• 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.

• 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 could be glib and say, “at the beginning,” but that’s the point. Where is the beginning of any story? I spend a lot of time listening to stories that begin with, “Here’s what happened . . .” When two (or more) people are involved, there are usually related but different accounts. Of course, most of us try to establish that our account is the accurate (real) story, and experience tells us that this process generally goes nowhere and continues to breed defensiveness.

Mediation and counseling help individuals to see that each person has a perspective and experiences the situation somewhat, if not vastly, differently. This can be frustrating for the conflicted parties but necessary to constructing a path forward. Helping individuals recognize what the situation looks like from the other’s point of view cuts down on the right/wrong approach to reality. Also, by clarifying motivations and intentions, there is more opportunity to foster understanding. All of this rounds out a fuller picture of what happened. Finally, it brings overlap in the stories and builds common ground.

Recognizing that each person is starting the story from a different point in time often goes unnoticed. Here’s an example: Lily and Brad had an argument about getting the kid’s lunches ready for school. Brad usually does this but asked Lily if she would fill in for him because he had to leave early for work the next day. Lily agreed. In the morning, as Brad was rushing out the door, he made a comment about what he had in mind for the kid’s lunches, which angered Lily. She snipped at him, and Brad left for work unhappy.

When they tried to deconstruct the story later, they got into a predictable argument based on the above facts. Lily talked about Brad blindsiding her at the last minute with expectations when she was doing him a favor. Brad, who thought he was being helpful by suggesting lunch food, believed Lily was not being very grateful.

In counseling, we discovered another layer to the story—where each person located the story in time. Brad’s story began well before he asked Lily to make the lunches. It began with a plan two months earlier about the food budget and how they were going to economize. What he quickly observed on the way out the door that morning disrupted the plan. Lily, on the other hand, started the story two days earlier when she realized how stressed Brad gets when he has a deadline at work and the subsequent impact on the family. Aha.

Clearly Lily and Brad approached the lunch situation in a different context. This is an extremely common occurrence but one we often don’t account for when we are in conflict. As a practical matter, it usually helps to know where your own story surrounding a conflict begins and then perhaps to ask the other person where their story begins. Doing this thoughtfully and carefully provides an opportunity to say “Oh, now I see what you were going through,” which is a good way to begin understanding one another better and establishing a mutual problem-solving platform.