What do you think?
Rate this book
How Conversation Works: 6 Lessons for Better Communication
How do you make conversation with someone you have just met? When is communicating by email ill-advised? How do you say “no” without using that dreaded word? Regardless of age or occupation, conversation can be tricky. And like it or not, it’s one of the most important things you do on a daily basis. Successful conversations
help you advance professionally and make, maintain, and deepen relationships. Moreover, research shows that talking, when done on a substantive level, is correlated with a feeling of happiness and general well-being.
Being a great conversationalist requires practice and effort. The good news is it’s a skill set anyone can acquire and refine. In just six lectures, How Conversation Works: 6 Lessons for Better Communication will teach you key strategies that can dramatically improve your ability to converse with anyone, from strangers to supervisors. Delivered by award-winning English professor Anne Curzan of the University of Michigan, this highly practical course focuses on the fundamental principles you need to know to become more conversationally aware and savvy at home, in the workplace, and beyond.
You’ll be amazed by how much you can learn by stepping back from conversations and examining how they operate. You’ll notice things you never picked up on before—like what kind of speaker you are, the strategies you typically rely on (often without realizing it), and the subtleties of the strategies others may use when speaking with you. You’ll find yourself putting these lessons into practice to create more effective dialogues from the very first lecture.
Choose Your Words Wisely
An expression like “shooting the breeze” makes conversation sound easy and free-flowing, but even low-stakes conversations have an underlying systematic structure that propels them along. This course examines that framework while showing you how the effective selection of words can help you forge connections and accomplish your objectives.
Professor Curzan walks you through techniques for negotiating a variety of difficult situations, from proffering successful apologies to engaging in “face-threatening acts”—those uncomfortable moments that have the potential to do damage if your words aren’t chosen carefully.
You’ll learn graceful ways of
pointing out a mistake;
asking someone to do something he or she doesn’t want to do;
preparing a person for “no”;
asking for a big favor; and
providing information the recipient doesn’t want to hear.
Conversations can only deepen connections when you pull your weight. In How Conversation Works, you’ll learn this involves knowing how to skillfully open and close an exchange, take turns speaking or “negotiate the conversational floor,” and send people subtle signals.
Perhaps most important is sharing the burden to make discussions feel more mutual and enjoyable. These lectures arm you with numerous conversation-facilitating devices such as
asking your fair share of questions and follow-up questions, which requires active listening;
providing informative (but not overly informative!) answers to other people’s questions;
introducing new topics for discussion and picking up on the topics of others; and
telling good stories and helping good stories along.
Talk Your Way to Success
Whether you want to build rapport with colleagues, promote your accomplishments in an interview, give a winning presentation, ingratiate yourself with your boss, or even create a connection on a first date, knowing what to say and how to say it allows for more productive, smoother interactions. How Conversation Works helps you get ahead by outlining simple techniques for accomplishing all of this and more.
Short vignettes featuring professional actors demonstrate what to do—and what not to do—in a variety of everyday scenarios such as striking up a conversation at a party. In video formats, green-screen technology places the professor in a range of environments as she provides concrete advice for taking an uncomfortable conversation in a new direction, making polite requests, mastering the “humble brag,” limiting your “talk time,” and monitoring your use of distracting discourse markers such as “um” and “you know.”
In addition to sharing these out-the-door tips and techniques, Professor Curzan dispels common myths about conversation and presents enlightening research on
how the conversational styles of men and women share much in common, despite differences in socialization;
how you may be perceived for using direct speech or sentence fillers;
how language-style matching quickly creates a sense of compatibility;
how parents serve as conversational role models; and
how e-communication has surprisingly systematic conventions.
A Guide for the Real World
As a professor of English and linguistics and member of the American Dialect Society, Professor Curzan offers a refreshing yet scholarly take on the subject of conversation. Using a developmental and skills-based approach that gets right to the heart of the matter, her course provides tangible, actionable methods that can be worked into your conversational repertoire immediately.
At first, the newfound awareness you’ll acquire from How Conversation Works may cause you to become self-conscious when you speak, but the act of “conversational noticing” will soon become second nature. Before long, you’ll realize you have the tools to make yourself clearly understood, put others at ease, rescue a conversation that’s gone wrong—and keep conversations from going off course in the first place.
help you advance professionally and make, maintain, and deepen relationships. Moreover, research shows that talking, when done on a substantive level, is correlated with a feeling of happiness and general well-being.
Being a great conversationalist requires practice and effort. The good news is it’s a skill set anyone can acquire and refine. In just six lectures, How Conversation Works: 6 Lessons for Better Communication will teach you key strategies that can dramatically improve your ability to converse with anyone, from strangers to supervisors. Delivered by award-winning English professor Anne Curzan of the University of Michigan, this highly practical course focuses on the fundamental principles you need to know to become more conversationally aware and savvy at home, in the workplace, and beyond.
You’ll be amazed by how much you can learn by stepping back from conversations and examining how they operate. You’ll notice things you never picked up on before—like what kind of speaker you are, the strategies you typically rely on (often without realizing it), and the subtleties of the strategies others may use when speaking with you. You’ll find yourself putting these lessons into practice to create more effective dialogues from the very first lecture.
Choose Your Words Wisely
An expression like “shooting the breeze” makes conversation sound easy and free-flowing, but even low-stakes conversations have an underlying systematic structure that propels them along. This course examines that framework while showing you how the effective selection of words can help you forge connections and accomplish your objectives.
Professor Curzan walks you through techniques for negotiating a variety of difficult situations, from proffering successful apologies to engaging in “face-threatening acts”—those uncomfortable moments that have the potential to do damage if your words aren’t chosen carefully.
You’ll learn graceful ways of
pointing out a mistake;
asking someone to do something he or she doesn’t want to do;
preparing a person for “no”;
asking for a big favor; and
providing information the recipient doesn’t want to hear.
Conversations can only deepen connections when you pull your weight. In How Conversation Works, you’ll learn this involves knowing how to skillfully open and close an exchange, take turns speaking or “negotiate the conversational floor,” and send people subtle signals.
Perhaps most important is sharing the burden to make discussions feel more mutual and enjoyable. These lectures arm you with numerous conversation-facilitating devices such as
asking your fair share of questions and follow-up questions, which requires active listening;
providing informative (but not overly informative!) answers to other people’s questions;
introducing new topics for discussion and picking up on the topics of others; and
telling good stories and helping good stories along.
Talk Your Way to Success
Whether you want to build rapport with colleagues, promote your accomplishments in an interview, give a winning presentation, ingratiate yourself with your boss, or even create a connection on a first date, knowing what to say and how to say it allows for more productive, smoother interactions. How Conversation Works helps you get ahead by outlining simple techniques for accomplishing all of this and more.
Short vignettes featuring professional actors demonstrate what to do—and what not to do—in a variety of everyday scenarios such as striking up a conversation at a party. In video formats, green-screen technology places the professor in a range of environments as she provides concrete advice for taking an uncomfortable conversation in a new direction, making polite requests, mastering the “humble brag,” limiting your “talk time,” and monitoring your use of distracting discourse markers such as “um” and “you know.”
In addition to sharing these out-the-door tips and techniques, Professor Curzan dispels common myths about conversation and presents enlightening research on
how the conversational styles of men and women share much in common, despite differences in socialization;
how you may be perceived for using direct speech or sentence fillers;
how language-style matching quickly creates a sense of compatibility;
how parents serve as conversational role models; and
how e-communication has surprisingly systematic conventions.
A Guide for the Real World
As a professor of English and linguistics and member of the American Dialect Society, Professor Curzan offers a refreshing yet scholarly take on the subject of conversation. Using a developmental and skills-based approach that gets right to the heart of the matter, her course provides tangible, actionable methods that can be worked into your conversational repertoire immediately.
At first, the newfound awareness you’ll acquire from How Conversation Works may cause you to become self-conscious when you speak, but the act of “conversational noticing” will soon become second nature. Before long, you’ll realize you have the tools to make yourself clearly understood, put others at ease, rescue a conversation that’s gone wrong—and keep conversations from going off course in the first place.
Audiobook
First published January 1, 2012
16 people are currently reading
468 people want to read
About the author
Anne Curzan
26 books81 followersAnne Curzan is the Geneva Smitherman Collegiate Professor of English Language and Literature, Linguistics, and Education and an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor at the University of Michigan, where she also currently serves as the dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews
February 8, 2019
ADDENDUM: I’m upgrading this program to 5/5 stars because it’s more relevant now than ever in the age of TOXIC CONVERSATIONS on social media steroids.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey just went on Sam Harris’s Making Sense podcast and elucidated the 4 provisional ‘place holder’ indicators they are implementing for measuring conversational health/toxicity. They are 1. Shared Attention, 2. Shared Reality, 3. Receptivity and 4. Variety of Perspective.
I think it’s a nice start. I hope they persist and create a measure that reduces trolling and fosters conversational productivity without limiting freedom and creativity.
Now for the review of How Conversation Works by Anne Curzan:
Ahhhhhhh. This little course is so ridiculously interesting and useful it is actually making me scream right now. Ahhhhhhh.
I will try to use my "inside voice" in this review. But one will please pardon me if I get a little long winded.
I think I'm on the verge of a seriously sick linguistics bender.
Linguistics:
As you are probably aware, linguistics is the scientific (e.g. reductive, systematic) study of language form, language meaning, and language in context.
As inferred in the above definition, part of the task of linguistics is to systematically break language and conversation down into their component parts and name, define and categorize each of the parts.
Just this process alone can be incredibly clarifying and empowering.
Once you dissect the process of conversation, you can isolate different aspects of the process and really investigate them in depth.
Of course, once you break a mostly implicit and fluid process of conversation in to explicit discrete units it tends to make you more consciously aware, for better or worse.
Learning even a few of the constructs and jargon of linguistics has made me much more self aware of the meta level of my conversational habits.
I'd say the effect is a net positive, because I now have a more sophisticated and precise language to think about (and notice) conversational traits.
But it can get you a little up in your head when your talking to someone when you should probably be down in the process i.e. directly and spontaneously connecting with them?
So buyer beware.
Parts is Parts:
The course begins by deconstructing the elements of conversation into very basic chunks.
Questions:
Rich conversation involves asking (a lot of) questions. In a sense, a question is a bid for a return declarative statement from the listener.
Statements:
Statements are conversational declarations that are either in response to questions, or independent of questions.
Passive conversationalists ask more questions and make less statements.
Aggressive or dominant conversationalist make more statements and ask less questions.
If you feel like you leave a conversation and you know little to nothing about your partner, or how their day went or whatever, you were probably too aggressive and you should consider mellowing out and asking a few more questions.
Conversely, if you feel like you did all the listening and didn't get to express your important information, maybe it's time to sack up and interject a few more statements.
The Conversational Floor:
Refers to the "conversational space" shared between conversants.
When someone "has the floor" it means that it is their turn to speak and steer the conversational agenda.
When someone "takes the floor" from another, it means that they either simply take their turn or "barge in" and "steal" the opportunity to speak and steer the conversational agenda.
Back Channeling:
Refers to making conversationally affirmative sounds or utterances intended to indicate that you the listener are in fact listening e.g. umhmm, ahhaaa and is that so etc.
We signal to people that we are listening and engaged via back channeling.
Therapists are like professional empathetic back channelers. This tends to make the client feel heard and continue to talk.
Any therapist who has faced a taciturn client knows how eternally long an hour can seem.
Needless to say, we therapists are motivated to keep the client talking or at least "working in science".
Talk Time:
Refers to the amount of time a talker uses at any given conversational turn.
Some people have bad instincts when it comes to talk time. In other words they talk to fucking much.
How To Know When You Talk Time Is Up:
If no one is back channeling, than you may have overstayed your welcome on the conversational floor.
If you feel like you've done all the talking and asked too few questions, you should monitor your talk time.
Negotiating Turns:
In conversation, you give a little in the form of listening and allowing another to have the floor, and you take a little in the form of talking and taking the floor.
When someone habitually takes more than they give, people tend to feel ripped off.
In other words, conversation is a transactional exchange. People (sometimes consciously, but mostly unconsciously) track how much other people give and take in conversation.
Feel The Downgrade:
You know when you say something like "it's a beautiful day isn't it" and someone comes back with"yeah, it's alright".
Even though they have affirmed that it is in fact a pretty good day, they didn't quite affirm its value to the extent that you did. Linguists call this a "Downgrade" and it's a very loud but very passive (passive aggressive even) conversational signal.
You offered a certain level of affirmation, and they downgraded with their return. This could be a signal that they have an issue they want to discuss. Or it could be an actual diss. But the point is, it's a meaningful conversational signal.
Of course the same goes in reverse. You may say "yesterday was ok" and they may "Upgrade" with "yesterday was tha bomb dot com".
Wow right?
It may be meaningless on the surface, but it's really communicating something on a the sub-textual level.
Discourse Markers:
These are little (seemingly meaningless and insignificant) conversational signals that actually do a lot of work e.g. well, like, so, um, ya know etc.
If used sparingly, they can be conversationally useful. Ya feel me? <= that was one right there.
But if used too liberally, that can be like, um, ya know, really um, like, um distracting.
So what exactly are Discourse Markers for?
Let's take "ya know" as an example.
Ya know can be used as a way of creating solidarity with a listener. It's a way of reaching out. Ya know what I'm saying?
Of course you do. But by me reaching out to you in this way, it's a bid for connection. It's an opportunity for you to say umhmmmm or hell yeah or what ever.
Ya know can also be a way of trailing off when you want to signal that your conversational turn is up and you'd like to hear from the other person, ya know?.........
Another example is "I mean".
I mean can be used as a way of minimizing your own authority. As in, I mean, I don't think that's right. It's even more passive than just saying I don't think that's right.
It's also a way of qualifying what you're saying. As in, I loved that movie, I mean it has its problems. But I love the way it blah blah blah.
WARNING:
If you use certain Discourse Markers too much, like "like" for example. People will tend to judge you as likable (no pun intended) but less intelligent. Ya know? Like a ditsy valley girl (or guy).
End Game:
Closing a conversation is an art form. It's the art of negotiating your way to silence.
In the art of conversation, the Closing Problem is one of arriving at a point where my parting words do not elicit a response from you (or vise verse).
Somehow or another, we collaboratively arrive at a place where the conversational turn taking stops. But even in the best of circumstances, that can be a long, drawn out process.
For instance:
Me: I should go now, I'm at work. Wife: ok babe, have a great day. Me: you too boo, have a good one. Wife: ok, call me on your way home. Me: ok, I'll talk to you soon. Wife: ok babe, talk to you soon. Me: ok, by by. Wife: ok, see you tonight.
I lost count, but that took like, about a hundred little turns to button up that convo.
And as we all know, some people drive a HARD bargain i.e. they make it (much, much, much) harder to get to silence.
I'm guessing we all have friends who we habitually avoid calling because it inevitably goes on for hours when we only have minutes to give.
The Unbearable Politeness Of Being:
Being polite often entails tiptoeing around certain subjects in order to allow one or both parties to save face in difficult negotiations.
The standard dating game is a great example:
Person A: I was wondering if you'd like to go get coffee sometime. (translation, would you like to go on a date). Person B: oh, um.... no thank you....I um, don't really drink coffee (translation, no, not ever in your life would I willingly date you).
This classic (and it's many variations) allows both parties to save face in the event of a rejection.
Of course there's always that guy who simply cannot take a hint. But they are (gratefully) the exception not the norm, unless you live in New Jersey. OH!!!!!!!!!!!
Communicating effectively entails saying something in a way that the other person can actually hear it. As every therapist knows, this can be really tricky when said individual is how you say, very defended?
Saying that someone is "very defended" is in itself a very indirect way of saying something that is maybe not so easy to hear.
See how polite we are?
Of course being overly cautious in conversation is absolutely exhausting at times. It can also be really hard for the listener to understand.
Sometimes you just got to "make it Michigan" i.e. you just have to come out and say it. Nothing Fancy that's my dear ol' dad used to say.
So how do you know when to be direct and when to be indirect?
And how do we know what people actually mean when the are being indirect.
Reading Is Fundamental:
Understanding "Conversational Implicature" is a fancy way of saying reading between the lines.
If I invite you to dinner tonight and you say "I'm busy", that's a Conventionalized Indirect Speech Act (I <3 linguistic jargon) that functions as way of polite way of declining an invitation.
If I comeback with "I'm sorry you're busy, but can you go out to dinner with me tonight", that's probably going to be received as, well frankly, pretty fuckin' rude.
That's because I have failed to understand your Conversational Implicature (favorite new term). I completely did not "catch your drift".
About 5 years ago, I was on a bicycle tour of the West Coast from Seattle to Los Angeles. I met a Canadian guy who was also bicycle touring. I asked him what his travel agenda was and he said. "I don't really have a plan". I (intentionally ironically) replied " sounds like a good plan" with a little wink and a nod. He got confused and replied, with Extreme Canadian Literalness (ECL), "I just told you, I don't have a plan".
Okay.....how do you come back from that. I think I replied "Oh right. You did just say that". And that was the end of that conversation. And pretty much any other future conversations between that individual and myself.
I could tell that there was an insurmountable cultural divide between he and myself.
After years of living in Los Angeles, my Plain Michigander Conversational Style (PMCS) had mutated into Extreme Californian Ironi-sasi-tude (ECIst), and my ECIst and his ECL were definitely not playing well together.
Given how much Conversational Implicature was at play in this utterly quotidian (yes I did just use the word quotidian) conversation. It's no wonder being around people can be so difficult. For some of us, It's hard fucking work.
How do use Direct and Indirect Speech Acts (oh my god I'm having a "jar-gasm" that's what happens when somebody enjoys using jargon and has the opportunity to do so) effectively in different contexts.
Speech Acts:
Some of us think of language as having a purely descriptive use value. But the reality is, we get things done with language. We use speech to do things not just talk about things.
Referring to the "speech act" highlights the fact that speech is a form of behavior.
Philosopher John Searle observed that each speech act has 3 forces:
1: Locutionary Force
• what we literally say
2: Elocutionary Force
• what is implied by what we say
3: Perlocutionary force
• what happens because of what we say
Let's try them out.
Take for example the statement "I would like a Diet Coke right now".
The (1) Locutionary Force is (obviously) the literal statement it's self, the (2) Elocutionary Force is the implication of the statement i.e. The motivation of the statement, in this case it could be a request to either be given a Diet Coke , or to be instructed in how to otherwise obtain a Diet Coke , the (3) Perlocutionary force are the resultant consequences of the statement, ideally (in this case) receipt of a Diet Coke by one means or another.
So these constructs end up being useful in determining the directness of the particular Speech Act.
Direct Speech Acts are when the (1) Locutionary Force (the literal words) of the statement are in alignment with the (2) Elocutionary Force (the implicature of the statement).
For example:
Go get me a fuckin' Diet Coke .
Presuming the literal words match the implied meaning, we have a very direct speech act.
This is a very direct way of going about getting your needs met. But it's pretty fucking rude (particularly in Southern California).
Conversely
Indirect Speech Acts are when the (1) Locutionary Force (the literal words) of the statement are out of alignment with the (2) Elocutionary Force (the implicature of the statement).
For example:
Mmmmmm. I just love Diet Coke on a hot day. I sure am thirsty. A Diet Coke would be wonderful about now............
This is a significantly Less-direct Speech Act. It's harder to understand but way more acceptable (particularly in Southern California).
The bottom line is Direct Speech Acts are authoritative (take you're medicine) and Indirect Speech Acts are more collaborative (have we taken our medicine today). Both are useful depending on what you want to accomplish.
About Face:
Being polite entails behaving in such a way as to take into account other people's feelings, desires and cultural expectations.
Face (as in saving) refers to our self image as well as the social space that we claim.
Linguists talk about face in two dimensions (1) Positive Face and (2) Negative Face.
1: Positive Face
• the general desire to have people like and respect us.
A big part of politeness is making others feel liked and respected, what linguists refer to as enhancing Positive Face.
Compliments typically do the trick. Asking questions about others can function to enhance Positive Face too.
2: Negative Face
• the desire to have the space to make our own choices and do what we want to do.
The other part of politeness is allowing others to save face, what linguists refer to as reducing Negative Face.
Any time you ask someone to do something, you're potentially impinging on their personal space (desire to make our own choices).
That's why it's an important social convention to allow the other person to "save face" i.e. decline the offer indirectly and discretely.
Another words, to be polite we must give other people options to say no without directly saying no.
Time To Trim The Hedges:
Hedging is a method for reducing Negative Face.
Hedging is when you say stuff like:
I know how busy you are, but I was wondering if you would be willing to read my paper some time when you're not too busy, like if you ever get a break from work and stuff, but only if you want to, no offense if you don't.
Hedging is a way of communicating that we understand if they need to say no.
Face Threatening Acts:
These are tricky conversations that have the potential to wreck someone's face (linguistically speaking of course).
Linguists refer to Face Threatening Acts in two dimensions (1) Threats to Positive Face, and (2) Impositions to Personal Space (Negative Face).
Additionally, conventions differ on how to navigate Face Threatening Acts depending on you're relative status to another person (a) you're superior, and (b) you're subordinate.
Sucking Up:
Pointing out a mistake (Threat to both Positive and Negative Face) made by a superior may entail complimenting, building in some outs for the person, and throwing in some hedges for good measure.
For instance:
I know maintaining you're high standards are important to you (compliment), and I also assume you would want to know if any errors have been inadvertently made (hedging). When you're not too busy, I was wondering if you like to see some potentially problematic data errors I found in the TPS report today? (out).
Routine Maintenance Required:
One of the central concerns in relationship is miscommunication. The dynamics of communication in relationships are (speaking from the heteronormative assumption) complicated due to gender differences.
To revisit the theme of Conversational Floor. The instructor elaborates between (1) Cooperative Conversational Floor and (2) Competitive Conversational Floor.
1: Cooperative Conversational Floor
• speakers collaboratively "build a conversational text". Broadly speaking (no pun intended) female groups tend to have more a Cooperative Conversational Floor.
For example:
Jane: are you hungry or something? Rebecca: I could share something. Connie: I'll call Sarah to make sure we're not going out later.
2: Competitive Conversational Floor
• speakers are attempting to get the floor (steel the spotlight) from other speakers. Again, stereotypically speaking, female groups tend to have more a Competitive Conversational Floor.
Men tend to participate in verbal sparing or oneupmanship, particularly when joking, more often than women.
For example:
Dave: are you guys starving? Stuart: I could go for a steak right now. Joe: I could eat the whole cow.
Of course these are stereotypes, and of course women play subtle competitive games from within the "Cooperative" Conversational Floor. And conversely, much of male "Competitive" banter is actually playful and cooperative.
Observe and Rapport:
It's important to remember that talk can serve multiple functions, including bonding and sharing information.
Linguists refer to these (1) Report Talk and (2) Rapport Talk.
1: Report Talk
• is about relaying information, often about impersonal topics.
2: Rapport Talk
• focuses on personal topics such as emotions, and serves as a way of maintaining intimacy.
Again, these two types of talk are seen as stereotypically gendered, with men engaging in more Report Talk and women engaging I more Rapport Talk.
Of course "Report" Talk e.g. About sports or Game Of Thrones or what ever, can be very bonding. And conversely "Rapport" Talk also conveys information.
Generally speaking it's helpful for people in conversation to consider weather it's the content of the talk that's important, or the connection engendered by the talking that's important.
Pretty much every (straight) guy has rushed into "fix it" mode too soon and completely alienated their woman who was talking as a way of establishing connection.
Good job bonehead.
Classic Rookie Mistake!!!
As a therapist, knowing when and how to shift between these two modalities is really important to working with people effectively.
Rushing into Report Talk too soon, or when the client is really needing some Rapport Talk can be damaging to the therapeutic join.
Anyway. This is as good a time as any to terminate this epically long review.
Believe it or not. It only covered the basic information covered in this course.
If you're still reading, my recommendation is to get this thing and join me in a full blown jar-gasmic linguistics nerd fest.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey just went on Sam Harris’s Making Sense podcast and elucidated the 4 provisional ‘place holder’ indicators they are implementing for measuring conversational health/toxicity. They are 1. Shared Attention, 2. Shared Reality, 3. Receptivity and 4. Variety of Perspective.
I think it’s a nice start. I hope they persist and create a measure that reduces trolling and fosters conversational productivity without limiting freedom and creativity.
Now for the review of How Conversation Works by Anne Curzan:
Ahhhhhhh. This little course is so ridiculously interesting and useful it is actually making me scream right now. Ahhhhhhh.
I will try to use my "inside voice" in this review. But one will please pardon me if I get a little long winded.
I think I'm on the verge of a seriously sick linguistics bender.
Linguistics:
As you are probably aware, linguistics is the scientific (e.g. reductive, systematic) study of language form, language meaning, and language in context.
As inferred in the above definition, part of the task of linguistics is to systematically break language and conversation down into their component parts and name, define and categorize each of the parts.
Just this process alone can be incredibly clarifying and empowering.
Once you dissect the process of conversation, you can isolate different aspects of the process and really investigate them in depth.
Of course, once you break a mostly implicit and fluid process of conversation in to explicit discrete units it tends to make you more consciously aware, for better or worse.
Learning even a few of the constructs and jargon of linguistics has made me much more self aware of the meta level of my conversational habits.
I'd say the effect is a net positive, because I now have a more sophisticated and precise language to think about (and notice) conversational traits.
But it can get you a little up in your head when your talking to someone when you should probably be down in the process i.e. directly and spontaneously connecting with them?
So buyer beware.
Parts is Parts:
The course begins by deconstructing the elements of conversation into very basic chunks.
Questions:
Rich conversation involves asking (a lot of) questions. In a sense, a question is a bid for a return declarative statement from the listener.
Statements:
Statements are conversational declarations that are either in response to questions, or independent of questions.
Passive conversationalists ask more questions and make less statements.
Aggressive or dominant conversationalist make more statements and ask less questions.
If you feel like you leave a conversation and you know little to nothing about your partner, or how their day went or whatever, you were probably too aggressive and you should consider mellowing out and asking a few more questions.
Conversely, if you feel like you did all the listening and didn't get to express your important information, maybe it's time to sack up and interject a few more statements.
The Conversational Floor:
Refers to the "conversational space" shared between conversants.
When someone "has the floor" it means that it is their turn to speak and steer the conversational agenda.
When someone "takes the floor" from another, it means that they either simply take their turn or "barge in" and "steal" the opportunity to speak and steer the conversational agenda.
Back Channeling:
Refers to making conversationally affirmative sounds or utterances intended to indicate that you the listener are in fact listening e.g. umhmm, ahhaaa and is that so etc.
We signal to people that we are listening and engaged via back channeling.
Therapists are like professional empathetic back channelers. This tends to make the client feel heard and continue to talk.
Any therapist who has faced a taciturn client knows how eternally long an hour can seem.
Needless to say, we therapists are motivated to keep the client talking or at least "working in science".
Talk Time:
Refers to the amount of time a talker uses at any given conversational turn.
Some people have bad instincts when it comes to talk time. In other words they talk to fucking much.
How To Know When You Talk Time Is Up:
If no one is back channeling, than you may have overstayed your welcome on the conversational floor.
If you feel like you've done all the talking and asked too few questions, you should monitor your talk time.
Negotiating Turns:
In conversation, you give a little in the form of listening and allowing another to have the floor, and you take a little in the form of talking and taking the floor.
When someone habitually takes more than they give, people tend to feel ripped off.
In other words, conversation is a transactional exchange. People (sometimes consciously, but mostly unconsciously) track how much other people give and take in conversation.
Feel The Downgrade:
You know when you say something like "it's a beautiful day isn't it" and someone comes back with"yeah, it's alright".
Even though they have affirmed that it is in fact a pretty good day, they didn't quite affirm its value to the extent that you did. Linguists call this a "Downgrade" and it's a very loud but very passive (passive aggressive even) conversational signal.
You offered a certain level of affirmation, and they downgraded with their return. This could be a signal that they have an issue they want to discuss. Or it could be an actual diss. But the point is, it's a meaningful conversational signal.
Of course the same goes in reverse. You may say "yesterday was ok" and they may "Upgrade" with "yesterday was tha bomb dot com".
Wow right?
It may be meaningless on the surface, but it's really communicating something on a the sub-textual level.
Discourse Markers:
These are little (seemingly meaningless and insignificant) conversational signals that actually do a lot of work e.g. well, like, so, um, ya know etc.
If used sparingly, they can be conversationally useful. Ya feel me? <= that was one right there.
But if used too liberally, that can be like, um, ya know, really um, like, um distracting.
So what exactly are Discourse Markers for?
Let's take "ya know" as an example.
Ya know can be used as a way of creating solidarity with a listener. It's a way of reaching out. Ya know what I'm saying?
Of course you do. But by me reaching out to you in this way, it's a bid for connection. It's an opportunity for you to say umhmmmm or hell yeah or what ever.
Ya know can also be a way of trailing off when you want to signal that your conversational turn is up and you'd like to hear from the other person, ya know?.........
Another example is "I mean".
I mean can be used as a way of minimizing your own authority. As in, I mean, I don't think that's right. It's even more passive than just saying I don't think that's right.
It's also a way of qualifying what you're saying. As in, I loved that movie, I mean it has its problems. But I love the way it blah blah blah.
WARNING:
If you use certain Discourse Markers too much, like "like" for example. People will tend to judge you as likable (no pun intended) but less intelligent. Ya know? Like a ditsy valley girl (or guy).
End Game:
Closing a conversation is an art form. It's the art of negotiating your way to silence.
In the art of conversation, the Closing Problem is one of arriving at a point where my parting words do not elicit a response from you (or vise verse).
Somehow or another, we collaboratively arrive at a place where the conversational turn taking stops. But even in the best of circumstances, that can be a long, drawn out process.
For instance:
Me: I should go now, I'm at work. Wife: ok babe, have a great day. Me: you too boo, have a good one. Wife: ok, call me on your way home. Me: ok, I'll talk to you soon. Wife: ok babe, talk to you soon. Me: ok, by by. Wife: ok, see you tonight.
I lost count, but that took like, about a hundred little turns to button up that convo.
And as we all know, some people drive a HARD bargain i.e. they make it (much, much, much) harder to get to silence.
I'm guessing we all have friends who we habitually avoid calling because it inevitably goes on for hours when we only have minutes to give.
The Unbearable Politeness Of Being:
Being polite often entails tiptoeing around certain subjects in order to allow one or both parties to save face in difficult negotiations.
The standard dating game is a great example:
Person A: I was wondering if you'd like to go get coffee sometime. (translation, would you like to go on a date). Person B: oh, um.... no thank you....I um, don't really drink coffee (translation, no, not ever in your life would I willingly date you).
This classic (and it's many variations) allows both parties to save face in the event of a rejection.
Of course there's always that guy who simply cannot take a hint. But they are (gratefully) the exception not the norm, unless you live in New Jersey. OH!!!!!!!!!!!
Communicating effectively entails saying something in a way that the other person can actually hear it. As every therapist knows, this can be really tricky when said individual is how you say, very defended?
Saying that someone is "very defended" is in itself a very indirect way of saying something that is maybe not so easy to hear.
See how polite we are?
Of course being overly cautious in conversation is absolutely exhausting at times. It can also be really hard for the listener to understand.
Sometimes you just got to "make it Michigan" i.e. you just have to come out and say it. Nothing Fancy that's my dear ol' dad used to say.
So how do you know when to be direct and when to be indirect?
And how do we know what people actually mean when the are being indirect.
Reading Is Fundamental:
Understanding "Conversational Implicature" is a fancy way of saying reading between the lines.
If I invite you to dinner tonight and you say "I'm busy", that's a Conventionalized Indirect Speech Act (I <3 linguistic jargon) that functions as way of polite way of declining an invitation.
If I comeback with "I'm sorry you're busy, but can you go out to dinner with me tonight", that's probably going to be received as, well frankly, pretty fuckin' rude.
That's because I have failed to understand your Conversational Implicature (favorite new term). I completely did not "catch your drift".
About 5 years ago, I was on a bicycle tour of the West Coast from Seattle to Los Angeles. I met a Canadian guy who was also bicycle touring. I asked him what his travel agenda was and he said. "I don't really have a plan". I (intentionally ironically) replied " sounds like a good plan" with a little wink and a nod. He got confused and replied, with Extreme Canadian Literalness (ECL), "I just told you, I don't have a plan".
Okay.....how do you come back from that. I think I replied "Oh right. You did just say that". And that was the end of that conversation. And pretty much any other future conversations between that individual and myself.
I could tell that there was an insurmountable cultural divide between he and myself.
After years of living in Los Angeles, my Plain Michigander Conversational Style (PMCS) had mutated into Extreme Californian Ironi-sasi-tude (ECIst), and my ECIst and his ECL were definitely not playing well together.
Given how much Conversational Implicature was at play in this utterly quotidian (yes I did just use the word quotidian) conversation. It's no wonder being around people can be so difficult. For some of us, It's hard fucking work.
How do use Direct and Indirect Speech Acts (oh my god I'm having a "jar-gasm" that's what happens when somebody enjoys using jargon and has the opportunity to do so) effectively in different contexts.
Speech Acts:
Some of us think of language as having a purely descriptive use value. But the reality is, we get things done with language. We use speech to do things not just talk about things.
Referring to the "speech act" highlights the fact that speech is a form of behavior.
Philosopher John Searle observed that each speech act has 3 forces:
1: Locutionary Force
• what we literally say
2: Elocutionary Force
• what is implied by what we say
3: Perlocutionary force
• what happens because of what we say
Let's try them out.
Take for example the statement "I would like a Diet Coke right now".
The (1) Locutionary Force is (obviously) the literal statement it's self, the (2) Elocutionary Force is the implication of the statement i.e. The motivation of the statement, in this case it could be a request to either be given a Diet Coke , or to be instructed in how to otherwise obtain a Diet Coke , the (3) Perlocutionary force are the resultant consequences of the statement, ideally (in this case) receipt of a Diet Coke by one means or another.
So these constructs end up being useful in determining the directness of the particular Speech Act.
Direct Speech Acts are when the (1) Locutionary Force (the literal words) of the statement are in alignment with the (2) Elocutionary Force (the implicature of the statement).
For example:
Go get me a fuckin' Diet Coke .
Presuming the literal words match the implied meaning, we have a very direct speech act.
This is a very direct way of going about getting your needs met. But it's pretty fucking rude (particularly in Southern California).
Conversely
Indirect Speech Acts are when the (1) Locutionary Force (the literal words) of the statement are out of alignment with the (2) Elocutionary Force (the implicature of the statement).
For example:
Mmmmmm. I just love Diet Coke on a hot day. I sure am thirsty. A Diet Coke would be wonderful about now............
This is a significantly Less-direct Speech Act. It's harder to understand but way more acceptable (particularly in Southern California).
The bottom line is Direct Speech Acts are authoritative (take you're medicine) and Indirect Speech Acts are more collaborative (have we taken our medicine today). Both are useful depending on what you want to accomplish.
About Face:
Being polite entails behaving in such a way as to take into account other people's feelings, desires and cultural expectations.
Face (as in saving) refers to our self image as well as the social space that we claim.
Linguists talk about face in two dimensions (1) Positive Face and (2) Negative Face.
1: Positive Face
• the general desire to have people like and respect us.
A big part of politeness is making others feel liked and respected, what linguists refer to as enhancing Positive Face.
Compliments typically do the trick. Asking questions about others can function to enhance Positive Face too.
2: Negative Face
• the desire to have the space to make our own choices and do what we want to do.
The other part of politeness is allowing others to save face, what linguists refer to as reducing Negative Face.
Any time you ask someone to do something, you're potentially impinging on their personal space (desire to make our own choices).
That's why it's an important social convention to allow the other person to "save face" i.e. decline the offer indirectly and discretely.
Another words, to be polite we must give other people options to say no without directly saying no.
Time To Trim The Hedges:
Hedging is a method for reducing Negative Face.
Hedging is when you say stuff like:
I know how busy you are, but I was wondering if you would be willing to read my paper some time when you're not too busy, like if you ever get a break from work and stuff, but only if you want to, no offense if you don't.
Hedging is a way of communicating that we understand if they need to say no.
Face Threatening Acts:
These are tricky conversations that have the potential to wreck someone's face (linguistically speaking of course).
Linguists refer to Face Threatening Acts in two dimensions (1) Threats to Positive Face, and (2) Impositions to Personal Space (Negative Face).
Additionally, conventions differ on how to navigate Face Threatening Acts depending on you're relative status to another person (a) you're superior, and (b) you're subordinate.
Sucking Up:
Pointing out a mistake (Threat to both Positive and Negative Face) made by a superior may entail complimenting, building in some outs for the person, and throwing in some hedges for good measure.
For instance:
I know maintaining you're high standards are important to you (compliment), and I also assume you would want to know if any errors have been inadvertently made (hedging). When you're not too busy, I was wondering if you like to see some potentially problematic data errors I found in the TPS report today? (out).
Routine Maintenance Required:
One of the central concerns in relationship is miscommunication. The dynamics of communication in relationships are (speaking from the heteronormative assumption) complicated due to gender differences.
To revisit the theme of Conversational Floor. The instructor elaborates between (1) Cooperative Conversational Floor and (2) Competitive Conversational Floor.
1: Cooperative Conversational Floor
• speakers collaboratively "build a conversational text". Broadly speaking (no pun intended) female groups tend to have more a Cooperative Conversational Floor.
For example:
Jane: are you hungry or something? Rebecca: I could share something. Connie: I'll call Sarah to make sure we're not going out later.
2: Competitive Conversational Floor
• speakers are attempting to get the floor (steel the spotlight) from other speakers. Again, stereotypically speaking, female groups tend to have more a Competitive Conversational Floor.
Men tend to participate in verbal sparing or oneupmanship, particularly when joking, more often than women.
For example:
Dave: are you guys starving? Stuart: I could go for a steak right now. Joe: I could eat the whole cow.
Of course these are stereotypes, and of course women play subtle competitive games from within the "Cooperative" Conversational Floor. And conversely, much of male "Competitive" banter is actually playful and cooperative.
Observe and Rapport:
It's important to remember that talk can serve multiple functions, including bonding and sharing information.
Linguists refer to these (1) Report Talk and (2) Rapport Talk.
1: Report Talk
• is about relaying information, often about impersonal topics.
2: Rapport Talk
• focuses on personal topics such as emotions, and serves as a way of maintaining intimacy.
Again, these two types of talk are seen as stereotypically gendered, with men engaging in more Report Talk and women engaging I more Rapport Talk.
Of course "Report" Talk e.g. About sports or Game Of Thrones or what ever, can be very bonding. And conversely "Rapport" Talk also conveys information.
Generally speaking it's helpful for people in conversation to consider weather it's the content of the talk that's important, or the connection engendered by the talking that's important.
Pretty much every (straight) guy has rushed into "fix it" mode too soon and completely alienated their woman who was talking as a way of establishing connection.
Good job bonehead.
Classic Rookie Mistake!!!
As a therapist, knowing when and how to shift between these two modalities is really important to working with people effectively.
Rushing into Report Talk too soon, or when the client is really needing some Rapport Talk can be damaging to the therapeutic join.
Anyway. This is as good a time as any to terminate this epically long review.
Believe it or not. It only covered the basic information covered in this course.
If you're still reading, my recommendation is to get this thing and join me in a full blown jar-gasmic linguistics nerd fest.
February 20, 2016
Great fun to analyze the game we all play called conversation. We do so much without thinking about it.
I loved the discussion about how we all end a conversation. Next time you're on the phone, pay attention to how many exchanges it takes to end the call. The negotiation goes back and forth, each taking a turn on the "floor" making sure the other has said all they needed to.
(A) "Ok, so I'll call you on Saturday."
(B) "Sounds great."
(A) "Excellent. Uh, good luck with your interview."
(B) "Thanks, I'll let you know."
(A) "Good."
(B) "Ok."
(A) "Take care."
(B) "You too."
(A) "Bye."
(B) "Bye."
Contains lots of practical advice on how to read other people and respond appropriately. A great help in being self-aware.
Enjoyable: 8/10
Honest: 8/10
Intelligent: 8/10
Uplifting: 7/10
I loved the discussion about how we all end a conversation. Next time you're on the phone, pay attention to how many exchanges it takes to end the call. The negotiation goes back and forth, each taking a turn on the "floor" making sure the other has said all they needed to.
(A) "Ok, so I'll call you on Saturday."
(B) "Sounds great."
(A) "Excellent. Uh, good luck with your interview."
(B) "Thanks, I'll let you know."
(A) "Good."
(B) "Ok."
(A) "Take care."
(B) "You too."
(A) "Bye."
(B) "Bye."
Contains lots of practical advice on how to read other people and respond appropriately. A great help in being self-aware.
Enjoyable: 8/10
Honest: 8/10
Intelligent: 8/10
Uplifting: 7/10
October 3, 2021
I am tempted to give it 5 stars for the straightforeward toolkit of conversational awareness this course offers.
Very short but that is also why it is excellent as some kind of skill leveling snack.
Will it make you an excellent conversationalist?
That depends on you - I for my part still have tons to learn but I will admitt that I tend to awkwardness and conversational slow wit more than some people.
Very short but that is also why it is excellent as some kind of skill leveling snack.
Will it make you an excellent conversationalist?
That depends on you - I for my part still have tons to learn but I will admitt that I tend to awkwardness and conversational slow wit more than some people.
May 17, 2015
This was an interesting basic book on how conversations works. Good in general but it felt to an extent too basic. It felt short and unfinished. I think there is more to say about conversation and how it works. For a beginner or a person with limited conversational skills it would be a good book.
February 13, 2022
Good read. Some of this is very basic, how do I make a request without offending someone. But there is a lot of nuanced communicative value in this quick read.
May 3, 2023
The topic of conversation may sound pedestrian, but this book does a great job explaining why people engage with one another in the manner they do. This understanding helps shape the way one can engage with others across various communication styles and forms of engagement.
If you value effective communication and care about the way your intended message is received and the way your communication method may make someone feel, this is a good read.
If you value effective communication and care about the way your intended message is received and the way your communication method may make someone feel, this is a good read.
September 24, 2020
This books is very easy to understand moving smoothly with many examples it shouldn't take much of your time . Many part were common sense to me and some parts I was taught when learning English as a second language, but generally it brings "conversation awareness" and after reading this book I think more about the signals I send to people with saying a sentence in different manners. Also I am more aware of the signals people send with their they put their words .
September 29, 2020
Watch a detailed review along with my favorite ideas and takeaways at:
https://youtu.be/AgmQQR53wwM
https://youtu.be/AgmQQR53wwM
March 5, 2020
How Conversation [Literally] Works
AT A GLANCE:
A pedantic and unfocused take on conversation.
CONTENT:
At just over three hours, this is the shortest Great Course I've reviewed. I'd expected the length to allow for a tight and memorable lesson, but was mistaken. The focus is sporadic. We learn a bit of proper conversation's back-and-forth nature, engaging with appropriate energy and mirroring sentence structures. We hear dramatized conversations with unsuitably bad voice actors. We do find some helpful labels to consider, such as "back channeling" and "face-threatening acts".
Then comes Indirect Communication. I am unsure how long this section actually lasts but it feels like half of the course's total length. It is so laser-focused in its observations that it becomes almost funny; the level of detail is distracting and unnecessary. It reads like a behaviorist summary for students that are absolutely unable to recognize social cues in the wild. To this end it might prove useful, but I doubt that the average listener will learn much from it.
NARRATOR:
Dr. Curzan narrates this as a set of lectures; her voice works well for this purpose.
OVERALL:
I can't imagine this being useful for many people past the age of 12 unless they are incapable of processing social cues.
AT A GLANCE:
A pedantic and unfocused take on conversation.
CONTENT:
At just over three hours, this is the shortest Great Course I've reviewed. I'd expected the length to allow for a tight and memorable lesson, but was mistaken. The focus is sporadic. We learn a bit of proper conversation's back-and-forth nature, engaging with appropriate energy and mirroring sentence structures. We hear dramatized conversations with unsuitably bad voice actors. We do find some helpful labels to consider, such as "back channeling" and "face-threatening acts".
Then comes Indirect Communication. I am unsure how long this section actually lasts but it feels like half of the course's total length. It is so laser-focused in its observations that it becomes almost funny; the level of detail is distracting and unnecessary. It reads like a behaviorist summary for students that are absolutely unable to recognize social cues in the wild. To this end it might prove useful, but I doubt that the average listener will learn much from it.
NARRATOR:
Dr. Curzan narrates this as a set of lectures; her voice works well for this purpose.
OVERALL:
I can't imagine this being useful for many people past the age of 12 unless they are incapable of processing social cues.
November 24, 2017
Much of this feels commonsensical, but there were a few a-ha moments. I think this would be good for people who struggle with the basic mechanics of making conversation, as opposed to someone who wants to polish their conversational skills. Also would recommend for teens who feel awkward or are preparing for interview situations, as well as people moving to the United States.
May 12, 2015
Very interesting (but slight) series of lectures about the art of conversation. It's also quite funny, as a Brit, to hear Americans pontificate about the vagaries of the English language. Y'know. Like. Totally.
November 2, 2014
Didn't learn anything new.
May 15, 2018
Just re-listened to this, in anticipation of some important and tricky conversations.
Its great that these lectures are concise and very approachable. The way conversation is dissected into conceptual parts, is delightfully illuminating. I appreciated that the format was more about providing helpful information, than a self help coaching guide. Ultimately, I found it too light and broad. It touched on a wide range of conversations including romantic, professional, parenting, etc. But, I might have benefited from something with more depth in specific areas.
I found the concept of 'Doing Gender' interesting. The idea being that we have a biological sex, but we perform to gender norms. And, that we pickup these norms from gender specific cues while we are very young.
I like the word 'ingratiation', its doesn't have the negative connotation of more colloquial expressions. I found it useful to be reminded of the importance of ingratiating oneself to others, this probably says more about me than the lectures. It was also helpful to learn how impactful simply aligning ones conversation style can be in this regard.
The discussion about Report vs Reportage, helped me identify a strategy I've learned and managed to implement successfully (some times;). I can't remember if it was this course which helped me with this initially. The strategy involves first asking the person how they feel about the information they have provided, then asking what solutions they have, before finally providing suggestions only if needed.
Its great that these lectures are concise and very approachable. The way conversation is dissected into conceptual parts, is delightfully illuminating. I appreciated that the format was more about providing helpful information, than a self help coaching guide. Ultimately, I found it too light and broad. It touched on a wide range of conversations including romantic, professional, parenting, etc. But, I might have benefited from something with more depth in specific areas.
I found the concept of 'Doing Gender' interesting. The idea being that we have a biological sex, but we perform to gender norms. And, that we pickup these norms from gender specific cues while we are very young.
I like the word 'ingratiation', its doesn't have the negative connotation of more colloquial expressions. I found it useful to be reminded of the importance of ingratiating oneself to others, this probably says more about me than the lectures. It was also helpful to learn how impactful simply aligning ones conversation style can be in this regard.
The discussion about Report vs Reportage, helped me identify a strategy I've learned and managed to implement successfully (some times;). I can't remember if it was this course which helped me with this initially. The strategy involves first asking the person how they feel about the information they have provided, then asking what solutions they have, before finally providing suggestions only if needed.
June 9, 2021
Very useful for anyone that is a bit awkward at the nuance of conversation.
There was a lot packed into less than four hours. Dr. Curzan explains conversational floors, direct vs. indirect language, manners, formal vs. informal, conversational differences based in gender and culture, face-threatening acts, that there are three parts to any spoken dialogue, and much more.
One particularly interesting point was that a lot of greetings and departures are not literal but instead ritualistic, a negotiating of interpersonal status to setup real conversation.
In China, a greeting can be 'How are you' and responded to with 'How are you.'. Which, logically would be absurd if the words held their direct function.
Some people might listen to this and think 'well duh' but I like the feeling of concepts being categorized and structured - this audiobook makes me feel less like I am walking into a conversation flailing and blind. No matter how good I was previously at flailing blindly into conversation (debatable), it feels nice to have concrete explainations.
There was a lot packed into less than four hours. Dr. Curzan explains conversational floors, direct vs. indirect language, manners, formal vs. informal, conversational differences based in gender and culture, face-threatening acts, that there are three parts to any spoken dialogue, and much more.
One particularly interesting point was that a lot of greetings and departures are not literal but instead ritualistic, a negotiating of interpersonal status to setup real conversation.
In China, a greeting can be 'How are you' and responded to with 'How are you.'. Which, logically would be absurd if the words held their direct function.
Some people might listen to this and think 'well duh' but I like the feeling of concepts being categorized and structured - this audiobook makes me feel less like I am walking into a conversation flailing and blind. No matter how good I was previously at flailing blindly into conversation (debatable), it feels nice to have concrete explainations.
July 30, 2019
Man, I love to give advice. Makes me feel worldly and wise. Plus, look at all the stupid stuff you're doing with your life. You NEED me.
I jest because I realize how obnoxious we can be when we're telling people what to do, what we’ve learned, how to get better, etc. Turns out giving advice takes as much subtlety as it does wisdom.
Notes:
Audible
(1) Everyone is interesting. See if you can find out what makes this person interesting
(2) Advice can be a face-threatening act.
(3) Ingratiation is necessary but must be subtle. (a) flattery (b) agreement
(4) Frame flattery as advice seeking
(5) Express resistance before agreeing
(6) Complement a manager to her friends (so that it will get back to them)
(7) When giving a speech, try to make it feel like a dialog
I jest because I realize how obnoxious we can be when we're telling people what to do, what we’ve learned, how to get better, etc. Turns out giving advice takes as much subtlety as it does wisdom.
Notes:
Audible
(1) Everyone is interesting. See if you can find out what makes this person interesting
(2) Advice can be a face-threatening act.
(3) Ingratiation is necessary but must be subtle. (a) flattery (b) agreement
(4) Frame flattery as advice seeking
(5) Express resistance before agreeing
(6) Complement a manager to her friends (so that it will get back to them)
(7) When giving a speech, try to make it feel like a dialog
May 15, 2023
I’m always looking for books to help me communicate better. I loved the lecture on How The Conversational Floor Works. I was just at a party where a conversation flopped. I was frustrated and left feeling like that conversation was like trying to plant a garden on a rock. This explained why in fun storytelling.
I also loved the lecture on how to Navigate Face Threatening Acts. I need to hear this again. I can do all of these, so there are good notes in here for me to soften my delivery. I can be really direct and I’m learning that to communicate well I need tools for better delivery! I’m a work in progress!
I also loved the lecture on how to Navigate Face Threatening Acts. I need to hear this again. I can do all of these, so there are good notes in here for me to soften my delivery. I can be really direct and I’m learning that to communicate well I need tools for better delivery! I’m a work in progress!
September 7, 2020
This lecture series by The Great Courses is excellent. Curzan does a great job of making the material engaging and gives practical examples for multiple contexts, including personal and business relationships, parent-child dynamics, and more. I plan to go back and re-listen to the course in the future and I wish I could assign it at work for new hires to better understand the give and take of conversation, how to make conversation continue smoothly through effective back-channeling, and more.
December 24, 2021
As with any lecture, it's hard to visualize some things when just listening; graphs, charts.... etc. Since this was mainly about conversations it wasn't that hard to visualize awkward conversations in the examples.
A lot of stuff is basic, at least to me, but it did have me noticing how I talked to others. It's good for basics and refresher for those that want to actually talk with people in a more meaningful way.
A lot of stuff is basic, at least to me, but it did have me noticing how I talked to others. It's good for basics and refresher for those that want to actually talk with people in a more meaningful way.
August 25, 2022
Conversations are about more than opening up your mouth and letting the words spill out. What an interesting discourse on how to spice up conversations. Readers learn that conversations are about listening as much as they are about talking. The lecturer uses examples of dialogue to make her point. Readers learn about people who grab or hog the conversation. So many interesting tips teach readers how to be involved in better conversations.
August 14, 2017
There are some good little nuggets of information in this course. One of the things that surprised me was how sincere compliments can be misconstrued or directed towards someone who really doesn't want to hear that compliment from you. Explains a few encounters that I have had over the years - fortunately not many, though.
August 17, 2017
An interesting series of analytical lectures on the art of conversation. The lecturer provides a theoretical breakdown of the components of verbal communication ranging from small talk with strangers, to the boardroom. The lecturer provides examples of speech and comparative ways of relaying a message. Worth a listen!
March 7, 2019
A must read. Especially for engineers who pride themselves in being knowledgeable about things but not people. As she states in the book, it will first make you self conscious about your own habits while trying to carry on a conversation, then you will become very conscious of others.
I recommend this book for all managers or those who want to improve their communication.
I recommend this book for all managers or those who want to improve their communication.
June 17, 2019
SO. WELL. PRESENTED.
Anne Curzan is a wonderful interlocutor. She hits the nail on the head when it comes to the little and often times ignored intricacies of the day to day conversations that a lot of times prevent you from connecting better with others. It's like learning how to walk all over again.
Anne Curzan is a wonderful interlocutor. She hits the nail on the head when it comes to the little and often times ignored intricacies of the day to day conversations that a lot of times prevent you from connecting better with others. It's like learning how to walk all over again.
July 5, 2019
This is the shortest release I have ever heard from The Great Courses, by far. This very short work has a few bits of interesting, but not memorable, material about communication. For people who have an interest in interpersonal communication, this is a small tidbit to add to the pile, but it's certainly not life-changing or any sort of exhaustive primer. It's just ok.
June 5, 2021
It is great to have names and terms for the familiar manouvres of conversation. While the factual content in this lecture series audiobook is solid, it was more the enjoyment of conversational work to be handled as a skill one can acquire that makes me give five stars. Really everyone who ever speaks with an intention of getting anything done, should listen to this.
December 30, 2022
Face threatening acts: we, allows outs
To be polite people aren’t speaking directly.
-litterly
-Implied
-Result
Direct speech is very powerful, because it ignores polite western customs. Shows authoritiy.
“Tell me what you think vs I’d like to hear your thoughts.”
When:meeting vs causal convo between coworkers.
Reread make notes
To be polite people aren’t speaking directly.
-litterly
-Implied
-Result
Direct speech is very powerful, because it ignores polite western customs. Shows authoritiy.
“Tell me what you think vs I’d like to hear your thoughts.”
When:meeting vs causal convo between coworkers.
Reread make notes
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 30, 2019
Helpful info for better conversations, though it was certainly more of an overview than a deep dive on any particular type of conversation (for better or worse). Will compare with Crucial Conversations, which I'm reading concurrently.
July 9, 2019
Wow! Even if you're a pro at conversation, I'm sure you could glean something from this short work. Anne Curzan is a natural (well, and a professional linguist). Especially with her inflection and teaching style, you get a lot out of her 6 lessons. Highly recommended.
August 17, 2019
I started this a few years ago, but forgot about it until recently. Over a long flight, I finished the series. The information is good, clear, and interesting. Professor Curzan is a good lecturer. I can't wait to try some of her ideas in my professional life.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews