in their writing is to take one of the examples and expand on it, build the scene and the characters into a fuller exercise. Some tools from the book... for details and additional material, read the book! (Dr. Elgin has given permission for me to summarize the book and excerpt several sections for our workshop.) 1. Miller's Law Miller's Law (paraphrased) To understand what someone says, assume it is true, then try to imagine what would make it true. (in other words, start with the assumption that the other speaker is making a rational statement from their point of view - then figure out what that point of view is). This is the key point which is so often lost in conversations, especially angry ones. The other person (or persons) believes that they are making sensible statements. To understand them, try to figure out what assumptions, conditions, background, etc. would make the statements true. 2. Reality gaps and Semantic Features Reality gaps are the "holes" between two (or more) people's use of a word. Semantic features are characteristics associated with a term - the shape of the pigeonhole, if you will. To deal with reality gaps, identify the semantic features being used by each. Then focus on the difference. For example, studies have shown that American Middle-class English (AME) speakers have the following semantic features for violence - force, intense, deliberate, and negative. However, most male speakers add the semantic feature avoidable, while most female speakers add the semantic feature harmful. This implies that while often there will be agreement about something being violent, at times something will fall in the gap. For example, a man might see something as nonviolent because it was unavoidable, while a woman looks at the same action and considers it violent and harmful. Arguing over whether the action was REALLY violent or not may simply result in frustration. Another word which seems to have sex-related sets of semantic features include games (and related terms). Most AME women add the feature "trivial." Similarly, "lie", for AME men, includes the feature "harmful," although most women do not include this feature. Thus, for example, joking about a topic for men ordinarily does NOT mean it is unimportant, even while many women feel joking trivializes an important subject. Or men will happily discuss a business strategy based on "shading the truth" while the women gasp at such blatant "lying." Another key to handling these gaps is focusing on reality statements - X is a ...; You see X when ...; X results from ...; X causes ...; objective, externally verifiable statements. When someone who is normally sane suddenly seems to be talking nonsense - check for reality gaps. 3. Presuppositions and "trojan horse" words Language contains many hidden presuppositions. Some of the words embodying these are "trojan horses". E.g., "admit" presupposes unsavory, illegal, immoral, etc. "manage to" presupposes machiavellian contortions and lengthy work to make the result happen. "humoring" presupposes that the action being referred to is childish. Thus, "why don't you admit you're wrong?" is an invitation to mayhem. "How did you manage that?" summons the ghost of Moriarty and Machiavelli. "Just humor him" is a reasonable way to handle some of my outbursts... but many people aren't happy being relegated to the playroom again. 4. Body Language "Any words can have their meaning cancelled by body language - but not vice versa." p. 63 Rapport - a much misused term. part of it is body language, which includes and is perhaps expressed best in tone of voice. Note: the AME admired pitch is low, rich, clear, without much "dynamism" in terms of fast, wide changes in pitch. This almost automatically is biased against female speakers, unless they are careful. Can we improve body language skills (including tone of voice)? Yes. First, pay attention - observe what is going on at this level. Learn the baseline for an individual, and watch for deviations that indicate stress. Second, to improve performance skills, try simultaneous modelling - repeat together with model (voice, actions, etc.) Experimentation has shown that simultaneous modelling is more effective than other methods (e.g. repeat after the model). "When words ... and body language don't match, believe the body." p.72 Some "power plays" in speaking 1. pause (to smoke, etc.) in midsentence. 2. interrupting the speaker 3. aggressive comments about behavior 4. open commands 5. eye contact 6. relax, arms crossed, deliberate voice (presumptive victor?) Note that the body language of language as sport is quite different from the body language of language as combat, although there are relationships. "Women (and children of both genders) dislike male verbal teasing intensely." p. 77 [I would be happy for anyone to explain this a little bit more to me - I have the feeling I'm guilty...] One form of aggression - talking about someone as if they were not present. This is often used with elderly and children. 5. Satir Modes Satir Modes - when tense, most people "lock" into one of these modes of exchange. 1. Blame - hostility, anger, heavy use of personal pronouns (I, you), strong stresses, heavy use of absolutes, body threats (this mode tends to be used by dominants - while words and body language indicate power, the core of this mode is often weakness) 2. Placate - please?, heavy use of personal pronouns (tends to be used by subordinates - while words and body language indicate that I don't care, the core of this mode is often excessive caring) 3. Compute - flat, abstract, neutral (overtly lacking in emotion, actually hiding emotion) 4. Distract - cycles through other modes (overtly lots to say, actually panicking) 5. Level - null, simple interaction (words, body language, and core in harmony) Principle - anything you feed will grow. So once you have identified the Satir mode you are dealing with, if you like it, match it - if you want to reduce, use compute mode. E.g., if you want to really have a fight when someone blames you, blame them back. Otherwise go to cold, impersonal rationality and most people will shift. 6. Sensory Modes Sensory modes - tension again locks most people in their "preferred mode". The three main modes are: 1. Sight - I see what you mean, etc. 2. Hearing - Could you tell me... 3. Touch - I don't feel it yet... The best response to sensory modes is either to match that in use (thus giving yourself the extra authority of "speaking their language") or use neutral terms. 7. Speech Acts Speech Acts - speech consists of content plus act (command, promise, etc.) Some of the tension that arises in communications comes from 1. misperceived act 2. reaction to act instead of content (e.g. most Americans will react strongly to a command, no matter what the content is) 3. doubt about either the speaker or the utterance (mistrust) Complaints are inherently problems for two reasons. First, they imply that the behavior is wrong. Second, they are seen as an implicit (if not explicit) command to change. In place of complaints, Dr. Elgin recommends the three part message. Simply fill in the blanks in "When you X, I feel Y, because Z." X, Y, and Z should be as objective, observable, and verifiable as possible. Y, the "feeling" part of the message, may be hard to make objective, but it should be appropriate, something that others would also feel, and match the body language. Z should always be a real world consequence. 8. Metaphor p. 146 Metaphor, to the linguist, is "any use of language for comparing two different things on the basis of characteristics they share." Also, "Metaphor is the most powerful device available to us for changing people's attitudes quickly, effectively, and lastingly." When a single metaphor permeates a culture or group, we talk of a "unifying metaphor." There are three possible situations: 1. We all speak the same language (everyone shares the metaphor) 2. We all speak the same language, except for ffff. (aware and alert to the fact that someone doesn't share the metaphor - usually willing to translate or help when they have trouble) 3. We all speak the same language, but some of us are nuts (some lack the metaphor, but it is not recognized) One of the critical metaphor mismatches in AME situations is "Football Game" vs "Schoolroom". Some other popular metaphors - the happy family, a proud ship sailing, the old west, the old south. A metaphor is a model of reality, a perceptual filter that shapes how we interpret whatever we are experiencing. When someone acts in a way which is incomprehensible to us, assume that they are acting truthfully, and try to determine what metaphoric filter they are using. E.g., when an explanation of a business strategy (good gamesmanship being to deceive) causes a horrified response of "You're LYING," perhaps the other person is using the "Schoolroom" filter, where anything that is not true is automatically a lie, punishable by being sent to the corner or even to the principal. One way to discover metaphoric filters is called semantic modulation. Step one - assume truth, and identify the behavior that is of concern. Put this half of the metaphor in a sentence "An X is Y", with X being the behavior or element that is of concern. Step two - define situationally important characteristics of X. List a number of important characteristics that X has in this situation. Step three - identify what else, known to the other person and consistent with their observed actions, has these characteristics. [my gloss - you can check your deduction one of two ways. Either make some predictions based on the metaphor you have developed and see if they hold true or ask some people who seem to be using the metaphor.] 9. Language as Traffic - and the Rules of the Road p. 164 A metaphor that is very helpful is "Language is Traffic." Part of the impact of that metaphor is recognition that there are rules, just as there are for road traffic. Some of these include the need for a topic; not interrupting or cutting in; slowing down, stopping, and yielding to other "drivers"; not changing the topic without signalling; and taking turns instead of blocking. For many people, talk is POWER, and they deliberately violate traffic rules to establish their power. However, there are also many violations due to ignorance. The Model Conversation (AME version) 1. A introduces topic, talks three sentences. Others listen. 2. B requests turn (eye contact). A gives it. 3. B talks 3 sentences. Offers turn to C (eye contact). If refused, offers to A. 4. Repeat, until all have had turn or refused it. 5. Whoever has current turn raises new topic, and repeat. 6. If there is an emergency - apologize and explain Only four skills are needed to be "good conversationalists." 1. Introduce topic - not boring, not offensive 2. Support of others a. continue (expand, compare, contrast, etc.) b. link to new topic c. close old topic and start new topic 3. Turn management how to get a turn, keep it, pass the "speaker's baton", accept the "baton", and refuse it. The key methods are eye contact, stopping (pause control), and using names. 4. Emergency handling "sorry to interrupt, but..." Listen! 1. Don't wait for chance to talk 2. Don't let your mind wander 3. Don't double guess 4. Don't reject beforehand 5. Don't rehearse what you are going to say 6. Don't do other work 10. Verbal Attack Patterns (VAPs) [note: this section has numerous examples. you can also analyze our interactions in these terms. be warned! analysis of our interactions can be depressing.] p. 186 Verbal Attack Patterns (VAPs) two parts bait - intended to cause hurt and/or anger the (hidden) attack via presupposition e.g. if you A, you wouldn't B all the time. bait - you B all the time (open attack) presupposed - you don't A (hidden attack) Attacker expects action chains Attacker VAPs victim Victim responds to bait directly, emotionally volley continues Best way to handle 1. Ignore the bait 2. Respond to the presupposition, the hidden attack When did you start to think I don't A? 3. Make sure your response always carries the message "I WON'T PLAY" Often VAPer goes back to bait, tries to return to expected action chain Best response - Boring Baroque Response Their question always asks for information - give it to them, at length. "I think it all started one friday, or maybe it was a wednesday, when I - no, it must have been a monday, I had..." Some other responses Agree with vacuous presuppositions "If you were a friend of mine,..." "Well, isn't it good that I'm not your friend" Offer to go along "You never X..." "Let's go X" 11. Intimate Relations A myth of relationships - Tender Telepathy 1. People who really love each other don't need to talk, they just know 2. If one person wants something and the other would be willing if they knew it - the other not doing it unless asked must be a power play 3. If one has to ask, doing it doesn't count 4. 2 and 3 imply the other doesn't really love Answer - toss the myth and ask. in most cases, the problem is ignorance, not malice. Note: requests can be a problem - since they are so close to commands. one way to smooth the path - use while, after, until presupposition (just like VAP) to hide requests. e.g. while you do X, I'll do Y. even better - while you do X, would you like me to do Y or Z? (allows "illusion of choice" - by telling person to do Y or Z, you have implicitly agreed to do X...) Problem for AME male - conversation is viewed as sport or combat. this makes trust and intimacy talk difficult. Men, in effect, tend to say "will you respect me after linguistic intimacy?" A clue for the ladies - think of the men as "reluctant maidens" 1. Be satisfied with a little at first 2. Don't chase 3. Treat it seriously 4. Don't betray 5. Be gentle 12. Semantic Mapping One method for "checking" semantic terms - semantic mapping 1. write the word in the middle of a page 2. in one color, write words or phrases the word makes you think of around it. use circles and lines to connect up related stuff. 3. in another color, write words or phrases each of the words or phrases that came out of 2. again, use circles and lines to connect up related stuff. 4. compare this map with that of the other person These are some of the tools described. Please take the time to read this book - it may help your writing, and probably will help your life. Either way, it will be worth it. >>> 1 item from WRITERS shipped. (396 total records) >>> 1 item from WRITERS shipped. (396 total records) ------------ <<< Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 0.442 sec Device I/O: 23 Overhead CPU: 0.014 sec Paging I/O: 0 CPU model: 9121 DASD model: 3380