While attending his nephew’s graduation ceremony at the University of Washington, Steve expected to hear a formulaic keynote address extolling “the importance of being successful” and “having a competitive edge.” But William Gates Sr.—father of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, and cochair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—didn’t give the usual graduation speech. Instead, he said, “My favorite axiom is this: ‘We are all in this together.’” He talked about how important family and friendships are for life happiness. Then he broadened his discussion to global citizenship: “Citizenship means that we behave according to the belief that every person matters just as much as every other person.” As Gates spoke, the crowd quieted. Students and parents alike stopped texting and chatting and began listening. At the climax of his speech, Gates declared:

When he finished, 43,000 students and family members rose to give a standing ovation. Immediately after, people in the stadium began texting and chatting again. But this time, their messages and comments were uniform: “That was an amazing speech!”

Undoubtedly, the profound nature of Gates’s topic helped make his speech memorable. But a person can talk about important things in vague, wordy, or distorted ways that make listeners tune out. In Gates’s case, it was his choice of words that created the biggest impact: understandable, honest, and inclusive language that crossed gender and cultural boundaries. Gates made an audience of thousands feel as though they were joined together in something bigger and better than simply sitting in a stadium, listening to a speech.

How can you harness the power of language in similar ways? Try four things: (1) create understandable messages; (2) use “I” and “we” language; (3) avoid gender-based presumptions; and (4) be mindful of cultural differences.

In his exploration of language and meaning, philosopher Paul Grice noted that in order for people to have competent interactions, they tailor their messages so that others can understand them. To produce understandable messages, you can apply the cooperative principle: making your verbal communication as informative, honest, relevant, and clear as required for a particular situation (Grice, 1989).

Being informative means presenting all of the information that is appropriate and important to share. It also means avoiding providing information that isn’t appropriate or important. For example, suppose your sister is getting married and you are in the wedding party. When you make a toast at the reception following the ceremony, everyone will expect you to comment on how the couple met and how their love for each other is inspiring. To not say these things would be remiss. On the other hand, you won’t want to be too informative by sharing inappropriate details (such as stories about their sex life) or unimportant details (such as what was on the menu at the restaurant where they first met).

Honesty is the single most important characteristic of competent communication, because other people count on the fact that the information you share with them is truthful (Grice, 1989). Being honest means not sharing information you’re uncertain about and not presenting information as true when you know it’s false. For example, let’s say that during a meeting, someone asks you a question you’re unable to answer. Rather than fumbling through a potentially incorrect response, acknowledge that you don’t know the answer, and determine a way to get the required information. Dishonesty in verbal communication violates standards for ethical behavior and leads others to believe false things (Jacobs, Dawson, & Brashers, 1996).

You are relevant when you present information that’s responsive to what others have said and applicable to the situation. As examples of responsiveness, when people ask you questions, you provide appropriate answers. When they make requests, you explicitly grant or reject those requests. Dodging questions or abruptly changing topics is uncooperative and may be seen as deceptive. In the wedding toast scenario, a relevant speech would cover the couple’s relationship. Going off on tangents regarding your own relationships would be irrelevant (“Seeing them together reminds me of my own love life; just last week I . . .”).

Using clear language means presenting information in a straightforward fashion rather than framing it in vague or ambiguous terms. This was one of the most impressive aspects of Gates Sr.’s commencement speech: he used clear, concise language that everyone easily understood: “People suffering in poverty . . . have mothers who love them.” (Check out Chapter 15 for suggestions on how to use clear language in your own speeches.)

At the same time, using clear language doesn’t mean being brutally frank or dumping offensive or harmful information on others. When you find yourself in situations in which you have to deliver bad news (“Your project report needs serious revision”), tailor your message in ways that consider others’ feelings (“I’m sorry for the inconvenience this may cause you”). Similarly, you’ll improve the likelihood of positive outcomes during conflicts by expressing your concerns clearly (“I’m really upset”) while avoiding language that attacks someone’s character or personality (“You’re such an idiot”) (Gottman & Silver, 1999).

Of course, just because you use informative, honest, relevant, and clear language doesn’t guarantee that others will understand you. When one person misperceives the meaning of another’s verbal communication, misunderstanding occurs.

Misunderstanding occurs frequently online, owing to the lack of nonverbal cues that help clarify intended meaning. One study found that 27.2 percent of respondents agreed that e-mail is likely to result in miscommunication of intent, and 53.6 percent agreed that it is relatively easy to misinterpret an e-mail message (Rainey, 2000). The tendency to misunderstand communication online is so prevalent that scholars suggest the following practices: If a particular message must be absolutely error-free or if its content is controversial, don’t use e-mail or text messaging to communicate it. Whenever possible, conduct high-stakes encounters, such as important attempts at persuasion, face-to-face. Never use e-mails, posts, or texts for sensitive actions, such as professional reprimands or dismissals, or relationship breakups (Rainey, 2000). To learn how to create understandable messages and avoid misunderstandings during conflicts, see How to Communicate: Disagreement with Family on pages 120–121.

When verbally communicating, avoid using “you” language—phrases that place the focus of attention and blame on other people, such as “You let me down” or “You make me so angry!” Instead, use “I” language—phrases that emphasize ownership of your feelings, opinions, and beliefs. “I” language makes it clear that you’re expressing your own perceptions rather than stating unquestionable truths, making it less likely to trigger defensiveness in others (Kubany, Richard, Bauer, & Muraoka, 1992). For instance, imagine you’re involved in a group project, and some group members are working harder than others. If you bring up this topic with the group, saying “I think it’s important that the workload be evenly distributed” will seem less threatening than “You guys aren’t doing your fair share!”

At the same time, strive to build solidarity through “we” language—phrases that both emphasize inclusion and enhance feelings of connection and similarity (Honeycutt, 1999). In the group project example, you might say “We all want this project to be a success” in order to emphasize how the whole group is working together. One study found that married couples who used “we” language maintained more positive emotions during disagreements and had higher overall marital satisfaction than couples who did not (Seider, Hirschberger, Nelson, & Levenson, 2009). To compare and contrast the differences between “you,” “I,” and “we” language, see Table 5.1.

1. What would you say when your mom doesn’t want to talk in person and writes back, “I’m really busy with work right now—let’s just chat over e-mail"?
2. How would you handle your mom’s anger at your reluctance to go? “This may come as a shock to you, but the whole world doesn’t revolve around you and your work schedule! You need to make a decision about what’s more important: your work or your family."

Many people believe that men and women have different verbal communication preferences and practices. Specifically, they assume that women use and prefer “indirect” and “flowery” language, whereas men use and prefer “direct, clear, and concise” language (Spender, 1990). But scientific research has found that men and women are actually more similar than different when it comes to language. For example, after reviewing data from more than 1,000 gender studies, researchers Dan Canary, Tara Emmers-Sommer, and Sandra Faulkner (1997) found that if you consider all of the factors that influence communication and compare their impact, only about 1 percent of people’s verbal communication behavior is related to gender. The researchers concluded that during verbal communication, “men and women respond in a similar manner 99% of the time.”

Why do people think that men and women use language differently? Perception. Because people believe that men and women are different, they perceive differences in their communication—even when such differences don’t exist. In a well-known study documenting this effect, researchers gave two different groups of participants a copy of the same speech (Mulac, Incontro, & James, 1985). One group was told that a man had authored and presented the speech; the other group, that a woman had authored and presented it. Participants who thought the speech was female in origin perceived it as having a more “artistic quality” and complimented the language for being “pleasing, sweet, and beautiful.” Participants who were told that a man had authored the speech viewed it as having more “dynamism” and complimented the language as “strong, active, and aggressive.” Yet both groups read the same speech.

The lesson? You don’t need to adjust your verbal communication to your listeners’ or readers’ gender. Men and women appreciate language that is informative, honest, relevant, and clear. Everyone prefers talking with people who avoid placing blame through “you” language, and who use “I” language to take responsibility for their own actions and feelings. Additionally, using “we” language creates a sense of unity with others, regardless of their gender.

As Chapter 4 discusses, different cultures often have different ideas about what constitutes competent verbal communication. To help you communicate competently with people from other cultures, consider the following guidelines.

First, think about whether the people you are communicating with are from a high- or low-context culture. As Chapter 4 notes, in high-context cultures (China, Korea, Japan), people presume that listeners share extensive knowledge in common with them. As a result, they don’t feel a need to provide a lot of specific details in their messages. In low-context cultures (Germany, Scandinavia, the United States), people tend not to presume that listeners share their beliefs, attitudes, and values, so they tailor their verbal communication to be informative, clear, and direct (E. T. Hall & Hall, 1987).

Consider what this cultural difference means for expressing constructive criticism. If you told a classmate from a high-context culture, “I thought your presentation had several problems,” he or she would likely perceive your comment as intolerably direct and rude. A more comfortable comment for this classmate might be, “What issues do you think arose in your speech?” But if you asked a classmate from a low-context culture this question, he or she might interpret it as cryptic. To avoid such confusion, try to tailor the directness of your language to your listeners’ cultural preferences.

Second, adjust your verbal communication to match others’ speech rates and desired balance of “turn taking” (Bianconi, 2002; Coupland, Giles, & Wiemann, 1991). Observe how rapidly the person you’re talking with speaks, and how long a turn he or she takes when talking. Then match the person’s speech rate, and use similar turn lengths. Monitor any feedback while you’re conversing (such as nodding or fidgeting) to see whether your conversation partner wants you to continue or stop. (For more details on accommodating, see pp. 106–107 in Chapter 4.)

Third, and most important, don’t change your language or voice in substantial ways just because you’re speaking to someone from another culture. For example, many Euro-American college students switch to simplistic language and talk slower and louder when interacting with Asian and Asian American students, as if they were talking with small children. This change in speech behavior is viewed as both patronizing and insulting by recipients (Jimenez & McCornack, 2011).

He is the most prejudiced, verbally aggressive, deceptive, and slanderous character ever to show up on television screens. He has been described as “a bundle of pure, unadulterated evil.” He’s South Park’s Eric Cartman—a boy plagued by greed, hatred, and an unquenchable thirst for power. Through hundreds of episodes, Cartman has tried to reignite the Civil War, feigned disability, tricked another boy into eating his own parents at a chili cook-off, and released an almost endless anti-Semitic verbal assault on his classmate Kyle.

Importantly, however, Cartman’s terrible communication choices often have disastrous outcomes. His manipulation of and cruelty to others only occasionally nets him happiness, and he never learns from his mistakes. This makes him endearing in a strange way: his communicative failings make viewers feel good about their capacity to change and improve. So whether you love Cartman or loathe him, laugh at his offensive antics or recoil from them, he reveals an essential truth about the dark side of verbal communication: when you use prejudiced, aggressive, deceptive, or defamatory language, you sow the seeds of your own destruction.

As Chapter 4 discusses, prejudice means presuming negative things about other people based on their group affiliation (ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation). It is a negative form of stereotyping. People who use prejudiced language speak in ways that display contempt, dislike, or disdain for a group or its members. In South Park, for example, Cartman uses prejudiced language almost constantly when he talks with his Jewish friend Kyle and when he sees “hippies”—anyone with long hair and tie-dyed clothing.

There are as many types of prejudiced language as there are groups. A person can use language that’s prejudiced toward men or women (sexist language) or toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered persons (homophobic language). It can also be used to criticize various ethnicities (racist language), people of different ages (ageist language), and even socioeconomic groups (classist language). Some people use prejudiced language when discussing physical or mental disabilities, political affiliations, social or religious groups, and even collegiate majors.

Most of us readily recognize racist, sexist, and disability-related slurs. But prejudiced language can be less obvious—for example, when people use ethnic and gender-specific modifiers to describe others even when such descriptors are unnecessary to the point they’re making (“the Hispanic doctor” or “a male nurse”). Subtle prejudiced language also shows up in the use of such expressions as “That’s so gay,” to mean that something isn’t “cool” or “acceptable.” Such expressions are hurtful and perpetuate negative stereotypes.

What can you do if another person’s language is prejudiced and offensive? As we discuss in Chapter 8 about managing conflict, confronting others is rarely easy, but it can be done. Consider the following suggestions:

Verbal aggression is the use of language to attack someone’s personal attributes, such as their weight, looks, intelligence, or physical ability (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Verbal aggression is distinct from prejudiced language in three respects: the goal is to intentionally injure a particular person’s feelings, the attack targets unique personal attributes rather than group affiliation, and the message often includes profanity.

Verbal aggression can take the form of cyberbullying: habitually attacking a person using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies, or mobile phones.³ Individuals engage in cyberbullying by sending numerous insulting text messages, such as “u r so fat and ugly!” or writing Facebook wall posts denouncing someone as a “whore” or “loser.” The impact of cyberbullying can be devastating. Such was the case with Phoebe Prince—a high school student in Massachusetts—who killed herself following repeated acts of verbal aggression by her fellow female students via text messages, Facebook posts, and face-to-face encounters.

Why are people verbally aggressive? Sometimes the behavior is triggered by a temporary state of stress, anger, or exhaustion. Other times it’s in reaction to real or perceived slights. In the Phoebe Prince case, the girls attacked her because they felt Phoebe had “crossed a line” by befriending and dating their boyfriends (Bazelon, 2010). Still others act that way because they believe that using profanity, insults, and threats will get them what they want, like Cartman from South Park.

It’s hard to communicate competently with verbally aggressive people. Imagine giving a speech in a public forum such as a student union meeting and having someone stand up and yell, “Shut up, you loser!” What would you say and do? To manage verbally aggressive individuals, researcher Dominic Infante (1995) offers three suggestions:

For ideas on how to handle verbal aggression online, see Table 5.2.

Deception is the deliberate use of uninformative, untruthful, irrelevant, or vague language for the purpose of misleading others. Deception takes many forms. People may be overly vague in what they say, trying to “veil” the truth. They may dodge a question or change the topic to avoid embarrassing or problematic disclosures. The most common form of deception is concealment: leaving important and relevant information out of messages (McCornack, 2008). Table 5.3 explains other types of deception, including avoidance, lying, and being vague.

Deception is especially commonplace online. People can easily hide and distort information in chat or e-mail messages, and recipients of messages have little opportunity to check accuracy. Some people provide false information about their backgrounds, professions, appearances, and gender online to amuse themselves, to form relationships unavailable to them offline, or to take advantage of others through online scams (Rainey, 2000). However, most people provide accurate information on social networking sites like Tumblr or Instagram, because close friends will hold them accountable for what they post (Back et al., 2010).

Whether it’s face-to-face or online, deception is unethical, impractical, and destructive. It exploits the message recipients’ belief that speakers are communicating cooperatively by tricking them into thinking that the messages are informative, honest, relevant, and clear (McCornack, 2008). Deception is unethical because it denies others information they may need to make personal or professional decisions, and it demonstrates disrespect (LaFollette & Graham, 1986). Deception is also impractical: a lie typically leads to more lies (McCornack, 2008). Even something as simple as telling a friend that you like his new jacket when you don’t can get you into trouble. When you’re with your friend or mutual acquaintances, you have to remember to always praise it rather than criticize it. Otherwise, he will discover your lie. Finally, deception is destructive; when discovered, it has unpleasant personal and professional consequences (McCornack & Levine, 1990), such as conflicts among friends or romantic partners, loss of trust from an audience, or even dismissal from a job.

1. CONSIDER THE DILEMMA

   Aliana is your best friend on campus. She is attractive, funny, and outgoing. She’s also stubborn; once her mind is made up, she’ll do what she wants.

   It’s a Friday night, and you and Aliana decide to go out dancing. You both take turns as the designated driver, and tonight is your turn to drive. Shortly after arriving at the club, Aliana is approached by a guy who asks her to dance. You figure she’ll be back after one or two songs, but a half hour passes, and she is still with him. Irritated, you signal to her, and when she walks over, she says, “OMG! He is so hot!” You, however, have a different impression. “Do you know him?” you ask, “because he seems kind of sketchy.” Aliana laughs and says, “I’ve had classes with him before—he’s fine.”

   As the hours slide by, it’s clear that “Mr. Sketchy” (as you now call him) is making a serious play for your friend. Worse, you note that he’s feeding her drinks, one after the next, and she is now wasted. You decide to intervene, but when you tell her it’s time to go, she says she’s going home with Mr. Sketchy. When you tell her you don’t think that’s a good idea, Aliana snaps, “Don’t tell me what to do! You’re not my mother!” Worried about her safety, you’re uncertain about your next move.

2. CONNECT THE RESEARCH

   Research suggests that more than one-third of college students drink heavily, and that such drinking contributes to a “hookup culture”—an environment in which students engage in risky sexual behavior with people with whom they have no relationship connection (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). This creates dilemmas when people wish to protect their intoxicated friends from the negative outcomes associated with such behaviors.

   Researchers Lisa Menegatos, Linda Lederman, and Aaron Hess (2010) looked at college students’ verbal communication strategies for trying to stop drunken friends from hooking up with strangers. They found that college students in such situations commonly use one of three strategies to intervene (p. 383):

   • Persuasion: They try to convince their friend to not go home with the guy, emphasizing the potential health and social consequences, such as the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, and the regret she’d experience in the morning.
   • Deception: They trick their friend into not leaving with the guy. For example, they might tell her that they’ll drive her to his house but, instead, take her to get something to eat.
   • Confrontation: They verbally or physically discourage their friend from leaving with the guy, by assertively telling her it’s time to leave the club or even physically removing her from the club by grabbing or carrying her, if necessary. Alternatively, they might confront the guy who is pursuing the hookup, telling him to leave her alone.

3. COMMUNICATE

   Before making a communication choice, consider the facts of the situation, and think about what the research tells you about communicating with an intoxicated friend who is engaging in risky behavior. Also reflect on what you have learned about deception (p. 127), verbal aggression (p. 125), and verbal communication skills (pp. 115–123). Then, answer these questions:

   1. What ethical obligation do you have to protect Aliana? What other factors about the friendship and the situation should you consider when deciding what to do next?
   2. Of the three communication approaches researchers have identified for such a situation, which would you most likely try? What other approaches would you consider?
   3. What would you say to Aliana next?

Defamation is intentionally false communication that harms a person’s reputation. In written form, defamation is called libel; in spoken form, it’s slander. Defamation isn’t just ineffective verbal communication; it can result in legal charges against the person who commits it. But whether such charges will stick depends largely on whether the target of the defamation is a public figure (politician, celebrity, famous athlete) or a private citizen. For public figures, the legal system counts criticism as “free speech.” To have defamation charges upheld, public figures must demonstrate that the person who made the statements acted with malice and knew that their claims were false.

In cases involving private citizens, such as gossip or online rumors, legal action is more likely. Private citizens don’t have the same access as public figures to media outlets that can counter defamatory statements; they also don’t open themselves up to criticism by being a public figure. Consequently, private citizens’ rights to protect their reputations outweigh free-speech rights to criticize and defame.

What does this mean in practical terms? When communicating with others—especially online (which is permanent) or in a speech (which is public)—don’t write or say anything that could harm a private citizen’s reputation. For example, blogging about a coworker engaging in sexual harassment, or giving a speech in which you denounce a local businessman as racist, may result in someone filing a lawsuit against you. Although you have free-speech rights to (fairly) criticize public figures, you do not have the right to publicly assail private citizens in ways that damage their reputations. When it comes to verbal communication, the old adage is true: if you don’t have something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.