Psychology 409B May 2, 2006

Pragmatic Identity

By Lisa Tabon

 

Deborah Tannen, Gender and Discourse, Oxford University Press, 1994 (pages 161-171)

 

Instructions for this activity are found at:

www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy24/g24-oral1.htm

Instructor:  Dr. Leon James

 

 

I.                    Pragmatic Identity

a.     seen when the partners use similar devices to similar ends

b.     Johan and Marianne

                                                               i.      Both propose sleep when unpleasant information has been confronted, such as their unsatisfactory sex life

                                                             ii.      Both try to avoid the talking about the problem when they are uncomfortable

1.      Ex:  Johan tells Marianne that he is leaving her for another woman, Marianne ignores him and tells him that its late and they should go to bed.

2.      Ex:  She tries to tell Johan that they need a divorce, but he has changed his mind; just when he starts to see her point she says “let’s not talk about it”.

 

II.                 Pragmatic Synonymy

a.     Avoiding confrontation

b.     Johan returns home and tries to tell Marianne that he’s leaving but Marianne deflects confrontation by excessive verbiage

c.     The purpose of both their tactics is to avoid mention of the real issue

d.     They collude not to communicate but use different pragmatic devices

                                                               i.      Johan tries to express his sadness by talking in abstract generalizations (“emptiness hurts”) and by talking about finding meaning in life

                                                             ii.      Marianne does the same by talking simply and directly about her own feelings for him; she blames herself and puts herself down

e.     they both refuse to “hear” the other’s message

f.        he uses sarcasm and the tactic of attacking her as a woman  in response to her dismissal of his feelings of loneliness

 

III.               Pragmatic Homonymy

a.     To create pragmatic homonymy, Marianne and Johan use the same surface devises to achieve different ends

                                                               i.      Ex:  both uses barrages of questions

                                                             ii.      While these questions have the apparent intent of inviting camaraderie, their underlying effect is distance, served by avoiding the real problems between them

b.     Marianne asks follow-up questions; it prevents Johan from answering the first questions

c.     Johan’s rhetorical questions take the form of taunts; he mocks her style by asking a barrage of questions

d.     While Johan’s questions have the apparent intent of distance—by their sarcasm, they can only drive Marianne further from him

                                                               i.      they work toward a deeper effect of camaraderie, by drawing her into emotional interaction

                                                             ii.      taunts will rouse her to anger and thus to involvement

 

IV.              The Use of Questions

a.     Marianne asks nearly twice as many questions as Johan

                                                               i.      She shows herself to be seeking involvement through her greater use of questions

b.     Marianne asks real questions while Johan asks rhetorical ones

                                                               i.      Marianne’s questions are 79% real and 21% rhetorical

                                                             ii.      Johan’s questions are 86% rhetorical and 14% real

c.     It seems that the purpose of Marianne’s questions is to keep Johan involved with her, but the only questions that receive a response are questions that ask for information of the woman’s he’s cheating with

d.     Both make much use of questions but though their utterances may appear superficially alike, they have different communicative intentions or meanings

e.     His questions are rhetorical and superficially designed to repulse further interchanges (on the surface they’re hostile, and provoke distance)

f.        Marianne’s questions are asked in search of information; they are asked with the expectation of eliciting a reply

g.     On a deeper level the strategies match

                                                               i.      Johan’s questions preclude surface interaction and create involvement by arousing anger

                                                             ii.      Marianne responds to Johan’s distancing questions as if they were camaraderie-creating as hers are

1.      she understands his contributions in terms of what they would mean if they were hers

                                                            iii.      but they shut off true communication by creating anger

                                                          iv.      Marianne rises to the challenge, and is moved to respond with furious spates of information-seeking questions and offers of help

                                                           v.      Johan’s skill in fending them off guarantee that they will not create interaction

                                                          vi.      Johan perceives her questions as barrier-creating devices

h.     Therefore, their strategies match at the surface, conflict at the deeper level, and match at the deepest and least accessible level

 

SURFACE

Johan and Marianne both ask questions

MATCH

DEEPER LEVEL

(Speaker’s Intent)

Johan’s questions are distancing

Marianne’s questions generate rapport

CONFLICT

DEEPEST LEVEL

(Effect on Addressee)

Johan’s and Marianne’s stylistic differences create shared implicit strategy:  non-communication

MATCH

 

V.                 The Paradox

a.     At first it’s confusing that this couple has to separate, but what’s more confusing is that these two who are always fighting can’t stay apart

b.     They both are aware of their surface discord but not their complicity at the deepest level: their agreement to disagree

c.     Because of this they have a great deal in common; this creates a need that bonds them

                                                               i.      But as long as they operate under different assumptions about what constitutes an effective contribution they’ll create friction between them with all they say

d.     the levels of cooperation and conflict create a paradoxical communicative situation:  people can operate in complicity by talking at cross-purposes

                                                               i.      an understanding of their communicative strategies is only possible through recognizing this paradox

e.     a truly harmonious relationship would entail matchings at all levels

 

Related Links:

 

http://raysweb.net/poems/articles/tannen.html

This link leads to an article that further discusses the interaction patterns between couples.  This article is also by Deborah Tannen and is a condensed from one of her works called “You Just Don’t Understand”.  It covers topics such as status versus support and independence versus intimacy.

 

http://alwaysvictoria.com/archives/2005/03/11/agree-to-disagree/

This website is resembles an online forum in which the topic of discussion is to agree to disagree.  The article discusses strategies people may use to prevent or deal with disagreements between yourself and your partner.  Viewers of this site offer their questions and input on the subject.

 

http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/KUNSMANN.HTM

This link leads to article that further discusses the use of questions between men and women.  The article goes on to discuss the fundamental difference between men’s and women’s linguistic behavior and introduces the term of questions tags. 

 

My Homepage is:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leon/409bs2006/tabon/tabon-home.htm

Class Homepage is:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy24/classhome-g24.htm