We, Us, I, You
January 15, 2009 6:33 AM Subscribe
Does anybody know if people react more strongly to certain personal pronouns than others?
For example, some signs that compel individual people to action begin with the pronoun "I", whereas others begin with the pronoun "you." Is there any evidence that those responding/reacting to "you" do so because they are, in essence, being "spoken to" by the sign (and presumably by someone else), whereas those responding/reacting to "I" are the speaking to themselves through the sign? Does that point to any deeper issues of people being able to guide themselves, versus people who really need to be told what to do?
It seems that signs that use "me" intend for the reader to take on the message of the sign as their own. It seems closer to the work of "I", but not exactly. With "me", the sign creator assumes an empathy or affinity with the reader in this way, and unlike, I think, the function of "I" or "you." And do the same distinctions exist between the "we" versus "us", pronouns? I'm just curious to know what effect language has on us at this most basic level.
For example, some signs that compel individual people to action begin with the pronoun "I", whereas others begin with the pronoun "you." Is there any evidence that those responding/reacting to "you" do so because they are, in essence, being "spoken to" by the sign (and presumably by someone else), whereas those responding/reacting to "I" are the speaking to themselves through the sign? Does that point to any deeper issues of people being able to guide themselves, versus people who really need to be told what to do?
It seems that signs that use "me" intend for the reader to take on the message of the sign as their own. It seems closer to the work of "I", but not exactly. With "me", the sign creator assumes an empathy or affinity with the reader in this way, and unlike, I think, the function of "I" or "you." And do the same distinctions exist between the "we" versus "us", pronouns? I'm just curious to know what effect language has on us at this most basic level.
I'm not really sure about the context (and precise intent) of your question; examples would probable be helpful. What kind of signs do you mean? What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?
Anyway, maybe this is relevant: In the context of therapy/mediation of conflicts or complicated relationships it is often pointed out that in order to be assertive without being defensive or aggressive, one should use "I-statements" instead of "You"-statements. I do not know whether there is any empirical basis to this claim, though, i.e. whether "I-statements" are really perceived as less aggressive/defensive, and whether using I-statements actually improves relationships.
posted by The Toad at 7:03 AM on January 15, 2009
Anyway, maybe this is relevant: In the context of therapy/mediation of conflicts or complicated relationships it is often pointed out that in order to be assertive without being defensive or aggressive, one should use "I-statements" instead of "You"-statements. I do not know whether there is any empirical basis to this claim, though, i.e. whether "I-statements" are really perceived as less aggressive/defensive, and whether using I-statements actually improves relationships.
posted by The Toad at 7:03 AM on January 15, 2009
I am with The Toad, above: without more of the context, it is difficult (for me at least) to address the specifics of this question usefully.
But the general, above-the-fold question ("Does anybody know if people react more strongly to certain personal pronouns than others?") should have an intuitively obvious answer: yes, of course. Consider the semantic weight of "one" as a pronoun in English: it puts the action of the sentence at a slight remove from everyone. The equivalent pronouns in other European languages do not necessarily do so -- such as "on" in French, "man" in German -- these do not. "Can one smoke here?" sounds more contrived and self-conscious than "Est-ce qu'on peut fumer ici? " or "Kann man hier rauchen?"
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:49 AM on January 15, 2009
But the general, above-the-fold question ("Does anybody know if people react more strongly to certain personal pronouns than others?") should have an intuitively obvious answer: yes, of course. Consider the semantic weight of "one" as a pronoun in English: it puts the action of the sentence at a slight remove from everyone. The equivalent pronouns in other European languages do not necessarily do so -- such as "on" in French, "man" in German -- these do not. "Can one smoke here?" sounds more contrived and self-conscious than "Est-ce qu'on peut fumer ici? " or "Kann man hier rauchen?"
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:49 AM on January 15, 2009
I do know that it drives my husband crazy when I use the collective personal pronoun when I'm really only referring to him -- as in, "We really need to unclog that bathroom drain."
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:25 AM on January 15, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:25 AM on January 15, 2009 [1 favorite]
Loosely related, the idea of choosing terms of reference can also totally backfire. Take John McCain who, during the recent presidential debates, obviously (painfully) attempted to bring the entire United States into his loving strong arms by referring to the debate audience, including anyone watching from the comfort of the sofa, as "my friends".
It did not work.
posted by mcbeth at 10:08 AM on January 15, 2009
It did not work.
posted by mcbeth at 10:08 AM on January 15, 2009
Response by poster: www.freefoto.com - Have you paid and displayed? - You
www.ci.tucson.az.us - Reclaimed water sign. - I
www.gettingpersonal.co.uk - I was born to work here. - I
www.forumpolitics.com - Don't let worries kill you. - You
www.community.livejournal.com - Traffic circle. - You & I
posted by CollectiveMind at 11:18 AM on January 15, 2009
www.ci.tucson.az.us - Reclaimed water sign. - I
www.gettingpersonal.co.uk - I was born to work here. - I
www.forumpolitics.com - Don't let worries kill you. - You
www.community.livejournal.com - Traffic circle. - You & I
posted by CollectiveMind at 11:18 AM on January 15, 2009
One more point, which I thought of after seeing the comment about McCain:
In 2000, Mickey Kaus (who's often derided as a quasi-Democrat who hurts Democrats by criticizing them) made this observation about Al Gore's presidential campaign:
There's a reason Obama didn't use "Yes YOU can." And I'm sure you can find many more examples in Obama's speeches. ("We can do better...")
posted by Jaltcoh at 3:38 PM on January 15, 2009
In 2000, Mickey Kaus (who's often derided as a quasi-Democrat who hurts Democrats by criticizing them) made this observation about Al Gore's presidential campaign:
His personal style is often condescending--an expression of social inequality. (If he were really an egalitarian, his slogan wouldn't be "I want to fight for you." It would be "I want to fight for us.")Think about it: which presidential candidate seemed to take Kaus's advice to heart, and to pretty good effect?
There's a reason Obama didn't use "Yes YOU can." And I'm sure you can find many more examples in Obama's speeches. ("We can do better...")
posted by Jaltcoh at 3:38 PM on January 15, 2009
Loosely related, the idea of choosing terms of reference can also totally backfire. Take John McCain who, during the recent presidential debates, obviously (painfully) attempted to bring the entire United States into his loving strong arms by referring to the debate audience, including anyone watching from the comfort of the sofa, as "my friends".
It did not work.
With all the handlers these guys have, I'd think if it detracted that much from his message, they would've told him to stop. But instead, he kept on using the damn phrase wherever he could before and after that particular debate. Maybe it had a more positive effect than some of us realized. Then again, those handlers didn't help him win the election.
As for "I want to fight for you" and being an egalitarian, I don't think you can make broad generalizations like that. Some people want to look up to their president, not be next to him. Sarah Palin was the opposite of Gore, and she was just as polarizing. Heck, even Obama had his fair share of detractors, despite his "we're in this together" message. And of the four main candidates, he was the only one who had the "elitist" label slapped on him.
In terms of the original question, I guess a lot just has to do with context, and tone of voice. Saying "You did a really great job" can be empowering and boost confidence, but "You did okay, but there are things you need to work on" could be demoralizing and it's all their fault and they're no good for anything.
I guess with I-statements, since you express to your partner what your feelings and reactions are, they won't feel as defensive about that as they would if you were saying what they were doing wrong. I think John Gottman advocates this in his "Relationship Cure" book.
Maybe this can only be chalked up to the cop-out-but-often-true answer, "people are different." What might work for one person may have a different effect on someone else. Some people are just hooked up funny. Jaltcoh's response certainly seems like something worth trying, though. I think I skimmed that book but must've missed that part.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 12:50 AM on January 17, 2009
It did not work.
With all the handlers these guys have, I'd think if it detracted that much from his message, they would've told him to stop. But instead, he kept on using the damn phrase wherever he could before and after that particular debate. Maybe it had a more positive effect than some of us realized. Then again, those handlers didn't help him win the election.
As for "I want to fight for you" and being an egalitarian, I don't think you can make broad generalizations like that. Some people want to look up to their president, not be next to him. Sarah Palin was the opposite of Gore, and she was just as polarizing. Heck, even Obama had his fair share of detractors, despite his "we're in this together" message. And of the four main candidates, he was the only one who had the "elitist" label slapped on him.
In terms of the original question, I guess a lot just has to do with context, and tone of voice. Saying "You did a really great job" can be empowering and boost confidence, but "You did okay, but there are things you need to work on" could be demoralizing and it's all their fault and they're no good for anything.
I guess with I-statements, since you express to your partner what your feelings and reactions are, they won't feel as defensive about that as they would if you were saying what they were doing wrong. I think John Gottman advocates this in his "Relationship Cure" book.
Maybe this can only be chalked up to the cop-out-but-often-true answer, "people are different." What might work for one person may have a different effect on someone else. Some people are just hooked up funny. Jaltcoh's response certainly seems like something worth trying, though. I think I skimmed that book but must've missed that part.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 12:50 AM on January 17, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
She focuses on the power of "you" and "us" ("we," etc.). For the discussion of "you," see chapter 28 (try the search term "you firstie"). After I read this chapter, anytime someone comes up to me and asks "Where's the ____?" I always think: you should have said, "Do YOU know where the ____ is?"
I forget which chapter talks about "we"/"us," but the gist is that you can create a sense of intimacy and togetherness by using these words shortly after meeting someone. I think she gives examples along the lines of "We've been seeing really weird weather lately," which states the same content as "The weather has been weird lately" but subliminally communicates a message of "we've been through a lot, we're in this together, we can relate to each other's experiences," etc.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:58 AM on January 15, 2009 [4 favorites]