3 ms·

I'm not sure how that holds up against the example shown, where the same professor fell at different levels on the scale depending on whether he was talking to

by akerl_ 12y ago

I'm not sure how that holds up against the example shown, where the same professor fell at different levels on the scale depending on whether he was talking to someone lower or higher on the status hierarchy. If the language shift was a learned skill that developed as part of performing the roles of the higher status, wouldn't two people of high status converse using similar rates, even if one of them is relatively higher than the other?

PeterWhittaker 12y ago
Implicit in your second paragraph are the notions of absolute status and of mutual recognition of absolute status. I'd suggest social status is always relative and is likely assumed by participants prior to their initiating an interaction: The student used lower status language when writing to the professor, who used lower status language when writing to the famous professor.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  I'm saying the same thing you said. The hypothesis in the comment I was replying to is that speaking with fewer of the noted words is a skilled learned as part of reaching higher status, presumably because speaking that way allows you to better wield your station. That isn't shown in the evidence, because the evidence in the article shows that the speech used is indeed relative.
  - thinkersilver 12y ago
    Not necessarily. It has little to do with learning to speak in a higher status manner. The comment box doesn't allow for a clear concise explanation but the language shift is something that the brain does on a subconscious level. A person's emotional state is related to how they see themselves in relation to their world at that moment. The 'language shift' is a manifestation of that. It is a tell in a way, the same way different clusters of body movements are, unlike body language, though, it is something that goes undetected by either party and hence can't be actively expressed or detected. That's why the LWC software was built. Check out the book that Pennebaker wrote. It does a better job explaining this than the article does and it will clear any confusion. Pennebaker doesn't provide an explanation for why their's a need to be more personal when assuming a lower status or when experiencing emotional trauma but he does provide plenty of evidence for the relationship.
freditup 12y ago
I wonder if the email examples are simply a byproduct of the specific conversations / order of the discussion. Maybe 'cold-call' emails demand a lot of 'I's in them as part of the initial explanation while responses to these emails do not.
thedevopsguy 12y ago
According to Pennebaker status is negotiated at the beginning of a new interaction when the perceived status of the participants is unclear. The frequency of the filler words mark the status/role that has been adopted by the participants. Which is clearly marked in the email examples given. The article does not imply that this is a learned skill, since the whole theory is based on function words which are accessible at even the most basic proficiency of a language. It is merely describing what happens to our language when we enter a social interaction. Note the words used aren't necessarily important but rather the function of the words are, i.e are they referencing social objects ( the role of pronouns) or referencing concrete or abstract non-social objects.

by akerl_ 12y ago

PeterWhittaker 12y ago

Implicit in your second paragraph are the notions of absolute status and of mutual recognition of absolute status. I'd suggest social status is always relative and is likely assumed by participants prior to their initiating an interaction: The student used lower status language when writing to the professor, who used lower status language when writing to the famous professor.

akerl_ 12y ago
I'm saying the same thing you said. The hypothesis in the comment I was replying to is that speaking with fewer of the noted words is a skilled learned as part of reaching higher status, presumably because speaking that way allows you to better wield your station. That isn't shown in the evidence, because the evidence in the article shows that the speech used is indeed relative.
- thinkersilver 12y ago
  Not necessarily. It has little to do with learning to speak in a higher status manner. The comment box doesn't allow for a clear concise explanation but the language shift is something that the brain does on a subconscious level. A person's emotional state is related to how they see themselves in relation to their world at that moment. The 'language shift' is a manifestation of that. It is a tell in a way, the same way different clusters of body movements are, unlike body language, though, it is something that goes undetected by either party and hence can't be actively expressed or detected. That's why the LWC software was built. Check out the book that Pennebaker wrote. It does a better job explaining this than the article does and it will clear any confusion. Pennebaker doesn't provide an explanation for why their's a need to be more personal when assuming a lower status or when experiencing emotional trauma but he does provide plenty of evidence for the relationship.

freditup 12y ago

I wonder if the email examples are simply a byproduct of the specific conversations / order of the discussion. Maybe 'cold-call' emails demand a lot of 'I's in them as part of the initial explanation while responses to these emails do not.

thedevopsguy 12y ago

According to Pennebaker status is negotiated at the beginning of a new interaction when the perceived status of the participants is unclear. The frequency of the filler words mark the status/role that has been adopted by the participants. Which is clearly marked in the email examples given. The article does not imply that this is a learned skill, since the whole theory is based on function words which are accessible at even the most basic proficiency of a language. It is merely describing what happens to our language when we enter a social interaction. Note the words used aren't necessarily important but rather the function of the words are, i.e are they referencing social objects ( the role of pronouns) or referencing concrete or abstract non-social objects.