• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

“You really should find a way to . . .” Kim never completed her sentence or expressed her enthusiasm about an idea Josh had because he bristled when he heard the word should.

Using should is often dangerous. Like using “I” statements and reflecting back what someone has said before responding (to insure understanding), caution around using should is part of a generally accepted set of communication skills. In fact, we often chide one another for using it. The idea, of course, is that one may be (or perceived to be) robbing the other of their agency—the assumption that you know what’s right for me.

Kim, however, was not making a presumption for Josh. She was simply excited about what he was saying and thought it would be great if he . . . Josh only heard the word should and not the complete thought and reacted: “Why are you trying to tell me what to do when I’m just sharing my idea with you?” Taken aback, Kim responded, “I’m not telling you what to do!  Why are you criticizing me, when . . .” to which Josh replied, “Your controlling use of language is inappropriate.”

Discussing their linguistic process of the conversation derailed Josh and Kim and they didn’t discuss the actual issue. This happens. In fact, it happens more frequently than we’d like in intimate  relationships. Josh is linguistically sensitive. He uses words precisely because they guide his thinking and are critical to establishing meaning and understanding. Hearing Kim say should meant obligation, duty, expectation. According to the dictionary, Josh was right, but not according to Kim. She had no expectation, nor did she see it as his duty or obligation to do anything. Then why did she use the word? Josh wondered.

I could make the case that the relationship would be better served if Kim took more care in her use of language and make the case that Josh could take more care to find out what Kim means when she uses words that he strongly reacts to, like should, before taking issue with her. Our communication strengths can get us into trouble, so it’s important to recognize patterns where this happens and develop tools to mitigate conflict and promote understanding. If Josh and Kim can discuss this pattern, understanding that it reflects communication style differences and carries no bad intentions, they can develop a way to quickly acknowledge what’s happening and have an opportunity to complete the “real” conversation.

• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Email this to a friend?
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!

I listened to part of Weekend Edition this past Sunday on NPR and heard the letters-to-the-editor segment. Some of the letters referenced a story last weekend about PTSD in military personnel. The letters criticized someone interviewed who used the term, “former veterans.”

On one hand, the term “former veterans” can be somewhat amusing, a slip of the tongue, perhaps. On the other hand apparently it can be construed as a slam against veterans. This was the point of view expressed in the letters to the editor. The writers attributed negative motivation to the interviewee—that to refer to veterans with PTSD as “former” is to negate their status as veterans. I’m not kidding, and I was surprised that NPR chose to read those letters.

I heard the interview in question but do not remember hearing the words “former veterans,” although I do not question the other listeners’ memories. I do, however, question their attribution of motivation. I believe the interviewee made a harmless linguistic error. This person was being interviewed, on the spot if you will. We all make linguistic errors speaking extemporaneously. It is inevitable. To be judged because of these errors is unfair.

There are those with high linguistic sensitivity who go too far in criticizing other’s use of language, especially when the intention really is clear. From the interview, it was clear that the interviewee was not down on soldiers with PTSD. We easily got the gist of what was meant, so to be held hostage for a simple speaking error is unjust.

Use of language is important and we should be careful (without walking on eggshells) about what we say and how we say it. Those who are strong linguistically generally have a better command of language and take great care in the use of words. As I’ve noted in the chapter on the linguistic component in Do You Know What I Mean?(2009), however, one of the potential problems arising from this strength is being overly aggressive with others about their use of language. Doing this can be harmful to relationships and usually causes disruption to true understanding. Surely this is not the intended goal, but is often the net effect.

For those who are linguistically sensitive, it is best to focus on the gist of the communication first, then decide if giving feedback on the use of language will be welcomed and/or helpful. Sometimes inaccurate use of language obscures the true meaning. In that case, again, ask a thoughtful question to make sure you understand what the other person means. That, of course, is the point of communicating—achieving understanding.