In 1975, the year I was born, Robin Lakoff, an American linguist and then wife of another famous American linguist George Lakoff, published the book called "Language and Woman's Place." In the book, she identified a number of speech patterns which allegedly distinguish women's speech from men's speech. For example, she claimed that compared to men, women are more likely to use tentative words, phrases like sort of, kind of, it seems. And in 1980, two research scientists, William O'barr and Bowman Atkins, decided to check that theory using field studies for 30 months. They studied witnesses in courtroom cases. And - drum roll - they came to a rather surprising conclusion. The speech patterns were real but they were not the result of being a woman. They were a result of being powerless. High status woman, well-educated professionals with middle class backgrounds, they did not use those patterns anymore frequently than men. And on the other hand, low status men use those patterns very frequently. So, O'barr and Atkins concluded that those speech patterns were neither characteristic of all women nor limited only to women. So, what are those patterns that Lakoff had identified and Atkins and O'barr studied in courtrooms? Well, tentative words - kind of, relatively. You know how they say, relatively high speed train. "What was it, a high speed train. It's a relatively high speed train." Tag questions like - right? - in the end of the sentence - isn't it? Filler sounds - um, ah... I do this all the time. Hedges, words like try, hope, or think. "I think this is an ugly dress," I don't know. "I will try to do it." Do or do not, there is no try. This is powerful language. I will try to do it - powerless language. Disclaimers - you know what, "I'm not an expert but bla bla bla." And finally, intensifiers - words like very, totally, amazingly, things like that. And for the next, I think 30 years of the mantra seem to be don't use powerless language. Powerless language signals submission, which is probably a very sensible strategy. Some people at this point, though definitely not in public speaking. In public speaking, we are trying to appear powerful. However, in the last few years, people seem to come to a rather surprising conclusion. It seems like the alternative to domination is not necessarily submission. It's cooperation. So it's not powerless. It's not submissive. It's cooperative language. This is how people talk when they try to cooperate rather than impose their power onto other people. And of course, for many many years, public speaking was associated with the public display of power, but at the moment, we came to this realization that power is just a way of doing things. I know that some people like power for what it is, it's just power. But I hope for most of us, power is just a way of getting things done. It's just a way of having influence. Influence is the end result, not power. And there are two ways to be influential. Number one strategy is, of course, dominance - A powerful strategy - when others see you as strong, powerful, and authoritative. But the second strategy and it works even with monkeys, the second strategy would be prestige strategy where others respect and admire you, where you are an opinion leader, for example, right? And this is my strategy, as far as I'm concerned. So when you use powerful language, yes, people see you as powerful, but power is a zero-sum game. We can't both have power, right? It's just me having power. So, people might obey but they are not likely to cooperate with you. On the other hand, if you don't use powerful language, if you use cooperative language, others don't see you as powerful. But this may not be a problem. And they are more likely to cooperate. I encourage you to read Chapter five in this book. This is a book by a Wharton Business School professor. It's a very well researched book. It's a popular book, not an academic one but, as far as I'm concerned, all the academic references are solid. And the conclusion seems to be that if you are in some sort of a power struggle, for example, if you're giving orders to people who are supposed to obey your orders or if you're trying to compete for limited resources, yes, you should be using powerful language. But if you're trying to unite people, if you are in a situation where a group of people is working moving towards a common goal, cooperative language would be a far better strategy. So, cooperative language use when appropriate. If you're not entirely sure and you can not be 100 percent sure, 100 percent of the time. Go ahead and use tentative words and tag questions. If you want to get feedback from the audience, ask them, "do you understand what I mean?" And they will go, 'yeah!' And you will have conversation. Go ahead and use filler sounds. This is how a natural speech sounds. It's sounds much with natural this way, much less polished. People will not be having hard times believing that what you say is true. Go ahead and use hedges especially if you're giving some criticism, some harsh feedback, "I think this is an ugly dress," right? Not, "this is an ugly dress." Use disclaimers. I use them all the time. I go, "I'm not an expert but I think" this and that. And the audience goes, "oh! Yes this is precisely how it is. What an amazing expert you are." You get the sort of blowback effect if you use disclaimers. Intensifiers, Steve Jobs use them all the time. They will help you to give your speech a little bit more emotional. So, use cooperative or powerful language when appropriate. And personally, I default to cooperation.
