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.
4. Idiomatic phrases like “living with X” often close down topics in everyday conversation, and we found that “live with it” also appeared as the take-home final line of articles (e.g., “Covid is here to stay, we just need to carry on as normal and learn to live with it”).
5. Phrases like “live with it” are used as “rhetorically self-sufficient” or standalone “clinched-it” statements. The “clinched-it” quality of “live with it” is supported by other grammatical and lexical features such as “just,” “simply,” “need/have/got to,” “must.”
6. In terms of “living with covid,” the phrase has become parodied and satirical (e.g., “We’ve just got to learn to live with Boris Johnson”) or scare-quoted as a position to be accepted or challenged (e.g., “‘living with covid’ idiocy”).
7. “Who” is learning to live with it is often opaque. The fact that “we” in “we need to live with it” generally refers to a whole population shows how inequalities get baked into the phrase. “We” do not have equal access to the resources needed to “live with it.”
8. Finally: Who is using saying “living with covid” is important – is it a twitter take, an expert, or a government minister?
On 21.2.22 Boris Johnson turned “living with covid” into the title of a formal statement to the House of Commons & the UK government’s current strategy.
9. Conclusion: “The challenge now is to cut through clichéd and binary uses of “living with covid” as “common sense” about which “no more need be said” to a more productive point of connection that promotes “learning” above “just living with it”.”
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 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
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.”