It takes two to talk

My husband is very German and perhaps also very "male" when it comes to communication styles. When I have something important to say, he'll listen attentively, and not say a word. "You're not saying anything," I'll complain. "Of course not," he'll respond, "I'm listening to you." "But how do I know you're listening if you don't say anything?" Does that sound familiar?

Michael McCarthy , one of the great grammar gurus of our time, uses the word “confluence” instead of "fluency" to explain how speakers of English communicate effectively. When we carry on a dialogue, we respond to each other in subtile ways to tease out what each speaker really wants to say. Both partners are involved in this productive exchange.

So, speaking to my husband, I might start a sentence with a language "chunk" that lets him know what is coming. Saying

• "You know" or "I was just thinking" announces that I'm going to talk about something I think is important.
• I might use "Well, actually" to introduce a negative sentence, "Oh, I don't know" to have some extra thinking time, and "I mean" before an explanation. "After all" will introduce a connection I am making.
• I might ask "Are you with me?" to check that he is still following my train of thought.
• He might confirm that he is getting the message by saying "I know what you mean" or even just "Right" or "uh-huh".
• If I'm fighting to find just the right words, he might "save" me with an encouraging "Yes?" or by repeating what I've just said in other words: "So what you're saying is...".
  
• Or I might even "save" myself: "Right, I'll get back to that in a minute."

Since English speakers are so used to collaborating like this, if we speak to people who don't say anything, it feels like we're talking to a brick wall. We even have an idiom that expresses the sensation: someone will listen to you in stony silence. Do the exercise on the next page and see if you can improve the dialogue to tear down the wall and create confluence.

Anne Hodgson