How Americans (Mis) Communicate /5 800 3hak0b/
T
he
recently published book by Professor of Linguistics Deborah TANNEN
«You Just Don't
Understand», became an American best seller. Her
new book, «Conversation From 9 to 5,» about
Americans'
communication during work hours (hence the title) will be published
in October. Excepts from the book, published in «The New York Times»
magazine, have become a sensation in the United States. It turns out
that men and women, superiors and subordinates, tragically, fail
tounderstand
one another's speech signals.
Understatement is a Women's Weapon
The main thesis of Professor Tannen's first took is that men and women (of the same nation and the same language) find it as difficult to understand one another because of the difference in their linguistic code as people of absolutely different cultures and languages.
«John is throwing a party. Do you, want to go?» asks the wife. How should the husband take this: as a «direct» signal (the wife wants to know whether he wants, to go) or as a «concealed» signal (the wife is informing her husband that she wants to go to the party)?
Professor Tannen polled her-students. Seventy-three percent of the polled men understood the phrase as a direct signal, in its literal sense.
Another difference between women's speech and that of men. Women are inclined more often to interrupt someone with exclamations of sympathy of disagreement, remarks, corrections of analogies. This manner is for most women an , encouraging factor denoting heightened friendly interest in what the interlocutor says, concern and sympathy. For most American men this manner is an irritating factor signifying militant incompetence and lack of culture on the part of the female.
Understatement is the Right of the Strong
Straightforwardness lies at the basis of American character, writes the professor, and to most Americans straightforward talk is an indicator of honesty and authority, while hints are associated with dishonesty and lack of confidence.
Professor Tannen justly explains this by the Americans' unfamiliarity with the cultures of other peoples. In Japan, for instance, a boss acting in a typical situation sets a task before his subordinates by simply describing the problem facing him.
American men who are accustomed to direct orders regard directions received in an indirect form as attempts to manipulate them. This way, if the subordinate makes a mistake, he or she could be blamed for interpreting the instruction incorrectly.
But the “indirect” form, argues Professor Tannen, is no more «manipulating» than the way one calls someone to the phone. When we phone and ask, for instance, “Is Alexander at home?” we are sure that, if he is, he will be simply called to the phone. Only a child answers: «He is» and continues to hold the receiver.
The professor's study of «indirect» orders shows that they are more often given by people who have authority and confidence than by weak-willed superiors. When the master enters a room and says: «It is cold here» the servant hastens to light up the stove. But if the servant makes this remark on entering the room, the master will receive it «directly», as a statement that the temperature is low.
The conclusion is that lack of confidence is more often experienced (and deeply concealed) by superiors who give orders.
This is surprisingly confirmed by the practice employed in the U.S. Navy. Professor Tannen tells a story about a naval officer who taught radio operations to young, civilian students during World War II. This time the example with temperature in the room is not fiction. Having entered the class for the first lesson, the seaman remarked: «It is rather hot». The students nodded then- heads. The seaman repeated his remark. «Yes, it is hot indeed,» replied the students, fanning themselves with their copybooks. The seaman had to explain that the statement of fact by a superior in the Navy means not an invitation to discussion but an order. He said: «It is rather hot» for the third time, and the whole class rushed to open the windows.