Notice how the author flips from the past tense to the present tense. The sergeant, the shelling, the gunfire all happened in the past. “Maybe an hour later, I’m on top of the berm …” The soldier is back in Vietnam and right in the middle of it. His verbs tell us how his mind is working—and that Vietnam continues to be an ongoing experience in his life.
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND EMOTIONS: PRONOUNS, ARTICLES, EMOTION WORDS
Language in its most basic function is necessary for communication. Style words provide information about social processes that are integral to understanding others. They provide clues about who has more status, whether a group is working well together, if someone is being deceptive, and the quality of a close relationship
STATUS AND POWER
In virtually all groups of primates, the first order of business is to establish dominance and status. We humans, of course, are much more refined in the ways we approach this task. We usually don’t make threats on meeting others. Instead, we change our posture, our tone of voice, and the ways we use words. As discussed in chapter 7, status is quickly signaled by the use of pronouns—especially first- and second-person pronouns such as I, we, and you. Contrary to what most people think, high-status people tend to use we and you at high rates compared to lower-status individuals. And low-status individuals overuse I.
HONESTY AND DECEPTION
We also use function words differently when being honest than when lying. When telling the truth, we tend to “own” what we say. That is, truth-tellers are more likely to use words like I and my. When lying, we distance ourselves from what we are saying. President Bill Clinton’s claim that he didn’t have sexual relations “with that woman” is a startling example. “That” woman is certainly more distant than, say, “my woman” or simply “Monica.” We also think and talk in more complex ways when being truthful. As seen in chapter 6, lying is hard work. If we are having to invent a story that isn’t true, we avoid certain conjunctions (such as but and or), prepositions (except, without), and negations (not, never).
STRANGERS AND FRIENDS
People who are good friends and have a long history use language with each other in ways that are quite different from two strangers. Some language markers are obvious—people who like one another use the first-person plural (we, us, and our) more than strangers. They also use more positive and negative emotion words. People with a shared background are more likely to use the specific article the, as in “the chair,” since both have probably talked about that same damned chair for years. Strangers will initially talk about “a chair” or maybe “that chair,” especially in the early phase of their relationship.
THINKING STYLES: CONJUNCTIONS, PREPOSITIONS, NOUNS, VERBS, AND CAUSAL WORDS
You discover that your best friend’s spouse is having an affair. Should you tell your friend? Why or why not?
Questions such as this force people to think about complex topics that don’t have easy answers. People’s answers generally require a certain degree of logic, reasoning, and causal thinking. Unanticipated complex questions also require people to work through a problem. They often begin answering in one way and then adopt a different perspective to evaluate if their thinking makes sense. As people write about complex issues, their style words provide clues to the ways they are thinking in general.
Although there are dozens of ways to analyze thinking styles, three are particularly well suited to language analysis.
COMPLEX VERSUS SIMPLE THINKING
So your best friend’s spouse is having an affair. Ask a dozen people what they would do and you will get twelve different responses. However, some answers will reveal a much more complicated way of thinking:
Complex thinker: First, what is the history of their relationship? If the couple has some preexisting agreement about extramarital relationships, then nothing needs to be said. What are the costs to my friend, the spouse, and to me for either talking about it or keeping it secret? If it had been the other way and it was my spouse that was having an affair, would I want to know from my friend? Unless the friend’s spouse is intentionally trying to hurt my friend, I would probably not say anything. But I really need more information to answer this question.
Simple thinker: What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That’s my motto. What will happen with my friend will happen. I’ll keep my nose out of things. Out of sight, out of mind. Know what I mean?
Although the complex and simple thinker come to the same conclusion, the complex thinker weighs different options and looks at the problem from multiple angles. In addition, the complex thinker relies on reasoning, logic, and even emotional awareness. Note the language differences as well. Complex thinking generally involves bigger words, longer sentences, and more complicated sentences, often involving prepositions (with, of, to). Prepositions, by the way, are glorious language markers. They help to situate an idea in time and space.
Most important, a complex thinker makes distinctions. “The friend’s spouse had an affair but it is now over” is more complex than just “The spouse had an affair.” To make a distinction, speakers must tell us what is in a category and what is not in the category: “It’s this but not that.” In order to make distinctions, it is useful to draw on a set of words that we call exclusive words. Examples of exclusive words include except, but, without, unless, and a number of related prepositions and conjunctions.
And don’t forget if-then phrases, which lie at the heart of logical thinking. IF a person uses the word if, THEN, by definition, that person is making distinctions.
CAUSAL VERSUS NONCAUSAL THINKING
What are your thoughts about waking up with one of your legs amputated? I’ve asked hundreds of college students this question and the answers are mesmerizing. Some claim that it would be so devastating that they would consider suicide. Others shrug their shoulders and report that it wouldn’t change their life much at all. Yet others focus on why they walked between the cars and what made one of the cars roll backward.
All humans naturally engage in causal thinking. However, some of us engage in it more than others. Some people, for example, are obsessed with knowing why bad things have happened to them. Why did I walk between those cars? Why did I have to lose my leg? In a stunning series of studies, psychologists Camille Wortman and Roxanne Silver asked thousands of people how they have dealt with major upheavals in their lives—incest, death of a child, death of a spouse. In general, those who have a simple causal explanation of a terrible event cope quite well. Another group simply doesn’t look for a causal explanation and, they, too, cope well. The one group that has the most difficulty is made up of people who desperately seek answers to why the event occurred. They frequently ask, “Why did this happen?” and “Why me?” but never find an answer.
In most circumstances, causal thinking can be invaluable. If you can find a satisfactory reason for an event, you can better deal with similar events in the future. However, if you are unable to find an answer to your question, continued searching may only bring you frustration and unhappiness.
Capturing causal thinking in language is straightforward. Recall from high school English that conjunctions are words that link words or phrases—words such as or, and, but. Some conjunctions are specifically designed to express causal thinking: words such as because, hence, therefore, since. Although not officially function words, there are also a large number of nouns and verbs that signal causation as well, such as cause, effect, reason, rationale, impel, control. The more people naturally use these words in writing and speaking, the more they search for and think about causes.
DYNAMIC VERSUS CATEGORICAL THINKING
In chapter 2, people were asked to describe a picture of two people. Two of the descriptions were:
PERSON 1: In the aforementioned picture an elderly woman is about to speak to a middle aged woman who looks condescending and calculating.
PERSON 2: I see an old woman looking back on her years remembering how it was to be beautiful and young.
Whereas the first person, a male, describes the women in fairly direct and concrete terms, the second person, a female, paints a more dynamic picture that begins to construct a story. The more categorical-thinking male sees the world in terms of objects, events, and particular people. Categorical thinking demands the use of specific or concrete nouns. And with specific nouns comes the need for articles. The first person used three articles: the aforementioned picture, an elderly woman, and a middle-aged woman. The second person used only one—an old woman.
You can see the differences in categorical and dynamic thinking in everyday life as well. John McCain and Barack Obama, as they were running for president in the fall of 2008, revealed themselves to be strikingly different in their thinking styles. Through his debates, interviews, and even speeches, McCain used articles at very high rates. Obama, on the other hand, used articles at rates lower than McCain and, indeed, any other serious candidates in the presidential race. In mid-October, the two men settled into their final debate with each other. Both were asked to explain why America’s educational system was the most expensive in the world but was not viewed as very strong among the industrialized nations.
MCCAIN: Well, it’s
civil rights issue of
twenty-first century. There’s no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after
long and difficult and terrible struggle. But what is
advantage in
low-income area of sending
child to
failed school and that being your only choice? So choice and competition amongst schools is one of
key elements that’s already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places.
OBAMA: This probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it also has
national security implication, because there’s never been
nation on earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as
military power. So we’ve got to get our education system right. Now, typically, what’s happened is that there’s been
debate between more money or reform, and I think we need both. In some cases, we are going to have to invest.
In using almost twice as many articles in answering the question, McCain breaks down the problem into its components. Education, in his thinking, is a civil rights issue, part of a struggle, that is not fixed by sending a low-income child to a bad school. It is this and that but not that. Obama, on the other hand, frames his answer in a more dynamic way—it is linked to the changing past and future. Whereas McCain thinks concretely about the problem, Obama is more abstract, relying on broader ongoing and ever-changing principles, such as economic future, educational systems, money or reform, and investment.
In looking back over the thinking styles—complex versus simple, causal versus noncausal, and dynamic versus categorical—no single style is naturally better or more productive than another. Sometimes complex, causal, and dynamic thinking styles can help people get through the day; sometimes these same styles can be a problem. In reality, all of us bounce around in our thinking styles depending on what we are thinking about. Just because Obama is abstract in answering a question about education, it doesn’t tell us how he thinks about his decision to smoke a cigarette or take aspirin for a headache.
A Note on the Author
JAMES W. PENNEBAKER is the Regents Centennial Professor of Liberal Arts and Chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. In addition to being an avid researcher and teacher, he enjoys running, movies, pronouns, auxiliary verbs, and artichokes. He and his wife, Ruth Pennebaker, who is a respected author, live in Austin. Their daughter, Teal, lives in Washington, D.C., and their son, Nick, lives in Austin.
You can analyze your own language using his websites, www.SecretLifeOfPronouns.com and www.analyzewords.com.
By the Same Author
The Psychology of Physical Symptoms
Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotion
Writing to Heal
Emotion, Disclosure, and Health (as editor)
Collective Memories of Political Events (as editor)
Copyright © 2011 by James W. Pennebaker
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles
or reviews. For information address Bloomsbury Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Published by Bloomsbury Press, New York
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Pennebaker, James W.
The secret life of pronouns : what our words say about us /
James W. Pennebaker. - 1st U.S. ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN: 978-1-60819-480-3 (hardcover)
1. English language—Pronoun. 2. English language—Grammar. I. Title.
PE1261.P46 2011
425'.55—dc22
2011001289
First published in the United States by Bloomsbury Press in 2011
This e-book edition published in 2011
E-book ISBN: 978-1-60819-497-1
www.bloomsburypress.com
The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us Page 35