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
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
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...).
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.”
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
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.
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!”)
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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” 🤨
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.”