That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships

by Deborah Tannen

If others respond oddly to things we say, we may wish to try stating our intentions more directly in some situations. And knowing that others are often indirect, or for reasons of conversational style may not mean what we heard them say, we may, in some situations and with some others, ask for clarification. But we must realize that some people will feel challenged if their meaning is questioned, and any attempt to talk about ways of talking will make some people uncomfortable. So the most important thing is simply to bear in mind that the occurrence of misunderstandings is natural and normal, not a sign that there’s something wrong with someone, or with the relationship.

These fleeting understandings and misunderstandings are a matter of framing—another term and concept developed by Gregory Bateson. Framing is a way of showing how we mean what we say or do and figuring out how others mean what they say or do. It is another aspect of indirectness in conversation. Signals and devices like those presented in Chapter Three serve to frame our utterances through metamessages about what we think is going on, what we’re doing when we say something, and our attitudes toward what we say and the people we say it to.

For example, utterances framed as giving information contribute to the framing of a larger activity, “teaching.” Teasing and complimenting can be part of a larger frame, “courting.” And giving advice can be part of being protective. Everything about the way we say something contributes to establishing the footing that frames our relationships to each other. Framing can be done only indirectly,

through metamessages. If you try to name a frame, you indirectly invoke a different one. Sometimes we feel put down by others’ apparent kindness because their concern entails a subtle and unflattering reframing of our worlds. When stated and perceived frames conflict, we feel hamstrung, caught in what Bateson called a double bind. To deal with reframing that makes us uncomfortable, we can tackle the problem directly, by meta-communicating, or indirectly, by counter-reframing. Many of us instinctively stay in the frames set by others; some of us instinctively resist them. The best approach is to recognize when we feel reframed, and accept or resist it according to the situation. Let’s look more closely at these aspects of framing.

For her part, Monica can’t imagine that when Jay names a restaurant he’s just throwing out an idea—his way of starting a negotiation. He intends the restaurant he mentions as a suggestion, not a demand. Since she expects a negotiation to start vague and work its way in, and he expects it to start specific and work its way out, she never gets a chance to say what she wants and blames him for not caring, and he thinks she doesn’t know or won’t say what she wants and is always forcing him to decide.

Jokes, advertisements, and con games intentionally make use of our framing habits. But because framing is done indirectly rather than explicitly, our talk can be misinterpreted when we don’t intend to mislead. Like other forms of indirectness, framing constitutes both the armor and the soft underbelly of communication.

Footing is a term used by sociologist Erving Goffman to refer to a kind of frame that identifies the relationship between speakers. The same information can be communicated with different footings—and radically different effects. Imagine a man who insists he cannot let you into the swimming pool without your card, saying, “How do I know you’re not trying to sneak in?” Imagine the difference in effect if he says, “I wish I could let you in. I don’t think the policy makes sense either, but I can’t go against policy.” In the latter instance, the footing between the card checker and client is “you and me against the system.” In the first, it’s “me and the system against you.”

handled the situation well at all because I had stayed in the frame they had set: a battle that involved me with them as the center of attention and catapulted them out of a large audience onto center stage. Each time I responded at length to their attacks, I reinforced that frame and encouraged them to fire another round. What I should have done was break the frame, either by metacommunicating—directly talking about what was going on—or by indirectly changing it.

” Unfortunately, what was offered as a show of understanding was actually evidence of lack of it. My point was precisely that the behavior mistakenly seen as hostile was really a well-intentioned act in a different style. An even more powerful type of reframing in

Sometimes you feel put down by what others say, and you’re not sure why, especially if they appear to be saying something kind.

But the insult isn’t in the proposition, it’s in the assumptions underlying it—in other words, in the framing. A group of friends is having dinner at a restaurant. They are in the habit of tasting each other’s food, especially

Most of us tend either to resist or to yield to frames. Those who instinctively resist frames set by others tend to balk when they feel pushed. Those who instinctively fit inside the frames set by others tend to yield when they feel pushed. We are more likely to respond according to our habits than to the specifics of the situation.

It would be better to learn to respond one way or the other—to go with the frame or resist—depending on the situation. The first step toward this exercise of control is to recognize when we feel uncomfortable with the frames we’re put in and understand the ways of talking that are doing the framing. The second is to practice ways of resisting that framing or of changing frames by talking differently. In some cases, it may even be worthwhile to metacommunicate: to talk about the frame, with or without using the term.

At any point, each person is both reacting to and causing a reaction in others. Most of us tend to see ourselves as responding to what others say, without realizing that what they are saying may be a reaction to us. We are keenly aware that we said what we did because of what she said, but it may not occur to us that she said what she did because of what we said—just before, yesterday, or last year. Communication is a continuous stream in which everything is simultaneously a reaction and an instigation, an instigation and a reaction. We keep moving in a complex dance that is always different but made up of familiar steps. The constantly shifting rhythm and sequence is adjusted by subtle metamessages that frame what’s going on from moment to moment.