Elizabeth Stokoe Profile picture
Dec 21, 2021 12 tweets 9 min read Read on X
What evidence is there that “using these 8 common phrases” will “ruin your credibility”?

Answer: Not much.

Why do we create and perpetuate #communication myths? Communication is important, and we don't see enough of how it works “in the wild.”

🧵Thread 1/12
The thread is informed by research in conversation analysis #EMCA

There are other research methods for investigating communication, but not all look at actual humans producing, for instance, those “8 common phrases” in social interaction.

That’s what this thread will do. 2/12
The thread gives examples of the “8 common phrases” being used.

As @DerekEdwards23 says, if data-free assertions (advice, theories, models) don’t account for actual interaction, there’s a problem.

Judge for yourself whether the phrases undermine speaker credibility. 3/12
Phrase 1: "To be honest"

It’s not about 'truth'.

As @DerekEdwards023 & @alefasulo show, it is often about handling “dispreferred” turns (i.e., they appear when we turn down invitations, disagree, criticize, etc.), or to assert sincerity and/or independence. 4/12
Phrase 2: "In my opinion"

The invented examples vary, and are stripped from context (i.e., other turns at talk before and after).

In my data, the phrase is used to claim independence from someone else’s point of view in situations involving a problem. 5/12
Phrase 3: "You may already know this, but"

There’s *lots* of research on how people handle their own and other people’s 'knowledge'.

We typically design our talk in a way that shows we're fitting it to what (we think) others already know (and don't always get it right). 6/12
Phrase 4: "I'm not sure"

This claim is daft.

The “I’m not sures” in the conversations attached should not be ‘eliminated’ (!) since they’re all doing specific things - from reassurance to showing care in mobilizing advice or help. 7/12
Phrase 5: "I could be wrong"

This is another simple generalization doing damage to (and being unlikely to account for) reality, and where removing the context (that is, all the other turns at talk leading up to and following this invented case) exacerbates the problem. 8/12
Phrase 6: "This is probably a stupid question"

The invented case doesn’t ring true.

The phrase is a preface; a disclaimer; very common. It does things like account for asking, or handle a situation where the other party hasn’t (but should) have made something clear, etc. 9/12
Phrase 7: "Just a thought"

Again, the example is odd, and too simplistic to generalize from.

In real data, Speaker A may say “just a thought” after Speaker B has resisted Speaker A’s offer, as a way of minimizing their stake in Speaker B accepting or rejecting it. 10/12
11. Phrase 8: "If you don't mind"

I’m not sure where ‘edgy’ comes from, but there’s some evidence for using the phrase to attend to the potentially delicate nature of a request, as in the examples attached. 11/12
In sum:

Invented (& ‘remembered’) decontextualized examples are not the same as actual interaction. This is a problem for communication guidance and assessment.

If a recommendation does not match the empirical reality of talk, it’s probably not a good recommendation. 🧵12/12.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Elizabeth Stokoe

Elizabeth Stokoe Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LizStokoe

Aug 20, 2023
Does "please" make our talk polite?

Despite being "the magic word", @AndrewChalfoun @gio_rossi_5 @tanya_stivers show in their recent #EMCA conference paper that "please" appears in <10% of actual requests and does *other* things.

It's another #communication myth busted.

🧵 1/8 Abstract: "Any kid knows how to politely ask for something. That requests should properly be made with Please is drilled into the heads of children from a young age, and children as young as two can spontaneously add the "magic" word as an increment to requests that fail to receive a response. In English-speaking cultures, parents routinely encourage this behavior through explicit instruction. Yet, despite the received wisdom, we find that only a small minority of everyday requests are produced with Please—fewer than 10%. Since Please is far from ubiquitous, what contextual f...
2/8

It becomes very clear if/when you listen to and analyse recordings of actual "in the wild" social interaction (the data used in conversation analytic research) that people make their requests sound 'polite', 'pushy', 'tentative', etc., through a variety of words and phrases.
3/8

(...and, btw, despite the enduring nature of such claims in (pop) communication & some psych & linguistics, so-called 'tentative' or 'polite' requests are NOT gendered, as pretty much any #EMCA research on requesting shows - often as an artefact if not the focus...).
Read 8 tweets
Jun 13, 2022
Great to see “signage and ratings”, “awareness”, and “visible assurance” prominent in @RAEngNews @CIBSE recommendations to ensure that the public understands the importance of “good indoor air quality.”

Short 🧵 on exemplar #signage schemes and pilots.

1/8 Image highlighting recommen...
As @CathNoakes writes, 'Scores on the Doors' is an example of such a scheme. 2/8

Between Oct 21-March 22 @IndependentSage and colleagues worked on a project to design, pilot, and evaluate a scheme to convey, in a non-technical way, #ventilation information ('scores / signs on the doors') for rooms, buildings, and venues. 3/8

Report: bit.ly/3CQZ60W
Read 9 tweets
May 4, 2022
I haven’t transcribed Johnson for a while (too😡) but for the records here are his responses to Susanna Reid's questions about #Elsie, which include placing a definitive-sounding "no" after Reid suggests "you can't say anything to help Elsie, can you."

Part 1: Opening question:
Part 2, in which Johnson produces incomplete responses, cut off and abandoned sentences, rushed-through turns, deviations, and stated intentions - but does not provide examples of what Elsie "should cut back on".
Part 3, in which Reid repeats her initial question (at line 47); Johnson repeats his earlier answer (line 49); resists addressing Reid's factual challenges, and ends up placing that "no" at line 65 - he can't say anything to help Elsie because "we" are focusing on supply.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 3, 2022
What can we learn from the #language of “living with covid”?

We wrote about the origins of “living with it”; how it became associated with Covid-19, and how – like other idiomatic phrases – it closes down discussion (“just live with it!”)

🧵 expands short piece in @bmj_latest Image
2. We searched on @LexisNexisUK for the first use, first use in association with Covid-19, and frequency of use, of twelve variations of ‘living with it’ and ‘learning to live with it’, up to the start of 2022.

It’s clear that ‘live/living’ outpaced ‘learn/learning’ versions. Image
3. Here are some examples from Lexis Nexis.

For each iteration of the phrase, we looked at the date and quote of the first (non-covid) mention; number of hits/mentions (to end December 2021); first Covid-19 mention, and an exemplar recent Covid-19 mention. ImageImageImage
Read 9 tweets
Oct 8, 2021
After last week's focus on the science of mechanical and natural #ventilation, today's @IndependentSage briefing focused on its translation into a non-technical #communication #messaging 'proof of concept' scheme.

Full report ➡️ bit.ly/3BrFD5j

1. Summary⬇️
2. The proposed scheme brings together two familiar visual systems: i) the international energy labelling system and ii) icons.

It also builds on previous proposed schemes and the kinds of infographics we’ve seen over the last 18 months

e.g., bmj.com/content/370/bm…
3. NB. Ventilation is complex - as is making decisions about the behavioural mitigations needed following the assessment of any given space - so any such scheme must be underpinned by ventilation and aerosol expertise ...
Read 15 tweets
Sep 9, 2021
Here’s a little case study of the ripple effect of UK government mixed messaging - universities and face coverings.

1. “Face coverings are no longer advised for students, staff and visitors either in teaching rooms or in communal areas” (DfE, 17.8.21)

“no longer advised” 🤨 The ripple effect. Forance/Shutterstock.
2. Meanwhile, beyond campus, the government has

“removed the requirement to wear face coverings in law"

"but"

"expects and recommends that they are worn"

"in enclosed and crowded spaces where people may come into contact with people they don’t normally meet.”
3. Back to universities:

“There are no longer restrictions on the approach to teaching and learning in HE... There is no requirement for social distancing or other measures within in person teaching... [and there are no] restrictions to face-to-face provision.”
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(