The Secret Life of Pronouns_ What Our Words Say About Us - James W. Pennebaker [79]
In fact, there is some interesting experimental research that tracks people’s attention as they are involved in a conversation. Those who are more dominant tend to look at their audience while they speak but look away while listening. Low-status people tend to do just the opposite. They focus on the speaker when listening but look away when talking. Where are they looking? Probably inwardly at themselves.
It is quite reasonable that I-words reflect attention to the self and, at the same time, go along with being lower on the social ladder. The you-word findings are also logical. You can think of using you-words as the equivalent of pointing your finger at the other person while talking.
You hear what I’m saying?
I mean you there.
You better be paying attention.
If you pop that gum one more time …
The link between I-words and you-words with attention and status make sense. What about we-words? Remember from earlier chapters that words such as we, us, and our are tricky. On the surface, we-words sound warm and fuzzy and should, in theory, be related to feelings of group solidarity. The problem is that, in conversations with others, the word we is really at least five different words:
The you-and-I we. This is the we that everyone wants to be part of. Let’s you and I get a cup of coffee. The two of us enjoy coffee. The you-and-I we is a public acknowledgment that a specified person or group of people and I are all part of the same group. We do, in fact, share an identity. Note, however, that there is a subtle problem with the you-and-I we: It can be a little presumptuous. I may think that you and I are in the same group, but you might not. In fact, in both Japanese and Korean, speakers are extremely careful in their uses of the word we in normal conversations for that very reason. It can be insulting to say we to others who may not share the same group identity.
The my-friends-and-not-you we. You have just returned from a camping trip with high school friends and are explaining this to your office mate. As the tale unfolds, you will likely say something like “and then we ate breakfast.” Very often when talking to people, it is necessary to tell them some action or experience that you shared with others but not with the listeners of your story. Use of we in this case is exclusionary in the sense that the message is being broadcast that this tightly knit we does not include you.
The we-as-you we. My personal favorite. This is where the speaker makes a we statement but is politely asking or telling someone else to do something. At the beginning of class when the students are all talking with one another, I have been known to say, “Could we please stop talking with one another?” Or last night at a restaurant, the server asked, “Have we decided what we are going to order for dinner tonight?”
The we-as-I we. Sometimes referred to as the royal we, the we-as-I we is invoked to diffuse responsibility and imply support from others that may not exist. I’ve overheard an administrator say to an employee, “We don’t feel as though you have completed the forms accurately enough.” The only person who knew about the forms was that particular administrator.
The every-like-minded-person-on-earth we. The politician’s favorite, the every-like-minded-person-on-earth we is the vaguest of all. “We need a better government.” What distinguishes this form of we is that it is virtually impossible to specify who the we refers to.
As you look back at the five types of we, only the you-and-I we is truly personal and helps to cement or acknowledge a bond between the speaker and listener. The other four forms of we erect a barrier between the participants in the conversation. It is not surprising that as people move up the social hierarchy, they use