3.5: Chapter 3 Summary

Verbal Communication Review

Big idea

• Verbal communication is an agreed-upon, rule-governed system of symbols (spoken, written, and signed words) used to share meaning. Because words are arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract, shared rules and context are essential for understanding.

Core concepts

• Symbols:
  • Arbitrary (no natural link: “cat” ≠ cat), Ambiguous (multiple meanings: “last slide”), Abstract (represent ideas/objects, not the thing itself).
• Rule systems:
  • Phonology: sounds/pronunciation (read vs. read).
  • Semantics: meanings (denotation vs. connotation; “sick” = ill vs. awesome).
  • Syntax: arrangement/structure (word order makes messages intelligible).
  • Pragmatics: use-in-context (audience, setting, norms affect word choice).

Spoken vs. written communication

• Formality: speech is generally more informal; writing more formal. Tech (texts, DMs) blurs lines.
• Synchronicity: speech is usually real-time; writing is often delayed—except live chats.
• Permanence/recording: writing is often archived; speech usually isn’t—unless recorded/social platforms.
• Privacy: assume anything digital can be saved, shared, or resurfaced.

Functions of verbal communication

• Reality construction: labels and evaluations frame experiences (“rain ruined the day” vs. “great time with friends”).
• Categorization: language sorts complex life into usable groups (friend, colleague, stranger).
• Cognition: language supports memory, planning, reasoning; influences attention and problem-solving.
• Language–thought link: Sapir-Whorf—language influences thought/worldview (not strict determinism).

Power of language

• Naming and identity: names shape impressions and self-feelings; trends carry cultural signals.
• Affiliation: convergence (matching style) increases connection; divergence marks distance/identity.
• Bias in language: avoid sexist/racist/ableist/ageist phrasing (use firefighter, chair, people of color when appropriate, able-bodied, older people).
• Muted Group Theory: dominant groups shape language norms, potentially marginalizing others.
• Accommodation and code-switching: adjusting rate, word choice, dialect, or language to fit context; be mindful of power and bias pressures.

Using words well

• Clarity: prefer concrete words; define terms; cut fluff; explain/limit jargon; one main point + example.
• Affective skill: match tone to purpose; use vivid but appropriate imagery; avoid manipulative hype.
• Ethics: be civil; separate facts/inferences/judgments; use “I” language; consider short- and long-term impact; denounce hate speech.

Tech and privacy reminders

• Email/texts/DMs feel like talk but act like writing: searchable, shareable, and often permanent.
• Quick check before sending: Would this still represent me if forwarded/screenshot?

Mini checklist (apply now)

• Replace one abstract term with a concrete example.
• Swap any biased label for a neutral, relevant descriptor.
• Adjust tone (softer or sharper) to fit goal and audience.
• Ensure your request or main point is explicit in one sentence.

Quick self-test

1. Name the four language rule systems.
2. Give one example each of arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract symbols.
3. List the four differences between spoken and written communication.
4. Rewrite this biased phrase inclusively: “The chairman needs two strong guys to help the elderly.”
5. Briefly explain how convergence can improve affiliation in a text exchange.

References

Allan, K. and Kate Burridge, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 31–34.

American Psychological Association, “Supplemental Material: Writing Clearly and Concisely,” accessed June 7, 2012, www.apastyle.org/manual/suppl.n-ch03.13.aspx.

Baruch, Y. and Stuart Jenkins, “Swearing at Work and Permissive Leadership Culture: When Anti-social Becomes Social and Incivility Is Acceptable,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 28, no. 6 (2007): 495–96.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall.

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.

Brooks, D. J. and John G. Greer, “Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate,” American Journal of Political Science 51, no. 1 (2007): 1–16.

Cammaerts, B., “Radical Pluralism and Free Speech in Online Public Spaces: The Case of North Belgian Extreme Right Discourses,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 12, no. 6 (2009): 555–75.

Carpenter, R. H., Choosing Powerful Words: Eloquence That Works (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), 84.

Christensend, N., & Larsen, B. (2008). The name game. The Psychologist, 21, 210-213. https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/v...on-3/name-game

Coffey, B., Walker, J. E., McLaughlin, P. A. (2009). Do masculine names help female lawyers become judges? Evidence from South Carolina. American Law and Economics Review, 11(1), 112-133. 

Crystal, D., How Language Works: How Babies Babble, Words Change Meaning, and Languages Live or Die (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2005), 155.

Dahlberg, L., “Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: From Consensus to Contestation,” New Media & Society 9, no. 5 (2007): 827–47.

Dindia, K., “The Effect of Sex of Subject and Sex of Partner on Interruptions,” Human Communication Research 13, no. 3 (1987): 345–71.

Dindia, K. and Mike Allen, “Sex Differences in Self-Disclosure: A Meta Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 1 (1992): 106–24.

Dunleavy, K. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Idiomatic communication in the stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 416-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370903320906

Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, “Regulation of Fighting Words and Hate Speech,” accessed June 7, 2012, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm.

Gentleman, A., “Indiana Call Staff Quit over Abuse on the Line,” The Guardian, May 28, 2005, accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005.meliagentleman.

Giles, H., Donald M. Taylor, and Richard Bourhis, “Toward a Theory of Interpersonal Accommodation through Language: Some Canadian Data,” Language and Society 2, no. 2 (1973): 177–92.

Haney, W. V., Communication and Interpersonal Relations, 6th ed. (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1992), 236–37.

Harris, A. K. (1999). A revolutionary view of communication: Cheris Kramarae’s theory of muted groups. Women & Language, 22(2), 54-54.

Hayakawa, S. I. and Alan R. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 5th ed. (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 1990), 85–86.

Hussein, B. (2012). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis today. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 642-646.

Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22 (1), 39 - 44. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928

Kingwell, M., A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995).

Kramarae, C. (2005). Muted group theory and communication: Asking dangerous questions. Women and Language, 28(2), 55.

Kwintessential Limited, “Results of Poor Cross Cultural Awareness,” accessed June 7, 2012, www.kwintessential.co.uk/cult.ticles/Results of Poor Cross Cultural Awareness.html.

Lakoff, G. and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 6.

Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. William Morrow.

Liptak, A., “Supreme Court Rejects F.C.C. Fines for Indecency,” NYTimes.com, June 21, 2012, accessed September 20, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/business/media/justices-reject-indecency-fines-on-narrow-grounds.html?_r=0.

Lucy, J. (2010). Through the window of language: Assessing the influence of language diversity on thought. THEORIA, 20, 299-309.

Lustig, M. W. and Jolene Koester, Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures, 2nd ed. (Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006), 199–200.

Martin, J. N. and Thomas K. Nakayama, Intercultural Communication in Contexts, 5th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 222–24.

Maxwell, A. (2004). Magyarization, language planning, and Whorf: The word as a case study in linguistic relativism. Multilingua, 23(4), 319-37.

McCornack, S., Reflect and Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication (Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2007), 224–25.

McKay, M., Martha Davis, and Patrick Fanning, Messages: Communication Skills Book, 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1995), 30–40.

Miller, R. S., “Breaches of Propriety,” in Behaving Badly: Aversive Behaviors in Interpersonal Relationships, ed. Robin M. Kowalski (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001), 42.

Nadeem, S., “Accent Neutralisation and a Crisis of Identity in India’s Call Centres,” The Guardian, February 9, 2011, accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf.neutralisation.

National Communication Association, “NCA Credo for Ethical Communication,” accessed May 18, 2012, http://natcom.org/Tertiary.aspx?id=2119&terms=ethical %20credo.

O’Connor, J.V., “Cuss Control Academy,” accessed June 7, 2012, www.cusscontrol.com.

Olbricht, T. H., Informative Speaking (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1968), 81.

Pal, A., “Indian by Day, American by Night,” The Progressive, August 2004, accessed June 7, 2012, www.progressive.org/mag_pal0804.

Parks, J. B., & Robertson, M. A. (2008). Generation gaps in attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 27(3), 276-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08317956

Perlovsky, L. (2009). Language and emotions: Emotional Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Neural Networks, 22(5), 518-526.

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2010), 71–76.

Sapir, E. (1958). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality (D.G. Mandelbaum, Ed.). University of California.

Smith- McLallen, A, Johnson, B. T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pearson, A. R. (2006). Black and white: The role of color bias and implicit race bias. Social Cognition, 24(1), 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.1.46

Sobieraj, S. and Jeffrey Berry, “From Incivility to Outrage: Political Discourse in Blogs, Talk Radio, and Cable News,” Political Communication 28 (2011): 19–41.

Southern Poverty Law Center, “Hate Map,” accessed June 7, 2012, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map.

Varma, S., “Arbitrary? 92% of All Injuries Termed Minor,” The Times of India, June 20, 2010, accessed June 7, 2012, articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-06-20/india/28309628_1_injuries-gases-cases.

Waltman, M. and John Haas, The Communication of Hate (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 2011), 33.

Weingarten, G. (2003, September 21). Signs of a troubled society. The Washington Post. tinyurl. com/v629xnn

Wetzel, P. J., “Are ‘Powerless’ Communication Strategies the Japanese Norm?” Language in Society 17, no. 4 (1988): 555–64.

Wierzbicka, A., “The English Expressions Good Boy and Good Girl and Cultural Models of Child Rearing,” Culture and Psychology 10, no. 3 (2004): 251–78.

Whorf, B.L., & Carroll. J.B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Yaguello, M., Language through the Looking Glass: Exploring Language and Linguistics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998), 130.